roaming writer wrote:
How many people really think about their training pace in terms of..."Am I running 3:45 or 4:00 pace today?"
I do, for one.
roaming writer wrote:
How many people really think about their training pace in terms of..."Am I running 3:45 or 4:00 pace today?"
I do, for one.
Some newer courses in the DC area are marked into terms of kms - most notable the Run vs. Row 10K course. Makes sense when measuring a course to have the splits relative to the total distance. Mile splits for a 5 or 10 miler. Kilometer splits for a 5K or 10K.
Locknload wrote:
It seems to me if we're going to have races of kilometer distances, then we should put kilometer markers on the course. I think runners would get used to it quickly. I also think it would be good to get in the habit of knowing your kilometer pace. A 15 minute 5k runner would need kilometer splits of 3 minutes, a 20 minute 5k runner 4 minutes and so on. Why isn't this happening? Is this the case only in the USA?
flightless wrote:
Kilometre splits are more meaningful in a race whose total distance is an integer number of kilometres.
Wrong. A split is only meaningful if the runner has some basis for comparison. If he knows what it feels like in training. What percentage of people running road races in the US know the difference between 3:30 and 4:00 per kilometer? What percentage train that way? Less than one percent.
When we start being taught our 6.215 and 3.1075 times tables in school then I'll concede that mile splits in X kilometre races make sense.
When the country switches over to the metric system, when US road racers record their training and workouts in kilometers, then I'll concede that having kilometer splits for road races makes sense.
Tell most people in the United States you are running a 10 kilometer race and what is the first question they ask you? "How far is that"?
In the US, people know MILES. They know their paces in miles per minute. 99 percent of the people who run road races think this way. It doesn't make a bit of difference if you can just "multiply that by 10" to get your projected 10k time. People want a pace that they know by experience. One that they can compare to what they've practiced and known all their lives.
Replace mile markers with kilometer markers and you are just going to have some very pissed off road racers.
In the US, people know MILES.
But the vast majority of races are at distances measured in kilometres!
Simply because of that I'd wager that the level of metric knowledge and familiarity amongst competitive runners is actually quite a lot higher than your 1%. (But we'll never know).
What we have at the moment is a neither fish-nor-fowl mess where races are measured in kilometres, but splits are given in miles.
Race directors should go the whole hog and give kilometre splits if they're going to put on kilometre distance races.
If you can get them do both, good for you. But youd better keep the mile splits whatever you do.
We seem to be getting along just fine with this "fish-nor-fowl mess". It's not a mess at all, except in your head. In decades of road racing, hundreds of races, I've never heard anyone (other than a foreigner) complain about a lack of kilometer splits. US road racers do just fine with their miles. Even in a 10k.
Race directors should do what their paying customers want them to do.
Most of the world, ignorant whore.
Locknload wrote:
It seems to me if we're going to have races of kilometer distances, then we should put kilometer markers on the course. I think runners would get used to it quickly. I also think it would be good to get in the habit of knowing your kilometer pace. A 15 minute 5k runner would need kilometer splits of 3 minutes, a 20 minute 5k runner 4 minutes and so on. Why isn't this happening? Is this the case only in the USA?
Holy crap, what are you (and everyone else) talking about??????!!!!!!
I've never run a race that hasn't had kilometer (or mile) splits!!!!!!!!!! Come to Oklahoma..... every freakin' podunk road race has kilometer splits (or mile splits for the longer races). Are you saying a majority of the US doesn't do this?! That's hard to believe.
I distinctly remember running a 10k road race in 1979 in which the organizers thought they'd be "progressive" and give only metric splits. It was hilarious: as we hit the 1500 line and got our split time, everyone (and I mean everyone) visibly slowed as they did they own mental calculation as to what a 5:08 (or whatever) 1500 time "really" meant--that is, what the MILE pace was.
And we STILL think that way all these years later. I'm not bothered by it one bit, but it's not a good sign that we'll genuinely get with metric anytime soon.
We have mile markers for most 10ks in the UK. Some 10ks have km markers but most runners here prefer mile splits as you know what 5:25 mile pace is (but not the km equivalent). However there are more an more being marked in kms. In my experience that is even more markers for them to get in the wrong place!
