What a douche! First time I've ever referred to a woman as a douche! SHEILA YOU ARE A DOUCHE!!
What a douche! First time I've ever referred to a woman as a douche! SHEILA YOU ARE A DOUCHE!!
3 and 3/4 laps....never made sense...unprecedented. seriously. 400-800-oh I guess we don't really want to finish that last lap.
I would be down with 1600 even.
The Mile is now and always will be the big deal. Nobody even rembers the first guy to break 10 seconds in the 100 M we all know who Roger Bannister is.
Bringing back the mile is not going to help revive the sport. The sport needs ten times more coverage on TV for starters, and perhaps higher quality production, and higher quality broadcasters/announcers. Until then it will always be a minor sport.
In addition the mile is largely irrelevant internationally... but Murica! Because we are too dumb to understand metric, and we are unable to accept change.
Hey, it's not just the USA that will be running the Mile. C'mon, Liberia and Myanmar are still using Imperial measure, also.
alejandro wrote:
Hey, it's not just the USA that will be running the Mile. C'mon, Liberia and Myanmar are still using Imperial measure, also.
Myanmar has never used imperial measurements. But the UK still uses the mile over the km.
Lost a lot of respect for Sheila Reid, making hersef look like an idiot here. Completely and blatantly disrespect to old people while also being completely over sensitive to something that is by no means sexist.
also - most of the comments on her tweet are just other pro runners going back and forth. Proves that no one cares about tier 2 pro runners, only people that care are other tier 2 pro runners. They are just about as popular as ultimate frisbee players.
Hello, Good Morning. wrote:
ClonedDuck wrote:Anyone else see the twitter blowup sheila reid is having right now?
https://twitter.com/shewolfruns/status/677950230440992768What a PC nut. Get over it.
There is some truth to her tweet. She is Canadian and has grown up on the 1500/3000 distances. The 4-minute 1500 is her benchmark not the mile.
The mile is a novelty event. That's why they don't run it in the Olympics.
Thank you.
She has a valid, logical point, as a Canuck and a female.
And for the idiots out there, she is a highly intelligent person.
That said, I'm all for the mile 3 years, and 1500 in Oly years.
If the tracks were 500m ovals, I might feel different.
1/4 lap, 1/2 lap, 1 lap, 2 lap, 4, lap... Kinda has a gender neutral
flow to it.
i can't believe the morons on this site have somehow turned a debate over the mile into politics.
Sheila rules and is faster than all y'all. Is there any Canadian who ran in the NCAA who would support this?
Keep the women at 1,500m and move the men up to the mile. The men run a farther distance in college cross country so why not carry it over? Besides, then the sub 4 barrier is just as significant for each gender in their respective races.
This should have been an apolitical thing, but what's her name felt microagressed and brought the discussion of the absurdity of her "point" on.Unless she has run significantly faster than the women's mile record since her stats have been updated she still has a PR slower than mine.I also find it interesting that the mile is somehow men holding women down. The objectification of women in the sport/he change over the years to women running around in what is essentially spandex underwear, however, doesn't rate a comment.Finally, I would like to extend a "you're welcome" to our friend from the north if she was able to take advantage of the NCAA system and compete here. If she didn't compete here I don't understand why she should care.
Letsrun is a mental disorder wrote:
i can't believe the morons on this site have somehow turned a debate over the mile into politics.
Sheila rules and is faster than all y'all. Is there any Canadian who ran in the NCAA who would support this?
lol so many old white dude tears on the boards rn
"remember when ppl used to watch track!"
"remember when we used to win?"
"bring back the mile!"
ha white male nostalgia indeed.
no the mile won't make track more popular
My gawd! The sewer rats are out in force. What a bunch of p#ssies so many of you are. I'm an "old white guy" and I am not the least bit offended by Sheila Reid's comments. I can handle the criticism just fine. I brush barbs at my "old white maleness" off like a spec of lint on my shoulder.
I have seen a couple of good posts on here by males that can appreciate that it is actually good to have a woman's point of view on issues and I applaud them for their rational comments. The rest of you suck and I am embarrassed to be associated with you by gender.
