17 boys under 9 in the 3200!!

A Duck wrote:

And I believe two of them are headed to Oregon...

two of them are headed to UNC as well, including the winner. AND raneiri, who was 9 flat, AND Isaac presson, who ran 9 flat at Raleigh

Magnuson is heading to UNC as well. He ran 8:58

Malmo,

With all due respect, my point was that all distances are arbitrary. The IAAF could have easily chose the 3200m over the 2 mile to keep records for. That was their choice and since they're the governing body we all live with it.

Further, the IAAF doesn't recognize a 10 mile world record, does that make that distance idiotic? What about the road 5k?

I wouldn't argue with using Fibonacci numbers as race distances, I would have loved a 2100m race when I was in college.

No Way wrote:

The IAAF could have easily chose the 3200m over the 2 mile to keep records for.

No it wouldn't have been easy. Everyone would have thought they were nuts.

No Way wrote:

Further, the IAAF doesn't recognize a 10 mile world record, does that make that distance idiotic? What about the road 5k?

How does saying that 1600 and 3200m are idiotic distances conflate to saying 10 miles is an idiotic distance because the IAAF doesn't recognize it? 16k would be an idiotic standard distance. 10 miles is not.

One of your reasons for saying that the 1600m and 3200m were idiotic was that the IAAF didn't recognize it.

Also, how is 16k any worse than 15k? And whats your stance on 4k, 6k, 8k, and 12k cross country races? What about 4 mile road races? I know the distance is less important once you get off the track, but I'm just wondering what you think about it.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that no matter what distance you pick someone is going to say its the wrong one.

I realize that the mile isn't going anywhere anytime soon and totally agree with the 1500m, and I really wish that we had run one of those two races in high school. That said, I understand someone's reason for liking the simplicity of a 4 lap or 8 lap race.

To me, the race distance is up to the race director or whoever chooses such things. If he wants to hold a 1345m race, then let him. If you don't want to race it, don't go. Just because its not standard doesn't make it any less of a race.

Please tell that race announcer next year to STFU. The audacity to tell a kid what not to do. It is HIS race, he can do what he likes.

Please tell that kid to stfu and run the race. looked like a jackass

au contraire, my friend wrote:

Please tell that kid to stfu and run the race. looked like a jackass

Why should the kid have to STFU? He didn't even say anything. The kid did run the race and simply destroyed the field with 200 meters to go. Why should you care if he celebrated early? He knew he was going to win, he got excited and he showed it. It's better than keeping it in like so many boring professionals in our sport. There is a reason why no one cares about professional track and field...there is a lack of characters.

And by the way, this is a high school meet, so if a kid celebrates and loses, well the jokes on him, but at least let him have some fun.

Hell yeah! Three Florida kids in that race, 8:55 and :56 and a 9:02. And two are from my hometown and from the same high school. Bishop Kenny always scalped the best talent around. Not bad having two kids that fast!

While I agree that 1600 and 3200 are idiotic distances to run on the track (and said as much in the stands while watching the Arcadia 2-Mile on Saturday night), I also think it'd be equally stupid to run the two mile ... and half mile and quarter mile and 100 yard dash in meets contested on a metric track - you'll note I left out the mile, since it still has enough magic as a distance to excite American high schoolers.

But if you're going to have metric all-weather tracks, you either make the decision to switch to 1500 and 3000, or you make 1600 and 3200 the standard. And the powers-that-be went with the latter. High school runners and coaches accept them. They allow fairly accurate comparisons to milers and two-milers from the past. And seriously, I don't think it's important that American high school races conform to IAAF standards.

Also, consider the implications for relays: do we really want to measure out 4 x 880, or 4 x Mile, or 4 x 440? Holy crap, just imagine trying to measure out sprint medleys in yards!

No, we gave up yards measurements when we went with metric tracks. And that left us with two rational choices: race the idiotic distances of 1600 and 3200 ... or completely alter the nature of HS races by going with 1500 and 3000.

Me, I would've gone with the 1500 and 3000.

But those involved in high school sports made a different choice.

None of which has much to do with the extremely talented, deep, and exciting field of distance runners who torched that 3200 on Saturday night ... and in the process actually stole the limelight of one of the greatest high school track meets in the country from some dazzling sprint, hurdle, and field performances.

SoCal Pete wrote:

Me, I would've gone with the 1500 and 3000.

.

I agree with everything you typed. Except I would have gone to the mile and 3000. Just me, though. I seem to be in the minority.

Oh crap, all that blah-blah-blah ... and I called Saturday night's race the "Arcadia 2-Mile" in my opening paragraph. Sheesh, some days you should just keep your mouth shut. ;-)

The Arcadia invite did change to all metric distances (1500 & 3000) in 1978 & 79, but changed to the 1600 and 3200 in 1980.

What makes the 1500 and 3000 better than the 16 and 32? Because its the standard? What standard? There is no standard.

Distance is arbitrary.

Don't want to run a 1600? Sit down and don't.

Someone didn't run the extra 5 minutes at practice to run the another 100m, huh.

Couldn't care less about the current argument on this thread.

However, the 3200s Saturday night were amazing. Most inspiring race I've ever personally witnessed--they were gunning for that line.

The kid who ran 46.79 in the afternoon and 47.11 in the evening was pretty danged spectacular.

What a bunch of chumps, throwing their hands up when they come in 11th.

The only point to running the 3200m is that it is approximately 2 miles. The only point to running the 1600m is that it is approximately 1 mile. Those distances are the closest thing to 1 mile and 2 miles that you can get on a 400m track while only running full laps. 100m is the farthest you can run on a track without a turn, 200m is the farthest one turn race, 400m is one lap, 800m is two laps, .... But if the point of the sixteen and the thirty two is that they are almost one and two miles, and there are marks on the track for the mile and two mile start, run the mile and two mile. Not so difficult! What sounds better? The deuce or the 32? The mile or the sixteen? What can the average American fan relate to? When they run the metric distances, we just spend all our time arguing about what exact time they correspond to at mile and two mile.

Secretly Slow wrote:

What a bunch of chumps, throwing their hands up when they come in 11th.

Most of them entered the race knowing they weren't going to win, but hoping to break 9 for the first time, which is a huge accomplishment for a HS distance runner, something they'd been training for and day-dreaming about through endless Biology and Math-For-Life classes, since they were pimple-faced, 108 lb. freshmen.

So, of course they celebrated when they hit their goals. If your goal was to break 2:10 in a marathon, and you finished in 2:09:58, would you decide not to celebrate just because you finished 11th?

A.) Think before you post.

B.) Don't be bitter.

C.) All of the above.

3114 meters