Should the Olympics switch from 1500m to the mile?

If the 1500 is too fast to have an early turn, what about the 800? Isn't it run on the same track--at a faster pace?

I like the idea of 1600m. The "metric mile" is close enough to a mile that commentators could just call it a mile and the (American) viewers wouldn't know the difference. Most wouldn't know how long the 10m difference is anyways.

read my previous post. 1500 is the fastest event which doesn't start in lanes. the 800 starts in lanes unless it's a high school meet or meaningless invite with too many entrants

jonesy. wrote:

Yes! This would promote interest in the wealthiest tv market and the fact is that it is the next logical distance, essentially, after the 800m. You do 1/4 lap, 1/2 lap, 1 lap, 2 laps, and 4 laps. 100,200,400,800,1500. Which doesn't fit?

So I suppose we should get rid of the 5K and switch Steeplechase to 3200m so that the break in patter doesn't hurt your delicate little brain?

IAAF won't go for it. End of story. Move on.

This is a great example of how Americans are so obnoxious.

No way wrote:

Now the US is the only nation that isn't on the metric system, so most of the world is as unfamiliar with the mile as you are with the 1500.

Not quite true. The US has the proud distinction of being joined in refusing to go metric by Myanmar and Liberia.

"According to the US CIA World Factbook in 2006, the International System of Units is the official system of measurement for all nations except for Myanmar, Liberia, and the United States."

Right, switching to the mile would allow the IAAF to entice television viewers on three different continents.

Those of you who really think tracks popularity is perfect right now can go on loving the 1500