Why are these people hell-bent on destroying our collective, inclusive culture and history to satisfy their irrationally-perceived slights?
These people are psychopaths.
Why are these people hell-bent on destroying our collective, inclusive culture and history to satisfy their irrationally-perceived slights?
These people are psychopaths.
The Donger wrote:
Not sure why you all are against running a mile? Everyone states why they are against it, but no one really what reasons there are to keep it. This is for a few college meets. You can still run the 1500 everywhere else right?
Yes media will relate to it more. Sub 4, along with climbing Mount Everest were called the greatest sporting fetes ever. In a day of headlines dominated by football letting the mile back is smart.
Sorry you have to run 20 more seconds. Get over it.
Haven't really thought about it until this. The full mile will only be run at regionals and nationals, right? I am guessing most meets will still run a 1500m instead. And obviously USA trials will be a 1500m.
Even though the mile will be at outdoor NCAAs for a weak reason, it isn't like that is the only race that will be run in the US. And it isn't like the training is any different between the two events.
johnclendon wrote:
Haven't really thought about it until this. The full mile will only be run at regionals and nationals, right? I am guessing most meets will still run a 1500m instead. And obviously USA trials will be a 1500m.
I would think all college races would switch from the 1500 to the mile if it were raced at the NCAA Championships.
Looks like lots of carnage the other night. Thought this was a thread on switching from 1500m to mile.
Lil' Sis threw a tantrum, so Dad had to take her to the woodshed.
Sesamoiditis wrote:
I would think all college races would switch from the 1500 to the mile if it were raced at the NCAA Championships.
Some might. But it is obvious from this thread and social media, that a lot of athletes and coaches want to keep the 1500m. I could see half the meets being 1500m, and half of them being a full mile.
Here is my "male nostalgia" for the mile
I was a 3.43 /1500 m runner who wanted to have a crack at 4 min, but there were not that many quality mile races that I could get in.
Larry Dickman wrote:
reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:No.
An argument stands on its merit.
Wrong.
Without context, your exercise in logic is just an exercise.
(Here's where he says "No" and restates his entire and tired argument again.)
No.
An argument's soundness is not dependent on the person making the argument possessing any particular characteristics. To deny this is to expose yourself as not understanding what soundness is.
Anyone bringing up the fact that Sheila could "stomp most of [those disagreeing with her] at 1500 OR the mile. Or cross. Or the 5000" and believes that that is something which bolsters her argument is employing bad reasoning.
Anyone who brings up the fact the Sheila is a woman and believes that that is something which bolsters her argument is employing bad reasoning.
Anyone who brings up the fact that some of the people who disagree with her are "old white men" and believes that that is something which invalidates their argument is employing bad reasoning.
Perhaps not surprisingly, you disagree with me yet haven't given an explanation as to why I'm mistaken.
If have an actual rational explanation as to why I'm wrong, let me know, and go further than merely saying "your argument is tired" without actually addressing it.
lol idiot... wrote:
Yeah let's cut all high school races and college races too, because it's only worth it to see the pros who run the fastest.
People go to meets to watch Varsity. All HS teams have varsity deep thinker. Only parents go to meets to watch JV.
lol idiot... wrote:
Yeah let's cut all high school races and college races too, because it's only worth it to see the pros who run the fastest.
Wood shedding wrote:
Lil' Sis threw a tantrum, so Dad had to take her to the woodshed.
A) Reid actually gets an honorary 10/10 troll for getting po' weedle letsrun guys all in a tizzy,
B) but are you saying that letsrun itself is the woodshed? Ha ha to that. Outhouse at best
reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:
An argument's soundness is not dependent on the person making the argument possessing any particular characteristics. To deny this is to expose yourself as not understanding what soundness is.
So let's look at here argument as a series of propositions and a conclusion:
1. Championships at the national and international level hold races with a length of 1500m and do not hold races with a distance of a mile,
2. The mile distance has little significance outside of the U.S. and Great Britain,
3. The 4 minute mile barrier is no longer a meaningful barrier for the best collegiate, national class and international runners,
4. There is no corresponding "barrier" for women at the mile distance,
5. There is a corresponding barrier for women at the 1500m distance, and
6. The switch to the mile was made to appeal to the former status of the 4 minute mile as being a significant barrier.
Therefore:
The switch from the 1500m to the mile was done for nostalgic reason reasons related to men's competition at the distance, and did not consider women's competition, international competition, or the current relevance of the mile.
Can you attack the conclusion? Sure, in a couple of ways:
1. "It fails to consider that the mile distance will garner more media attention, which will help both men and women." Maybe, but this seems like a tenuous conclusion. Does indoor college track garner more attention than outdoor given it's use of the mile distance?
2. "'Nostalgia' holds the wrong connotations for what was done." Maybe. But I think it's clear that the idea behind the switch was because there is a sense of history and prestige for the 4 minute mile. I don't think this is too far off from the idea of nostalgia.
3. "The 4 minute barrier is still a meaningful barrier for college runners." I don't think this is true anymore. Look at how many people broke 4 in 2014.
