A small number of Bring Back the Mile deadenders on here are not going to bring back the mile. U.S. might as well join the rest of the world and have our high school kids race 1500m. I did a quick glance at Olympic 1500m gold medalists from 1956 and 1 mile world record progression from 1954. I only count about 5 men, both 1500m gold medalists and 1 mile world record holder. Fifteen hundred meters is different from 1 mile. International meets, 800/1500m men will usually prevail over 1 mile to 5000m men, 1500m. It's 2023. Whining about 1500m won't help.
-
30
-
On the other hand, there are NO road 1500's that I know of, but lots of road Miles (even outside of the US).
20 -
no offense but you aren't bright. at all wrote:
Logical wrote:
The 1600 is the single most stupidest and meaningless event there is. 1500m or the mile. But the 1600 is just f-ing stupid.
actually you're wrong, the 1500 is the dumbest event. unfortunately for you that was your last strike on this board, sorry.
this was a very good point that went underappreciated. do better
02 -
Nevermind the 1500m. What about the Marathon and Half Marathon? Bring back the 40km and 20km.
10 -
1500 rules wrote:
You are incorrect. Lane 1 does not have a 100 meter straight but they don't use lanes. They start 300 meters back from the finish line and use a straight line drawn 100 meters back from the start of the 200 in lane 1. Watch and learn.
Watch and learn from the 5:00 mark of the video at the link
below:00 -
just dumb wrote:
The 1500m is the most stupid event in track. The 1600m is so much better. I mean, your running around a 400m track... Why not just run 4 laps instead of 3 3/4 laps?
The 1600m is the waste of time event. The 1500m is a metric mile Europe and the rest of the world utilizes a metric system, there for the 1500m makes sense. I completed a 1600m in 3:57.35 during an all comers meet back in 2005 do you have any idea how annoying it is that because the meet had a 1600m and not a mile event it probably cost me a 3:59 mile.
70 -
It's all Europe's fault - but in several different ways.
I grew up near an old 375 meter cinder track that was said to have doubled as an ice speedway track in the winters before WW2. It also surrounded a Soccer Field in a not-more-than-necessary style that put the public stands on the home stretch also close to the Soccer action, which drew more paying customers. The city didn't even get a 400 meter modern track until ten years ago.
Most small cities in Europe a hundred years ago or more had something like this starting out on the commons. There was no global standard.
On a similar note 42195 for the Marathon came to be as late as from the London Olympics 1948 when they routed the course with an extra bit so the royal kids could see the start. Back then the Marathon distance was what the organizers said that the course was.
I think the combination of European Soccer fields and Tracks surrounding them are the main culprit for us having landed at 400 as a global standard - if the Soccer hadn't been in the way it's more likely we'd have landed at something longer - 500 or even 1000.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.00 -
The real issue is that the track isn't 500 meters. They should just change that. then 1500 metres is 3 laps. 10000 meters is 20 etc. Much nicer numbers.
50 -
1500 is the way has been for over 100 years. 1600 is the wrong race
32 -
At least we all agree that every one of these races should be an actual mile OR a 1500. The 1600 is truly terrible. Can you imagine being the guy who ran a 3:57 1600 but never got a real sub-4? That should never have happened.
BTW, I don't hate the 1500. I ran the 1500 in college and was fine with that since almost everyone I cared about at that time was either on the team or a fan of the sport. But as I got older, it was annoying to be a 1500m runner. It just involved so much explaining; "It is like a mile but shorter..." sounds so stupid.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.21 -
If you want to make that argument, they have been running the mile as a race much longer than the 1500m. There are records of mile races at least a century before any 1500m races. And it does appear that the 1500 was literally an attempt at a "metric mile" I.E. an easy metric distance that simulates the mile race, so they went with 1.5K since it was nice and round.
Also the 1500 has been around since the mid 19th century, well over 100 years. Mile races about a century before that.01 -
The US is the only Country that has a 1600m wrote:
just dumb wrote:
The 1500m is the most stupid event in track. The 1600m is so much better. I mean, your running around a 400m track... Why not just run 4 laps instead of 3 3/4 laps?
