The 1500m Should Be Abolished

change the distance of a mile for track racing!!!!

no one is going to agree to that.

any longish distance every printed in miles would need to be recalculated.

While we are at it may as well change km to 800m. Makes more sense for 400m tracks. Easy!

No history? You must be very young and have never read the history of running.

I think we need to upgrade all tracks and distances... Lets go to 250 meter indoor tracks and 500 meter outdoor tracks. Then merge some races and update them to fit the sizes... You could still have 100m sprint (even 60 indoors), but wouldn't 125 and 125 hurdles be better? Then 250 and a 500, a 1000 a 1500 and a 3000/5000/10000. All races 500+ start and end at the same place! It would take some getting used to for what a good 500 lap time is for the different races, but everything would make more sense from a math standpoint.

No more super size (300+) indoor tracks either. Also no more 'off year' 600/1000 races instead of 400/800 races... everything is just 500/1000 now - over and over again.

It would require a lot of new indoor track buildings to squeeze in an extra 50 meters into the oval... same with stadium upgrades for outdoors... it won't happen, but would be cleaner and clearer, and would force more athletes into a single distance (as pros) as the gap between races is 500meters instead of 400 (a 400/800 runner might not be a 500/1000 runner).

It always amazes me that people that post statements in here, actually think that organizations, like the NCAA, are in a conference room somewhere going "hey, I read what this guy posted on Letsrun, snd I think we should go with it.."

Indeed, the whole of the world uses the metric system. The mile is a ridiculous event in the modern world.

Come on USA, why not join the rest of us in 21st centaury?

Because we already had a system of measurement prior to the popularization of France's system. Those who said, "Hey, you can measure things!" when France was trying to shove their system down the world's throat apparently had never thought of that before. Did you wait until the 19th century to start writing? We were already doing that, too. Measurement, like written language, was not new to the US at the time of the metric revolution. We'd been doing it just fine for years!

Agreed, but even for people born and raised with the metric system, 1.5 km is a meaningless distance. If they really wanted to go metric with track and field they should have made the 1000 the premier middle distance event. Instead they chose some bastardized distance of 1500 meters, and then had the audacity to call it the "metric mile", which means nothing to anyone anywhere. It's not like there's somewhere in the world where the speed limits are posted in metric miles per hour or distances are measured in metric miles on highway signs. The 1500 was chosen as some kind of poor concession to the imperial system and that's about it.

As much as we like to make fun of the high school 1600 and 3200 on here, they make far more sense than the 1500 does. The 1600 happens to be the same distance as the 4x400 relay, and that's not going anywhere anytime soon. It's also twice the 800, which seems to be a favorite distance on here and around the world. At 3000 or 3200 meters it probably makes sense to just go with the even 3 km, since we already do the 5 km and 10 km races.

Someone must have too much time on their hand to be able to have time to write so much nonsense.

Unless you suffer from debilitating OCD, I don't see why it's so important for every race to be an exact number of laps around the track. The 1500 is a great race. Starting on a straightaway is fun. Nothing needs to change.

One of the more unique things about track is the ability to compare performances across different eras. Yes, the historical playing field is skewed by advances in training and shoe/track technology, but everyone is still running the same distance. It's allows for more of an apples-to-apples comparison than you can get with other organized sports. I don't want to have to convert a bunch of 1600 times to see how the current crop of mid-d collegiate runners would have compared to Centro or Lagat.

The debate is settled then. A consensus of smart posters says 1500 sucks, mile sucks, 1600 rules.

4 laps it is.

How about 2600 instead?

I've got news for you. The Mile Run PRECEDED the modern Olympic Games by decades. There's a lot of history of track and field that doesn't involve the OGs. Thank goodness.

Obviously you are young and do not understand that we had to run on grass, dirt, mud, clay, and cinder tracks much of our prime racing careers. The sub-4.00 mile was rare when I ran. Now it takes place in nearly all DI races, and sometimes 9 guys surpass in the same race. It's not just the tracks and shoes. It's medical, training, and the fact we just know how to train a lot better!

The Olympics were copied of 2 things the ancient one and the more modern games especially university competitions going back a very long time before that from Great Britain.

en.wikipedia.org

Pierre de Coubertin

Charles Pierre de Frédy, Baron de Coubertin (French: [ʃaʁl pjɛʁ də fʁedi baʁɔ̃ də kubɛʁtɛ̃]; born Pierre de Frédy; 1 January 1863 – 2 September 1937, also known as Pierre de Coubertin and Baron de Coubertin) was a French educ...

Open link

en.wikipedia.org

Wenlock Olympian Games

The Wenlock Olympian Games, dating from 1850, are a forerunner of the modern Olympic Games. They are organised by the Wenlock Olympian Society (WOS), and are held each year at venues across Shropshire, England, centred on the...

Open link

These were run over metric distances on a 440 track. 100y 440y 880y 1 mil 3 and 6

All starting and finishing in front of the main stand from 220 you can still see the start though- this made a lot more sense than what happens nowadays

The 1500 came from the old tracks in Europe 500m I think. Never made any sense

Commonwealth Games was all imperial unitl 1950'sthere is your history and what language are you speaking now and how are you still measuring your field events. Think about it

Amen, brother!

The 1600 / mile makes a crowded start around first bend. Stick with 1500m.

I would be for that because I'm selfish. I want my 1500 best to still be impressive to people.

Does that ruin the 3000, which is run at nearly the same pace and the same (or higher) number of runners?

Of course not. Rather at all track distances 1500 and up, the crowds are mainly caused by the runners themselves refusing to go fast and boring the snot out of the spectators. In a genuine fast race, nobody is tripping over each other regardless of where and how it starts.

The poster who said the mile came before the olympics is trying to pull a fast one. Just because the olympics sucks doesn't mean the mile doesn't also suck. We've been trapped in this tug of war between two loony positions when the sensible thing is just go 4 laps.