Should the Olympics switch from 1500m to the mile?

Who cares if the 1600 doesn't mean anything in the metric system? Whats the 400? 2/5 of a kilometer? I'm not against the 1500 I'm just a little curious as to how it was chosen. It just seemed like the 1600 made more sense. The mile was 4 laps of a 440yd track, just seems logical to move to 4 laps of a 400m track.

The distance will hopefully never change though. Its already to the point where the two mile record, amazing as it is, will probably never be broken just because the event is never run. The miles will probably get there soon too. I'm pretty sure Alan Webb is the only person in the world who wants the mile record more than the 1500m one. If we phased out the 1500, then all those records would become meaningless.

If your only reason is to attract more people to the sport then you would make every event either a marathon or a sprint because those are the only two events the sports inclined public will appreciate and oooh and aahh at.

Yes! This would promote interest in the wealthiest tv market and the fact is that it is the next logical distance, essentially, after the 800m. You do 1/4 lap, 1/2 lap, 1 lap, 2 laps, and 4 laps. 100,200,400,800,1500. Which doesn't fit? Now of course mile is 1609.xx, but that little difference doesn't amount to much and a named event at a slightly peculiar distance (like the marathon) would make it worth it. Besides, the fact is that they run 100/200/400/800 only because the track standard was measured in yards (440y) and those were the closest metric equivalents. So, the 400m track was based on a 440y track and four laps was a mile. Give us our mile and keep all the other metric distances.

The 1500 started as an event because European tracks were originally 500m.

As many have stated, a mile (1609.344m) would be completely illogical unless you feel more comfortable having 402.3m laps. A 1600m would, perhaps, make more sense but really there's no point. You could argue this for hours -why not have 4800m instead of 5 etc. It has no impact on the popularity of the sport imo.

Ah, you just beat me to it.

Jonesy is right. The 400m track is the standard because the 1/4 mile or 440y track was the orginal standard known all over the world - or at least the part that mattered in the early 1900s, the Western world. Therefore we race 100, 200, 400, 800 instead of something like 100, 250, 500, etc. And yes the rest of the racing world knows and respects the mile. A sub 4 minute mile still means something in any place. Just as the marathon and half-marathon mean something - and even though those distances are not exact mile OR kilo distances.

The sub 4 did occur in England, but was a world-wide event, as men from around the globe were attempting to be the first. Read the book The Perfect Mile (

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=perfect+mile

). There were many close attempts getting down into the 4:03 and 4:02 range by the Finns and Swedes who were so dominant early in the 1900s.

Furthermore, look at the interview from World Cross where Rojo talked to Stephen Cherono (aka Saif Saaeed Shaheen), the WR holder in the 3k steeplechase and a native Kenyan. He said to Rojo "...3:56. That's impressive..." Was he referring to a 3:56 1500? No. He was referring to German's 3:56 MILE. Obviously he ran 3:55 at Big 12, but Cherono may not have known about that yet. The point is, I think I can be fair in saying that everyone who knows anything about track and field anywhere in the world knows the mile and what it means. They also know what a sub-4 means.

yeah, and the middle distance runners who run 1500m/mile are called what? milers. it adds some juice in the u.s. and britain, where a lot of the money is, and would do so elsewhere despite the metric system. who has any love for the metric system anyway? It is mathematically elegant but lacks the character of the imperial system. Who would not love a mile or a pint of stout for that matter?

The "QuarterPounder" is called a "Royale With Cheese" in Europe, but why ?

400 meter tracks make perfect sense because a soccer field or a football field fits nicely inside...

AXC_AllDay wrote:

Only 1 american has ever held the mile WR...

Fail.

Why is there so much self hate among American distance runners. All of you know that when telling someone you run track you gain the most respect by telling them your MILE time. If you dont believe me go tell someone your best 800 mile and 5k time and see what you get the biggest reaction from.

Furthermore, why is it that what Americans like should have absoloutly no bearing whatsoever on olympic events. We are the largest wealthiest tv market so wouldn't it make sense to put a track event in that would appeal more to Americans.

Just because the rest of the world does it doesn't make it right

I was thinking in the sub 4 era, which there is only 1

Yeah the 1500 rules. It rules so much we should base everything else off it. They should run the 93.75m, 187.5m, 375m, 750m, 1500m, 3000m, 6000m, and 12000m. Race distances that correlate in any way to the number of laps are lame.

Sorry, one more point.

One of the most famous tracks in the world for distance running, in Oslo Norway, yearly holds a meet that hosts what event?

Anyone?

That's right the DREAM MILE. Not the dream 1500 meters. bah!

if im not mistaken, i think it was because the first tracks in france where made to be 500 meters. if only i could find that damn artical.

Just another reason why the french suck

AXC_AllDay wrote:

Furthermore, why is it that what Americans like should have absoloutly no bearing whatsoever on olympic events. We are the largest wealthiest tv market so wouldn't it make sense to put a track event in that would appeal more to Americans.

Just because the rest of the world does it doesn't make it right

The olympics is also supposed to be about the sport and the competition, not what big fat lazy rich people in one country want. I believe that is pretty much the opposite of what the olympics are trying to represent.

We could just switch to the metric system. Then your 1500 time would be impressive as well.

Also, if the US could win the event we might be more relevant in deciding its future.

Just let the guy who wins decide if it should be the 1500 or the mile the next time.

yeah I used to be pretty baffled about the break in the pattern

1 2 4 8... 15?

Why didn't they just do 16? Then it would be an integral number of laps, and there'd also be a 1600 to mile conversion which is less fishy than 1500 to mile.

But then I realized the distance is awfully fast to be starting heading straight into a turn. The 1500 is the shortest race which doesn't start in lanes, thus necessitating the first 100m being straight. At least with the full mile there's a little extra straight at first, and even then people get knocked down sometimes. The 1600 is right out, bad idea (unless we limit races to 8 runners)

The whole world is metric but the Olympic race should be the mile. It has the tradition and is the perfect distance. 1.5km? 100m short of four full laps? Throw us non-metric guys a bone and switch to the mile.

atletabanana wrote:

But then I realized the distance is awfully fast to be starting heading straight into a turn. The 1500 is the shortest race which doesn't start in lanes, thus necessitating the first 100m being straight. At least with the full mile there's a little extra straight at first, and even then people get knocked down sometimes. The 1600 is right out, bad idea (unless we limit races to 8 runners)

This guy is absolutely correct. Yes, 1500m is 1.5 km, but more importantly, the 1500m is a fast enough race (especially at the professional level) that it is better to have it start on a straight, since the race is not in lanes. For races like the 5000m or 10000m, starting on a curve isn't as problematic because gaining a strong lead in the first lap .