The 1500m Should Be Abolished

No. The 5k is between the 200 and 4x400. Take a guess why that's helpful. Your sprinters get rest after 200 and before the 4x400.

Instead of getting rid of events they should get rid of incompetent coaches. There are far too many coaches who aren't developing their talent and/or running them into the ground with overtraining/racing.

Only yanks and Brits care about the mile.

#getridofthemile #keeptrackmetric

statista.com

Infographic: Only Three Countries in the World (Officially) Still Use the Imperial System

@StatistaCharts

This chart shows countries which still (officially) use the imperial system.

Open link

We LOVE the 800, but the 1600 and 3200 are ridiculous.

Not at all! The meter is just about exactly one pace of a 6 foot tall man.

In ancient times, men were shorter and a full pace was about a yard. A mile (mil = 1000) to the romans was 1000 paces.

So the kilometer is the true modern mile. Not at all practical on 400m tracks though.

While we're at it, let's just include the field events at the end of the races. For example, how about the 400m Pole Vault. In this race the runner sprints the 400 as per usz, BUT he/she also carries the Pole Vault pole and has to attempt a pole vault when crossing the finish line. We could also have the 100m HJ, 800 m LJ, the 1600m Shot Put and the 3200m Hammer Throw. It would sure change the sport and make it train-wreckishly interesting. The scoring would be to just take the Decathlon scoring and apply it to the marks. the best score is the winner. LOL

Yeah, the 1500m is not right. Way too wrong.

But, the 1600m is just right! 4.000 laps! Easy to convert to a mile.

We were forced to run this in High School, and it was just good! Right?

Sign the petition! Bring the 1600m back! HS glory!!

I posted this question on another thread once. I can't remember the thread title and therefore can't find it. It may have been about a particular runner at the time. Anyway:

When was the first race over 1600m held?

There is a common misconception that it 'replaced' 1 mile because tracks changed. However, the standard track length has been 400m since long before any meet director would have been willing to offer a 1600. This new made-up 'event' was probably first held decades after track length had been settled. I say 'probably' because I don't know these 2 dates:

A. When the 400m track became standard. I don't know because it probably predates my birth (1960s). When I got into running (1970s) it certainly seemed to be normal. I went to the TAC (what USATF was called as recently as 1980) National Championship as a teenager and watched a not-yet-disgraced Salazar win the 10000. It was exactly 25 laps. There were races over 400 and 800m, etc. Also while in high school I remember going to an occasional meet at another track in the same city and watching various events. That track was also 400m. No 1600 nor 3200 was ever held with the exception of a 4X800 I remember. I saw Juantoreno run an 800 (2 laps exactly) in either 1979 or '80.

B. The other date I'm unaware of is when the 1600 (or 3200) came into existence. As of my high school graduation (1981), I'm guessing you'd have gotten a blank stare if you mentioned those distances in running circles. Just 'guessing' because I'd literally never heard anyone say the words 'sixteen hundred' in any context, ever. It simply didn't exist yet, I honestly believe. I ran pretty seriously in high school and my peers never mentioned the not-yet-popularized 1600 and 3200. They were measurable distances, but no one had ever held an organized race over either one that I had heard of - and I watched track.

The important point here is that date A. (when 400m tracks became standard) predates date B. (the first time a race was held over 1600m) by a long time. Maybe a century, but again, I can't say since I'm not aware of a time at which any 'official' (in any sense) track wasn't 400m. They were when I started following running and possibly when I was born. And again, I'd never heard mention of 1600 nor 3200 until I was getting into middle age - decades after I got out of high school.

So, maybe someone can shed light on when these (relatively) new distances became track events, and why. "Because tracks suddenly changed at the turn of the 21st century" is not why.

Gee whiz Peachpit, you sound so dang....Amuricn.

Make it:

200

400

800

1600

3200

don’t need both the 100 and 200, its the same guys. Same thing with 5k and 10k, put them in the 32. And this way the distance keeps doubling

An argument could be made that the 2000m would be better than the 1500m.

The mile is 4.0225 laps. How does that make any sense?

I'm not sure why anyone tries to get snooty about metric distances in track. Maybe it's just the default anti-Americanism to get a quick dopamine hit. It's not like you're titrating something, it's an arbitrary measurement for a race.

Anyway, I agree that the 1500 is "off." The mile would be ideal, but even the 1600 would make more sense. When watching a 1500 I, an experienced mid distance guy, still mentally convert the time to mile pace. I found it tough to get in a rhythm in the 1500.

Sincerely, pre-super spikes 4:05 miler.

All track facilities to be converted to miniature golf courses. Come at me, bro

Outside of burgerland is irrelevant. Unless you live in Russia/China, most likely your country is a vassal state of burgerland.

No, but if you run a 3:57 1600, it's pretty much a given that you're capable of running sub-4. It's close enough that you know where that runner stands.
The 1500 is pretty bizarre

This means nothing to me. If you're running anything under 3:00/km pace I literally have no clue how fast you're going besides "it's faster than 15 min 5k pace".

25 miles would be nicer to look at, but 26.2 has the history behind it. That's also why I'd favor the mile over 1600m, because 1600m is actually better in every way except it's dumb bc it's just a mile but a tiny bit shorter.

Nah we should keep the steeple bc it's cool to watch people jump over barriers and into water pits. I have no clue why it's a part of track meets and I used to think it was wack but i fw it now.

Major races may have been decided in the final 9 meters, but when doing mental math for what pace people are on, the final 9 meters are negligible. That's what I meant by it makes the math easier, because it's way easier to figure out the pace of a mile than it is at any time in the 1500.

Firstly, the mile has all the benefits you mentioned for the 1500. Secondly, I'll have you know many of the worst decathletes are faster than me.

TRUE!