bring back the mile campaign

I completely support bringing the mile back.

First, who asks you or gives 2 shits about what your 1500m time is? (The answer is no one.) The mile is a universal event. It was a HUGE deal last winter when someone ran under 4 minutes and didn't qualify for the mile for indoor NCAAs. Every high school runner still dreams about breaking the 4 minute barrier. The mystic has never left.

And when it comes down to drawing in fans, if you run the 1500 all the time then when they finish, people have absolutely no sense of how fast it is. 3:50, 3:40 and 4:00 are just numbers to them and they mean NOTHING.

Even non-Americans understand the significance of the mile. Ciran O'Lionaird (Irish) said that it was a huge thrill for him to break 4 minutes. Why would Hicham even bother going after the WR if he didn't think it was significant?

I understand the 1500m in the World Champs and Olympics. The whole world is on metric so it's understandable to meet them there, but when we're in the USA, we need to stick with what we are. Show some freaking pride in your country and it's track history. The mile has been a big part of that history and always will be.

The mile has more significance for men than for women because of the 4:00 minute barrier. The 1500 has more significance for women because - again - of the 4:00 minute barrier. It seems you also need an identifiable time to break (run under) to add significance to the distance, especially for the casual observer.

RD wrote:

Get with the program. The rest of the world uses the metric system, why can't the US get it's head out of it's bum and join the rest of the world?

Hell no. USA is the best country in the world, some will argue this, but only because they are insecure and know it's true. We should never conform to the rest of the world. The mile is great and it should be honored.

I am the walrus wrote:

DO NOT bring back the mile.

If you really think this will "save track and field" and lead to more people attending meets or even get more TV coverage you are truly delusional.

The rest of the world runs 1500m and the US just needs to adapt. Simple as that.

People that really care about running can identify with the 1500m. They know what it means to run 3:50 or 4:20.

Its not about "people who care about running" or the "rest of the world" its about boosting the sport in America. When you boost the sport in this country you raise the awareness level and thus raise the amount of money and support going into track. Get over yourself.

Another way of thinking - elite women start running the mile to see how close they can get to the 4:00 minute barrier. That might lead to some more interest - and more drug tests.

Being a weekend warrior myself, I've always thought it nuts to give mile splits during a 5K race. Either mark off every 1K, or change the distance of the race to 3 miles. It's like taking your three kids to the bakery and buying 14 cookies for them to share. What's the point?

For high school, I am certainly in favor of eliminating the 1600m.

Make it 1500m or the mile.

The mile is preferable.

The only issue is adding that extra curved start line 9.3 meters back from the regular start line on every single track. But if they can put in all of the exchange zones and fly zones, it shouldn't be much to add that.

And put in hash marks for the quarter splits.

For the NCAA they have already established the 1500 along with the other Olymic events. I don't see a compelling reason to change that.

Same with USATF.

For major invitationals, people are often trying to chase a qualifying time and would need to run the 1500 over the mile.

Though, I would like to see more invitationals run the mile.

I spent my post-collegiate running life chasing the USATF 1500m standard. I didn't even think about looking for mile races.

They allow conversions, but it gets murky when there is a provisional list and you are comparing a converted mile to time to an actual 1500m time to see who makes it it and who doesn't.

USATF allows coversions that is.

IAAF doesn't when people are chasing an Olympic or WC standard.

Be Open Minded wrote:

Gimmicks work in America, "Bro" so get a clue. Perfect example of missing the point.

Yeah, the XFL is thriving. Moron.

Not sure why you pricks are so dead set against this. Bring back the mile, hell, bring back track.

This is correct. Most people identify with the mile and the marathon. One of the premier European meets in Oslo used to feature the "Dream Mile," and all of the big guns used to aim for that race. I can remember Cram breaking the WR there as well as Joe Falcon's incredible come-from-behind sub-3:50 win. Peter Elliott too, among others. That was THE race to go for a fast time. It was called the DREAM MILE for heaven's sake. As far as I know, it still is, though not as heavily profiled anymore.

In any event, let's not pretend that the rest of the world ONLY cares about the metric system or that this is even relevant to the discussion. I might become more interested in track if the mile was the featured event, and it would be great to see it start at the high school level. Garner the interest early.