1 Lalang, Lawi Arizona 3:52.88
2 Rotich, Anthony UTEP 3:55.86
3 Williamsz, Jordan Villanova 3:56.84
4 Hillenbrand, Matt Kentucky 3:57.00
5 Rae, Jeremy Notre Dame 3:57.25
6 Peters, Rich Boston U. 3:57.27
7 Geoghegan, Will Dartmouth 3:58.04
8 Penzenstadler, Sam Loyola (Ill.) 3:58.21
9 Fleet, Mac Oregon 3:58.25
10 Gillespie, Matthew Iona 3:58.48
11 Kidder, Brannon Penn State 3:58.49
12 Mangan, Steve Dartmouth 3:58.65
13 Engholm, Elmar New Mexico 3:58.90
14 Gregorek, John Columbia 3:58.95
15 Yorks, Izaic Washington 3:59.04
16 Noelle, Chad Oklahoma State 3:59.12
17 Williams, Michael Princeton 3:59.21
18 Presson, Isaac North Carolina 3:59.23
19 Mudd, Austin Wisconsin 3:59.31
20 Stabler, Sam Lamar 3:59.33
21 Garn, Jesse Binghamton 3:59.37
22 Simons, John Minnesota 3:59.38
23 Johnson, Brett Oregon 3:59.39
24 Denault, Robert Villanova 3:59.52
25 Happe, Nick Notre Dame 3:59.58
26 Tobin, Sean Mississippi 3:59.91
In 2013 the number of people breaking 4 minutes was even higher.
https://www.tfrrs.org/lists/942.html#57Four minutes may be a feather in the cap those outside of the top echelon of college runners, but that doesn't make it a meaningful "barrier" in the way the minute barrier used to be viewed (i.e., a sign you were at top level of the sport).
Unless I am misunderstanding the timeline, the "old white men" comments (and and possibly even the user of "nostalgia") weren't made until after she was attacked on twitter.
Nobody cares about the 1500. People still talk about breaking 4 for the mile, the 1500 is a b stardized event. Run the mile or even the 1600m, heck at leas that makes sense.
NotPC wrote:
Nobody cares about the 1500. People still talk about breaking 4 for the mile, the 1500 is a b stardized event. Run the mile or even the 1600m, heck at leas that makes sense.
People also talk about breaking 4 in the marathon.
Should we replace the 10,000 with a...wait for it...
...marathon on the track?
Actually, that's not too bad an idea.
ceQXx wrote:
reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:An argument's soundness is not dependent on the person making the argument possessing any particular characteristics. To deny this is to expose yourself as not understanding what soundness is.
So let's look at here argument as a series of propositions and a conclusion:
1. Championships at the national and international level hold races with a length of 1500m and do not hold races with a distance of a mile,
2. The mile distance has little significance outside of the U.S. and Great Britain,
3. The 4 minute mile barrier is no longer a meaningful barrier for the best collegiate, national class and international runners,
4. There is no corresponding "barrier" for women at the mile distance,
5. There is a corresponding barrier for women at the 1500m distance, and
6. The switch to the mile was made to appeal to the former status of the 4 minute mile as being a significant barrier.
Therefore:
The switch from the 1500m to the mile was done for nostalgic reason reasons related to men's competition at the distance, and did not consider women's competition, international competition, or the current relevance of the mile.
Can you attack the conclusion? Sure, in a couple of ways:
1. "It fails to consider that the mile distance will garner more media attention, which will help both men and women." Maybe, but this seems like a tenuous conclusion. Does indoor college track garner more attention than outdoor given it's use of the mile distance?
2. "'Nostalgia' holds the wrong connotations for what was done." Maybe. But I think it's clear that the idea behind the switch was because there is a sense of history and prestige for the 4 minute mile. I don't think this is too far off from the idea of nostalgia.
3. "The 4 minute barrier is still a meaningful barrier for college runners." I don't think this is true anymore. Look at how many people broke 4 in 2014.
Four minutes may be a feather in the cap those outside of the top echelon of college runners, but that doesn't make it a meaningful "barrier" in the way the minute barrier used to be viewed (i.e., a sign you were at top level of the sport).
Unless I am misunderstanding the timeline, the "old white men" comments (and and possibly even the user of "nostalgia") weren't made until after she was attacked on twitter.
Good job of breaking it down into small bites.
Now go read Sheila's timeline and breakdown these so called 'attacks' that brought on the 'old white men' remark. Be sure to include a link to the Twitter profile of those making the 'attack' to determine if they were indeed old white men.
Women's sport does not benefit either way so not sure why she made the remark in the first place.
I'm a victim wrote:
Now go read Sheila's timeline and breakdown these so called 'attacks' that brought on the 'old white men' remark. Be sure to include a link to the Twitter profile of those making the 'attack' to determine if they were indeed old white men.
Women's sport does not benefit either way so not sure why she made the remark in the first place.
Here are a few. I don't have time to do more of your work for you.