Sheila may have stepped out of bounds a bit in her comments but I think she made a good overall point. I'd have to agree that the fascination with the mile is probably old white male nostalgia primarily. Sheila is only one woman and can only speak for herself but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that most women don't give a hoot about the mile. I doubt they relate to Roger Banister and Jim Ryun quite the way us old guys do or the young guys that know the history.
I like the mile and enjoy seeing it competed at events from time to time. I like the bring back the mile movement but I don't think it translates to the NCAA. I like seeing it at NCAA indoors as I like seeing over/under distance races competed in indoors and wish all running events indoors could be different distances than outdoors. I like the 60, 300, 600, 1000, etc. I think we get to see more interesting match-ups and it allows the athlete to work more on their speed or on their strength before the real season which is outdoor track.
I think outdoors, at the collegiate level, the championship distance should match the Olympic standard of 1500 meters. I don't think the mile will generate any more fan interest than the 1500 meters does today.
Now go ahead you self appointed professional arguers and breakdown my comments and ask for proof or verification of every statement made in order to try and elicit a response from me. It won't work. Maybe it is just maturity but I think we all realize eventually that most arguments just aren't worth having and I won't be taking the bait.
been around 'ya know wrote:
My gawd! The sewer rats are out in force. What a bunch of p#ssies so many of you are. I'm an "old white guy" and I am not the least bit offended by Sheila Reid's comments. I can handle the criticism just fine. I brush barbs at my "old white maleness" off like a spec of lint on my shoulder.
I have seen a couple of good posts on here by males that can appreciate that it is actually good to have a woman's point of view on issues and I applaud them for their rational comments. The rest of you suck and I am embarrassed to be associated with you by gender.
Sheila may have stepped out of bounds a bit in her comments but I think she made a good overall point. I'd have to agree that the fascination with the mile is probably old white male nostalgia primarily. Sheila is only one woman and can only speak for herself but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that most women don't give a hoot about the mile. I doubt they relate to Roger Banister and Jim Ryun quite the way us old guys do or the young guys that know the history.
I like the mile and enjoy seeing it competed at events from time to time. I like the bring back the mile movement but I don't think it translates to the NCAA. I like seeing it at NCAA indoors as I like seeing over/under distance races competed in indoors and wish all running events indoors could be different distances than outdoors. I like the 60, 300, 600, 1000, etc. I think we get to see more interesting match-ups and it allows the athlete to work more on their speed or on their strength before the real season which is outdoor track.
I think outdoors, at the collegiate level, the championship distance should match the Olympic standard of 1500 meters. I don't think the mile will generate any more fan interest than the 1500 meters does today.
Now go ahead you self appointed professional arguers and breakdown my comments and ask for proof or verification of every statement made in order to try and elicit a response from me. It won't work. Maybe it is just maturity but I think we all realize eventually that most arguments just aren't worth having and I won't be taking the bait.
0/10
1500 was the only way you could break 4 , Chubs .
Letsrun is a mental disorder wrote:
i can't believe the morons on this site have somehow turned a debate over the mile into politics.
Sheila rules and is faster than all y'all. Is there any Canadian who ran in the NCAA who would support this?
Thanks Sheila, let's Netflix some time.
I get why the USA might want to have the mile as a championship event but other than the USA and the UK (whos road signs etc are all in miles) most of the rest of the world deal in KM are are not at all interested in the mile anymore. Just like most of the rest of the world don't care at all about American sports.
rojo wrote:
some person wrote:The answer is so simple, however. Let the women keep their 1500m - Barringer is the only Collegiate to have broken 4 minutes - and let the men have their mile. As Reid states, this thread is typical of the mysogynistic attitude promoted by the Brojo's (Rojo you are the worst, feel sorry for your wife - the really pathetic part is that you don't even realize it, in fact would likely pretend, and defend that pretense vigorously, that you aren't), that don't even value the input of women. If you asked the Collegiate women, they would overwhelmingly prefer the 1500m - that is what she means by the old white men. It is a paternalistic attitude that "we" (the men) know what is best for women. Typical BS, maybe Caitlyn Jenner is right, men are pigs.
