IMO, at the professional level (even for some HS fields) the pace for a 1600 is too fast to start on a turn. The athletes need the straightaway to settle into position.
That's the whole reason why you do a waterfall stagger though. Less congestion in lanes 1-4 and outside runners run 5-8. You also only run a race of like 12-14 kids instead of almost 20. That's why HOKA festival of miles was such a sh!tshow for the HS champ race. It was like 18 kids crammed into a tight start
The 1500 makes sense per the following. When the Olympics returned in 1896, the metric system was selected as the universal standard for measurements, and in Europe, particularly France, there were 500 meter tracks (there was no standard outdoor track until decades later); 3x500 = 1500, 6x500 = 3000.
The establishment of Olympic track distances for 1896 involved compromise. The 1500 had history, the Mile not as much back then and not metric, and the 1600 no history (and still no history outside of U.S. high school competition). Also, Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, was French. The French supported the 1500 and it won out.
The 400m track became the standard in 1928 by the international federation, but by then the 1500 was entrenched in the Olympics and elsewhere.
In short, it is highly unlikely (think Lotto odds, good luck) that the 1600 and 3200 will replace the 1500 and 3000 as recognized competition distances outside of U.S. HS competition.
I get that 5k and 10k sound like nice even distances, so sure: start them wherever you need to on the track… but changing what should logically and progressively be 4-lap and 8-lap races into 3.75- and 7.5-lap races just feels arbitrary.
Looking for something better than “that’s just the way it’s been done since 1896” (I actually think that date is right, but besides the point…)
Happy Friday!
Athletics (AKA: Track and Field) is primarily a European/can Sport. We are the weird ones in the aspect of Miles the text of world utilizes the metric system. 1,500m is a mile in metric standard reason why is is called the metric mile, the 3000 metric 2 mile.
The 1500 makes sense per the following. When the Olympics returned in 1896, the metric system was selected as the universal standard for measurements, and in Europe, particularly France, there were 500 meter tracks (there was no standard outdoor track until decades later); 3x500 = 1500, 6x500 = 3000.
The establishment of Olympic track distances for 1896 involved compromise. The 1500 had history, the Mile not as much back then and not metric, and the 1600 no history (and still no history outside of U.S. high school competition). Also, Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics, was French. The French supported the 1500 and it won out.
The 400m track became the standard in 1928 by the international federation, but by then the 1500 was entrenched in the Olympics and elsewhere.
In short, it is highly unlikely (think Lotto odds, good luck) that the 1600 and 3200 will replace the 1500 and 3000 as recognized competition distances outside of U.S. HS competition.
This and the straightaways are the typical response, but neither make any sense at all.
If 500m tracks were so influential, then why does nobody care about the 500m or the 1000m? Even on a 500m track, wouldn't people have raced the 500m, 1000m, 2000m over the weirdo 1500m and 3000m events?
If not starting on the curve is so important, then why don't we care about it in any other event? The 5% difference in pace in the 3000m makes the curved start fine, and starting a 1500m in lanes or a waterfall like in the 800m can't be done?
Athletics (AKA: Track and Field) is primarily a European/can Sport. We are the weird ones in the aspect of Miles the text of world utilizes the metric system. 1,500m is a mile in metric standard reason why is is called the metric mile, the 3000 metric 2 mile.
1600M is the "metric mile," because a mile is 1609M, and 3200M is the metric two miles, because two miles are 3218M.
Moreover:
100M
200M
400M
800M
1600M
3200M
There's zero reason for 1500M and 3000M, and if what fans of the 1500M really like about is the start of the straight, then they can switch to the 1600M and start on the straight instead of the curve.
If you think the 1600 and 3200 are preferable we might as well simply go back to the imperial distances - the mile and 2 miles. To hell with the Continentals and their metric measures for everything. I'm not interested in how many centimetres high anyone is. Feet and inches, thanks.
Solution: Simply just redefine a mile to be 1600 meters
I get that 5k and 10k sound like nice even distances, so sure: start them wherever you need to on the track… but changing what should logically and progressively be 4-lap and 8-lap races into 3.75- and 7.5-lap races just feels arbitrary.
Looking for something better than “that’s just the way it’s been done since 1896” (I actually think that date is right, but besides the point…)
Happy Friday!
Athletics (AKA: Track and Field) is primarily a European/can Sport. We are the weird ones in the aspect of Miles the text of world utilizes the metric system. 1,500m is a mile in metric standard reason why is is called the metric mile, the 3000 metric 2 mile.
The term metric mile was used because the higher status event, which it referred to, was the imperial distance.
1600M is the "metric mile," because a mile is 1609M, and 3200M is the metric two miles, because two miles are 3218M.
Moreover:
100M
200M
400M
800M
1600M
3200M
There's zero reason for 1500M and 3000M, and if what fans of the 1500M really like about is the start of the straight, then they can switch to the 1600M and start on the straight instead of the curve.
No, the 1500m is the metric mile, and has always been referred to as the metric mile, go watch some old Olympics and Commonwealth games etc or watch one of those Running Dramas like The Four Minute Mile(1988). This is like, running/track history 101 lol.
It has been this way since 1896 at least, if not earlier, and since it was French and Europeans that got things going to start with, Metric was to be the standardised distances.
Also, nobody who is used to running these distances is going to want to change from running 1500m to 1600m and 3000m to 3200m lol.
You lose. The 1500 reigns supreme regardless of what a few US JV guys think.
Your argument regarding 100-800 doesn't help your carse. Those start in lanes and run a logical %of the track. 1500 has too many to start in lanes so it goes to the logical start point. 3000 isn't run at worlds or olympics.
You lose. The 1500 reigns supreme regardless of what a few US JV guys think.
Your argument regarding 100-800 doesn't help your carse. Those start in lanes and run a logical %of the track. 1500 has too many to start in lanes so it goes to the logical start point. 3000 isn't run at worlds or olympics.
The metric distances are all adaptations of the imperial distances, for those who couldn't understand imperial measures. So 100y becomes 100m, 220y is 200m, 440y is 400m and so on. The 1500 became the "metric mile" and the 5k and 10k were adaptations of the 3 mile and 6 mile races. Going back to imperial distances would be to recognise where the sport came from, before the confused Europeans got hold of it.
I get that 5k and 10k sound like nice even distances, so sure: start them wherever you need to on the track… but changing what should logically and progressively be 4-lap and 8-lap races into 3.75- and 7.5-lap races just feels arbitrary.
Looking for something better than “that’s just the way it’s been done since 1896” (I actually think that date is right, but besides the point…)