One last point. You don't see 1500 meter road races. It's always the mile. I suspect you'd get much less of a draw if you promoted your event as the 1500. Even my non-running wife has a passing interest in the mile. She couldn't care less about the metric equivalent, because it means nothing to a non-track aficionado.

The mile makes no freaking sense on a 400 meter track. You talk about bringing in the fans, it's ridiculous to have to try to give 1/4 mile splits "Well he ran 1 lap, but you need to add the time it takes to cover a little over 2 meters to make it a true quarter, blah blah blah." It's confusing for the average person. Honestly a 1600 makes more sense to bring in the average fan. 4 even laps, perfect. That's the whole reason the mile used to be awesome back when we had 440 yard tracks. We don't have those today so it is dumb to suggest going to it.

I will admit the 1500 doesn't make much sense either but once you are past the first 300 all splits are reasonable 400 meter splits that people can easily relate to. It is also the distance that is run at important meets so we need to as well.

The 1500 is an abomination. If anything the 1600 makes more sense, 400m, 800m... 1600m. But the Mile is what people identify with.

What makes everyone in favor of the mile think that this will change anything about popularity (or the missing popularity) of track and field/ distance running?

My point is that people outside the running scene will not change the habit of watching a distance event on TV or even bother going to see an event life in the stadium if they switch from 1500m to the mile. It's just not going to happen.

The reason people were watching distance events in the 60's and 70s was due to the fact that there was less distraction for them to do other things. Whoever thinks this was due to people running the mile instead the 1500 is delusional.

Yes, the average Joe generally may know that breaking 4 minute in the mile is a great thing, and they don't know this equals to about 3:42 in the 15000 (aka: they don't know that if I would say my PR is 3:39 that I am capable about breaking 4min). But in reality they don't really care about running anyways. They go and watch the Superbowl or friggin' Nascar. Because that's where they find head to head competition. Something that is (almost) missing in the distance events. And switching to the mile won't change that.

RunningAntelope wrote:

One last point. You don't see 1500 meter road races. It's always the mile. I suspect you'd get much less of a draw if you promoted your event as the 1500. Even my non-running wife has a passing interest in the mile. She couldn't care less about the metric equivalent, because it means nothing to a non-track aficionado.

Why? Swimming gets WAYYYYYY more attention at the Olympics than track and field and hardly anyone has any idea how long they could swin a 50 butterfly or hell even a 50 freestyle. But it always does well with generating interest. And do you know why? Because Americans do well at it and have for quite some time. It is no surprise that the interest in American track and field, espescially middle and long distance, has come at a time when we are getting our a$$es handed to us regularly. Like it or not, the 1500 is what is run at the Olympics. Qualifying for it must be done with 1500 meter times. Preparing for it, honing racing tactics must be done with mainly 1500s. Yes, you can run a mile here or there at meets like Pre, fine. You can heavily race it in championship off years. As I said before it is a gimmick that will draw some quick interest. But a sustained interest in track and field is not going to come from running the mile at all the meets, it is going to come from winning and developing a culture that supports and knows our running talent.

My questions are:

1. What benefit is there in running the 1500? You don't train differently...

2. Why not? People definitely can bridge the gap a lot easier with the general public with a mile time.

3. Why are you people so scared of change??

dead reckoning wrote:

Bring back dead reckoning. GPS is for sissies.

Down with umbrellas, in the old days we just got wet - and we liked it.

The mile is a shi&&y distance. It's a stupid idea to 'bring it back'. Why not bring back the 100 yard swim for sailors instead? At least it stood for something.

Unfortunately in California we run the 1600 / 3200. I would love to see a 1500 (or mile) and 5k. Personally these kids run anywhere from 8-12 races at the 5k distance in cross country. Running a 5k for the championship meets and big invitationals would be great. But changing things at the State level and having records and history (blah, blah, blah) people don't want to change.

But the 1500 is a different race then the mile, that 100 makes the race a completely different beast.

wellreally wrote:

It drove me crazy in High School when we were running the 1600 and 3200. I couldn't figure out why they were doing it.

The best I could come up with for why we were not running the 1500 is so the timers and starter could be in the same place and the 1600 instead of 1609 because they were too lazy to measure the 9 meters not marked on the track.

I asked about this once and was given the start/finish are in same spot excuse. It doesn't really explain the 100, 110h, 200, or in my state the absurdity that is the 300h. The officials didn't want to hear it though.