The 1600m is the waste of time event. The 1500m is a metric mile Europe and the rest of the world utilizes a metric system, there for the 1500m makes sense. I completed a 1600m in 3:57.35 during an all comers meet back in 2005 do you have any idea how annoying it is that because the meet had a 1600m and not a mile event it probably cost me a 3:59 mile.
Good riddance to the mile ... and two-mile. Those are the stupid ones.
10 -
So, those of you who are ok with the 800m are also NOT ok with the 1600m? I am really, really trying to understand this line of thinking. Half mile is like 4m longer than an 800m and you all are ok with that. The 400m is like 2m longer than the quarter mile and you are all ok with that. But somehow the 1600m is morally wrong and the 1500m is obviously superior? Make zero sense folks. The 1600m is the metric mile. Full stop.
12 -
just dumb wrote:
The 1500m is the most stupid event in track. The 1600m is so much better. I mean, your running around a 400m track... Why not just run 4 laps instead of 3 3/4 laps?
Wait until this guy hears about the 3k Steeple...
In fact, the 100, 200, 1500, 3000, 5000 are all stupid.
None of them uses the whole lap! What a waste of real estate.
Let's just make all tracks 100m... then we only need to abolish the 60m and the Mile/2 mile00 -
I agree than extent. During my peak college years I never got the opportunity to run a track mile indoors or outdoors. So my 1500m PR is significantly faster than my mile PR which still bugs me 36 years later. 😆
10 -
El Keniano wrote:
The US is the only Country that has a 1600m wrote:
The 1600m is the waste of time event. The 1500m is a metric mile Europe and the rest of the world utilizes a metric system, there for the 1500m makes sense. I completed a 1600m in 3:57.35 during an all comers meet back in 2005 do you have any idea how annoying it is that because the meet had a 1600m and not a mile event it probably cost me a 3:59 mile.
Good riddance to the mile ... and two-mile. Those are the stupid ones.
From a perspective of growing the sport the mile makes sense. All Americans understand mile. The metric system never caught on here in America. If it's just over 6 miles to the restaurant people in America don't say 10 kilometers we say 6 miles
04 -
just want to clear up wrote:
So, those of you who are ok with the 800m are also NOT ok with the 1600m? I am really, really trying to understand this line of thinking. Half mile is like 4m longer than an 800m and you all are ok with that. The 400m is like 2m longer than the quarter mile and you are all ok with that. But somehow the 1600m is morally wrong and the 1500m is obviously superior? Make zero sense folks. The 1600m is the metric mile. Full stop.
400 and 800 are what everyone else uses. 1600 is an attempt to be like everyone else but also be different, and it satisfies neither side of that. 1500 or mile would be picking a side and either one would be better than trying to do both.
10 -
michiganrunner58 wrote:
El Keniano wrote:
Good riddance to the mile ... and two-mile. Those are the stupid ones.
From a perspective of growing the sport the mile makes sense. All Americans understand mile. The metric system never caught on here in America. If it's just over 6 miles to the restaurant people in America don't say 10 kilometers we say 6 miles
"Growing the sport" like they tried with the "track town" worlds last year to pictures of empty seats in a tiny stadium? Pissin' in the wind.
00 -
gidbob wrote:
just want to clear up wrote:
So, those of you who are ok with the 800m are also NOT ok with the 1600m? I am really, really trying to understand this line of thinking. Half mile is like 4m longer than an 800m and you all are ok with that. The 400m is like 2m longer than the quarter mile and you are all ok with that. But somehow the 1600m is morally wrong and the 1500m is obviously superior? Make zero sense folks. The 1600m is the metric mile. Full stop.
400 and 800 are what everyone else uses. 1600 is an attempt to be like everyone else but also be different, and it satisfies neither side of that. 1500 or mile would be picking a side and either one would be better than trying to do both.
"1600 is an attempt to be like everyone else but also be different"
No, it's just waaaay easier than 3.75 laps. And the time is muuuch more comparable with a mile than a 1500m. It's similar to an 800m and 400m to a half mile and quarter mile. It's so close it really is irrelevant that there is any difference.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.