There are races around with markings every K. The Roy Griak is a one college cross country race which gives splits at each K.
Why do we base running pace on a mile? Because Bannister didn\'t break the 2 min kilometer. The mile is our tradition.
The Kenyans do too.
Thanks for telling us what's good for us....
I think mile markers in a 5K work just fine. Mile 1, mile 2, mile 3, and then the final .107 sprint.
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
This thread makes me sad. It points out what a bunch of whiny dumbasses Americans can be. First, it doesn't matter what you choose for splits so long as the runners can make something meaningful out of them. If you had splits every 15 furlongs but everyone knew what their expected 15 furlong pace was, no problem! In this regard, km are not superior to miles or VICE VERSA. People don't get confused when they run 5k's do they? They don't suddenly run several hundred yards past the finish line because they "miscalculated the conversion", right?
Second, and more to the point, this whole metric thing is just another signpost on the path to American "has-been-ness". We are the ONLY country left on the planet which hasn't officially endorsed the metric system. We're 5% of the global population. We talk a great game about the importance of training and education and funding to ensure that we're "competitive in the 21st century", but we won't even do the MINOR STEP of conforming to a GLOBAL STANDARD. Nope. We still want our 5280 foot miles, our 128 ounce gallons, and our 16 ounce pounds. Hell, we can't even use distinct names for solid and liquid measure! Nooooo! Metric is too difficult! I don't WAAAANNNNNNA change! Boo-hoo!!!
What a bunch of crap. I've never seen anyone come back from the store with way too much soda just because it's sold by the liter instead of the quart. Soda by the liter, milk by the quart. What? Are we too dumb for metric dairy products??
Pardon me while I wretch...
yardage wrote:
Same reason the US never really switched over to the metric system. People prefer miles.
I don't buy that for one second!
yardage wrote:
What percentage of people running road races in the US know the difference between 3:30 and 4:00 per kilometer? What percentage train that way? Less than one percent.
Cite your source for this statistic.
When the country switches over to the metric system, when US road racers record their training and workouts in kilometers, then I'll concede that having kilometer splits for road races makes sense.
Chicken or egg? I bet they'll shift focus to km with no problems if the race splits are known to be at the km marks. On the other hand, who says that they can't give splits at both km and mile marks? If the course is an integer of km, then they're laying it out with a metric wheel and it should be easy enough to mark each km that passes along with each 1609x km that passes.
Tell most people in the United States you are running a 10 kilometer race and what is the first question they ask you? "How far is that"?
Km splits aren't for "most people in the United States" they're for the racers, a significant amount of whom could make good use of km splits.
In the US, people know MILES. They know their paces in miles per minute. 99 percent of the people who run road races think this way.
Once again, cite your source for this statistic.
People want a pace that they know by experience.
Uh, they don't need ANY splits for that, then.
Replace mile markers with kilometer markers and you are just going to have some very pissed off road racers.
You and your straw man, you're the ONLY one who's suggested replacement!
Many Oklahoma races have 1 km splits. I loved it, plus I think there are more certified courses in OK than anywhere but California, that are still in use. Very nice racing, plus they have a great state record keeping system. OK is very progressive this way. ML
I agree with the above poster. Yardage's comments are very ignorant! I had to get a book out to figure my "per-mile-pace" for my recent 5K and 10K performances, which were marked in kilometers. I easily know my "per-kilometer-pace." You get more "feedback" when you have a race in kilometers and it doesn't take too much thought to get used to.
Mike Lundgren wrote:
Many Oklahoma races have 1 km splits. I loved it, plus I think there are more certified courses in OK than anywhere but California, that are still in use. Very nice racing, plus they have a great state record keeping system. OK is very progressive this way. ML
Exactly! I wish other states were this way.... you know you're running a "legit" race distance in Oklahoma.
skeptic wrote:
Cite your source for this statistic.
Thirty-five years of competitive running experience.
Uh, they don't need ANY splits for that, then.
Wrong, they need splits that they are used to. Miles.
Ignorance.