Why do we run the 1500 instead of the 1600?

Yes, the metric mile was an "after the fact" name. Nobody uses it outside of track, in that it isn't an official SI unit. Why are the sprints still odd numbers? I'm not really sure, but the main reasons for why they stuck are their relation to a 400 m track and that adding 100m to the 400m dash would be a 25% distance increase, and you'd have to do likewise to the 800m to make it an even K. Now, a rough sketch of why I think they chose the 1500.

Early Track in America: 440y tracks, the mile distance gets very popular and the mile enthusiasm spreads to Europe as well. As time progresses, Europe begins to be the "big scene" for track running and as they become more dominant, the distances get converted to even SI measures instead of even American units. Example: think if SI had a unit that equaled 430 feet, lets call it the Pat, abbreviated P. So, the Pat race makes its way to america, where no one really uses or is comfortably familar with the Pat unit. We change it to 400 feet so our citizens can more readily understand the distance and make conversions between distances easily.

Track is METRIC, Metric mile (1500m) is the logical/popularized CONVERSION. 1500m is in 10s and 5s 1609m would make no sense in the system, nor would 1600m.

It's all measurements, the 440yd track is not an odd distance at all it is 2 furlongs. 880yd is 4 furlongs. 1 mile is 8 furlongs. They aren't odd distance when thought of like that.

The metric mile is just what it says the Metric Equivalent of 8 furlongs. When I say equivalent it also means it has to fit into the system, hence why it's not 1609 or 1600m

I don't understand what's so hard about this.

1500 meters is a also standard swimming race distance, I don't think they call it the metric mile however.

Back on the why do we have 400m & 800m. Note that previous post that ENGLAND POPULARIZED MODERN TRACK and they just converted all the distances to METRIC Equivelants.

Always Right, you are always wrong.

I don't understand what's so hard about this.

No Olympic event should involve half a lap - that goes for the 200 as well.

It should be 100, 400, 800, 1600, 4800, 9600.

Who gives a shit if the numbers aren't round?

10k is 25 full laps. No half lap in there.

And the metric system is why we have the distances today.

In the same way we have 3 mls or 6 mls, we now have 5k and 10k. The exception being the 1500m because it's one and a half Km, and close enough to the mile.

And if we don't give a shit, as you so eloquently put it, that the numbers aren't round, then why worry about non-round numbers of laps?

You know why the French call a Quarter Pounder a Royale with Cheese?

Idontknow wrote:

one lap is a 400 meter race right?

2 laps is a 800 meter race right?

4 laps is a 1600 meters.....so why is it 100 meters short?

If I said to you let's race four laps....and your response was ok but let's shorten it by 100 meters....I would say for what? ....so can someone please explain the logic of running 4 laps 100 meters short?

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why we (at the high school level) run the 1600 when the rest of the world (at all levels) runs the 1500.

MarathonMind wrote:

The event first made it to the 1900 Paris Olympics as a distance of 2 miles,

http://www.simonvroemen.nl/steeple.php

If you would read your own article it says that they ran 2500m in 1900 and 1904 for the steeplechase.

London 1908 made it 2 miles and it became 3000m in 1920.

Now to address the question of 400m.

I think the sprints had a separate evolution then the distances.

Everyone understands why 100m is an event. It's a perfect metric distance.

Double it and you get the 200. Double that and you get the 400.

If you are just running sprints, make the track 400m. (and it just so happens to be almost a quarter mile which is great for the US and Brits)

Picking distance events is a lot more arbitrary.

1500m, mile, 2000m, 2500m, 3000m, 2 miles, 3 miles, 5000m, 4 miles, 5 miles, 6 miles, 10000m. You can't run the all in a Championship.

Pick some metric distances and throw them on a 400m track which the sprinters have all ready to go for you.

I guess 800m was in the sprint category.

Les......I mean why stop short of completing the lap.....it just seems natural to run the complete lap....I know other countries do it differently.....and there are many reasons(have been posted here).........to me it doesnt make sense.....if it did we should be running half that.....which be a 750 meter race.....and then a 375 race....see how crazy that sounds

Blame it on the French.

Blah Blah. wrote:

Blame it on the French.

Those darn French

Jelly Beanz wrote:

Ok wise guys - I have been running for 30 plus years and have never had a sensible answer to this question. Traditionally tracks were not 500m, they were 440 yards, 1/4 miles. Yes, I know there were some tracks of different lengths, but the standard track was 440 yards.

So, why when we switched to metric racing was the "Metric Mile" set at 1500m and not 1600, far more accurate in correlation to the 100/200/400/800 distances converting from 100/220/440/880.

Has anyone got an answer?

Why do you need a sensible answer? It is what it is. You're really that bothered by it?

Vincent Vega wrote:

You know why the French call a Quarter Pounder a Royale with Cheese?

What weighs more, a pound of shit or a pound of feathers?

The 1500m is the only Olympic pure running race that is less than double the length of the next shortest race.

I personally think they should run a 2k instead, you have less overlap with the 800m and it is still really short for 5k runners. For imperial fans you could have a mile split, if you so choose.

kids say the darndest things wrote:

Take that! wrote:

I think you guys are trying to ascribe reason and definability to a something that has none. I would imagine it just kind of happened by some sort of meandering consensus where both the 1600 and the 1500 hundred co-exsisted for sometime and the 1600 lost for no paticular reason at all other than more event coordinators ran the 1500.

Further I would imagine if you were to plot the this trend towards the 1500 it would fit well to the natural log.

The 1600 has never co-existed, and exists only in the same public school system that clearly didn't educate you.

Really disappointing reply this as an attempted put down because if the distance exists only in the system which "didn't educate you" then how can it be the "same" system as anything? This should have been written as "... exists only in a public school system..." to make any sense. We therefore have a certain irony at play here as the attempt to put the other poster down as being stupid is in itself stupid!

The 1500m 3000m 5000m 10000m did originally come from ancient french 500m tracks and became the olympic distances.

The US issues with 1600/mile 3200/2mile do come from the Jimmy Carter move to metric system. High school tracks were urged to be converted from 440 yards to 400m roughly around 1980 (I remember the little construction project on the turn to trim the roughly 2m change). As there were still a couple years where schools had both sizes, it was deemed easier to just keep the 4 full laps, 8 full laps rather than shift to the olympic standard, ie. easier to mark track, easier for starter etc. at high school dual meets, this also goes for the 1600m and 3200 m relays.

Given the conversions here were only about 1.5 and 3 seconds, they were largely ignored - if you were a 4:20 1600m guy you were simply also a 4:20 miler.

Over the years, really hard to believe it's 40 years since the "new" 400m cinder track LOL, more and more states and meets have moved to the world standards of 1500m and 3000m.

Just to confuse things NY state offers the still sexist 1600m and 3200m for boys, but the 1500m and 3000m for girls.