Brian Robinson â€@BrianBrxctf
@shewolfruns @Phe800 you sound like one of those I've gotta have my safe space college kids.
https://twitter.com/BrianBrxctfPaul Hickey â€@pghickster
@shewolfruns it's male nostalgia to support a more marketable distance in U.S.?
https://twitter.com/pghicksterAnd what do you mean women's sport doesn't benefit either way? How about running a distance more often for which there is a meaningful barrier? Maybe then more than one collegiate woman will break it? How about running the distance more often that will be the distance run in national and international competition?
Men race the mile, women the 1500m, held simultaneously!
ceQXx wrote:
reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:An argument's soundness is not dependent on the person making the argument possessing any particular characteristics. To deny this is to expose yourself as not understanding what soundness is.
So let's look at here argument as a series of propositions and a conclusion:
1. Championships at the national and international level hold races with a length of 1500m and do not hold races with a distance of a mile,
2. The mile distance has little significance outside of the U.S. and Great Britain,
3. The 4 minute mile barrier is no longer a meaningful barrier for the best collegiate, national class and international runners,
4. There is no corresponding "barrier" for women at the mile distance,
5. There is a corresponding barrier for women at the 1500m distance, and
6. The switch to the mile was made to appeal to the former status of the 4 minute mile as being a significant barrier.
Therefore:
The switch from the 1500m to the mile was done for nostalgic reason reasons related to men's competition at the distance, and did not consider women's competition, international competition, or the current relevance of the mile.
Can you attack the conclusion? Sure, in a couple of ways:
1. "It fails to consider that the mile distance will garner more media attention, which will help both men and women." Maybe, but this seems like a tenuous conclusion. Does indoor college track garner more attention than outdoor given it's use of the mile distance?
2. "'Nostalgia' holds the wrong connotations for what was done." Maybe. But I think it's clear that the idea behind the switch was because there is a sense of history and prestige for the 4 minute mile. I don't think this is too far off from the idea of nostalgia.
3. "The 4 minute barrier is still a meaningful barrier for college runners." I don't think this is true anymore. Look at how many people broke 4 in 2014.
1 Lalang, Lawi Arizona 3:52.88
2 Rotich, Anthony UTEP 3:55.86
3 Williamsz, Jordan Villanova 3:56.84
4 Hillenbrand, Matt Kentucky 3:57.00
5 Rae, Jeremy Notre Dame 3:57.25
6 Peters, Rich Boston U. 3:57.27
7 Geoghegan, Will Dartmouth 3:58.04
8 Penzenstadler, Sam Loyola (Ill.) 3:58.21
9 Fleet, Mac Oregon 3:58.25
10 Gillespie, Matthew Iona 3:58.48
11 Kidder, Brannon Penn State 3:58.49
12 Mangan, Steve Dartmouth 3:58.65
13 Engholm, Elmar New Mexico 3:58.90
14 Gregorek, John Columbia 3:58.95
15 Yorks, Izaic Washington 3:59.04
16 Noelle, Chad Oklahoma State 3:59.12
17 Williams, Michael Princeton 3:59.21
18 Presson, Isaac North Carolina 3:59.23
19 Mudd, Austin Wisconsin 3:59.31
20 Stabler, Sam Lamar 3:59.33
21 Garn, Jesse Binghamton 3:59.37
22 Simons, John Minnesota 3:59.38
23 Johnson, Brett Oregon 3:59.39
24 Denault, Robert Villanova 3:59.52
25 Happe, Nick Notre Dame 3:59.58
26 Tobin, Sean Mississippi 3:59.91
In 2013 the number of people breaking 4 minutes was even higher.
https://www.tfrrs.org/lists/942.html#57Four minutes may be a feather in the cap those outside of the top echelon of college runners, but that doesn't make it a meaningful "barrier" in the way the minute barrier used to be viewed (i.e., a sign you were at top level of the sport).
Unless I am misunderstanding the timeline, the "old white men" comments (and and possibly even the user of "nostalgia") weren't made until after she was attacked on twitter.
Stop making reader of the forums 2.0 look like a jackass.
The argument has no basis, and anyone backing the argument is just jumping on the bandwagon. It's drama for the sake of drama. Comical.
The presence of professional athletes posting anything other than what their sponsors suggest and/or require is absolutely sickening. It's immature, attention-seeking, and egotistical. Just another instance of a generation focusing on all the wrong things.
I don't have enough data to prove this, but I tend to observe that athletes who have strong personal-life presence on social media are the same athletes who have poor or inconsistent athletic performance.
ceQXx wrote:
I'm a victim wrote:Now go read Sheila's timeline and breakdown these so called 'attacks' that brought on the 'old white men' remark.
Here are a few. I don't have time to do more of your work for you.
Brian Robinson â€@BrianBrxctf
@shewolfruns @Phe800 you sound like one of those I've gotta have my safe space college kids.
https://twitter.com/BrianBrxctfPaul Hickey â€@pghickster
@shewolfruns it's male nostalgia to support a more marketable distance in U.S.?
https://twitter.com/pghickster
Those tweets came after the one we're discussing. But I guess that doesn't matter for a filthy liar like you.