You are correct about one thing. I do protest vigorously. How do we promote a mysogynistic attitude?
I'd claim just the opposite. Reid is a smart person. She made a provocative / thought provoking comment. I'm letting her be criticized and praised for such comment. I don't feel that a woman needs to be protected. Please don't say it's because we let people make comments on her looks. Go look at the Mike Rossi thread. Tons of people are talking about his looks there as well.
I actually feel that much of Reid's comment is brilliant. The switch to the mile likely would put a little more emphasis on the men's mile than the women's simply due to the sub-4 aspect of it. I don't think most men would even think about that. However, I don't think it's male nostalgia. Women running fans also I'd assume enjoy a sub-4 mile.
That sounds a bit different than what you said earlier. More nuanced and thought out. And it's pretty solid to say changing the distance takes away a gold standard for women, 4 min in the 1500.
I wasn't sure about the male nostalgia thing, but it certainly was a new idea that is gaining credence every time I read another testosterone-fueled rant that attempts to re-ignite the culture war against women and minorities...
Some of you posters should be tested for PEDs, the chest hair is growing out of your ears...
been around 'ya know wrote:
My gawd! The sewer rats are out in force. What a bunch of p#ssies so many of you are. I'm an "old white guy" and I am not the least bit offended by Sheila Reid's comments. I can handle the criticism just fine. I brush barbs at my "old white maleness" off like a spec of lint on my shoulder.
I have seen a couple of good posts on here by males that can appreciate that it is actually good to have a woman's point of view on issues and I applaud them for their rational comments. The rest of you suck and I am embarrassed to be associated with you by gender.
Sheila may have stepped out of bounds a bit in her comments but I think she made a good overall point. I'd have to agree that the fascination with the mile is probably old white male nostalgia primarily. Sheila is only one woman and can only speak for herself but I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that most women don't give a hoot about the mile. I doubt they relate to Roger Banister and Jim Ryun quite the way us old guys do or the young guys that know the history.
I like the mile and enjoy seeing it competed at events from time to time. I like the bring back the mile movement but I don't think it translates to the NCAA. I like seeing it at NCAA indoors as I like seeing over/under distance races competed in indoors and wish all running events indoors could be different distances than outdoors. I like the 60, 300, 600, 1000, etc. I think we get to see more interesting match-ups and it allows the athlete to work more on their speed or on their strength before the real season which is outdoor track.
I think outdoors, at the collegiate level, the championship distance should match the Olympic standard of 1500 meters. I don't think the mile will generate any more fan interest than the 1500 meters does today.
Now go ahead you self appointed professional arguers and breakdown my comments and ask for proof or verification of every statement made in order to try and elicit a response from me. It won't work. Maybe it is just maturity but I think we all realize eventually that most arguments just aren't worth having and I won't be taking the bait.
10/10
Thank you, old man.
I'm another old white guy and I think she has some good points. Back in the days when the 4 minute mile was important barrier for the US and the commonwealth countries, women had very few options in middle distance running.
Now people want to return to an age when the mile was important and English speaking white men were breaking records and women knew their place.
Perhaps the mile has some value to those few guys clinging to the past, but I'm not sure what value it has to young women, especially young women with dreams of competing internationally where they'll run the 1500m.
You guys are being too hard on her. I mean you should try walking a 1500 in her shoes before you judge.
I just read the "Why" tab of the Bringing Back The Mile website and their arguments sound pretty weak and American-centric.
Does the mile even need bringing back?
Olympics run 1500m + WC run 1500m = Relevance lost
For only times that the American public watches T&F the distance is 1500m and the distance used at these major championships won't change. So why even bother bringing back the mile to all the other T&F events that nobody watches just so Americans can have slightly more context for the event if they happen to flip past it on the television? I don't get it. Also, doesn't anyone find the "providing the American public with more context" rationale slightly insulting?
There are also plenty of good miles keeping history alive anyway.
Dream Mile
Wanamaker Mile
Bowerman Mile
Emsley Carr Mile