bring back the mile campaign

Sharp Bows wrote:

My memory is not very good. Can you please tell me who won the mile in the 2004 Olympics? Ok, then just tell me who won the mile in the 2000 or 2004 Olympics. What? The cat gotch your tongue.

My memory is not very good either. Can you tell me what gotch means?

Med School Runner wrote:

Wow, you just got frickin' owned.

Roger Bannister became a distinguished neurologist after his running career. In fact, he was in medical school when he broke 4.

Here's the thing...Roger Bannister was special because he was the first one to do it. Heck, I'll give you that the next 20 who did it after him were special too. But that was more than 50 years ago and hundreds of Sub-4s (thousands if you count 1500m conversions).

All these guys patting themselves on the back for breaking 4 minutes is silly. Great as a personal accomplishment, but notable at this point in history?...I think not.

And for the record, I'm a big fan of docs, and a big fan of Dr. B., and I think he would tell you that the Sub-4 was not his greatest life accomplishment.

"Sport is simple. It's black and white. It's very limited. Medicine is complex.". Sir Roger Bannister.

First the Logic on some people is ridiculous.

We should run the mile because when we drive it is Miles per hour.

Yep that it we found what has been hurting track and field.

True, in America we have a history of the mile and that is a valid argument.

If we did switch it wouldn't start a revival or anything.

On the other hand the fact that the rest of the world doesn't really care as much about the mile, and the fact that the 1500m is run at the Olympics is a really strong argument as well.

I can't understand all the whining about how hard it is to convert to your friends when they ask you what your best mile is? Seriously if you can't do the math what were you doing running in college in the first place.

I have to say I liked the comment about the conversion from 1500 where you take your slowest lap or even your average lap speed and use that speed to calculate the other 108meters. (GOOD Thinking!!!)

In regards to reforming the mile, it is hard to change tradition. ??? There are valid reasons on both sides??? Probably not a strong enough argument to make a change.

If there were anything that needed to be changed, we should start by fixing Cross Country!!!

Nice essay that pretty much sums up this message board.

TIME TO START THE REAL MOVEMENT

LETS WORK TO REFORM CROSS COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!

True that why all the grass courses. Those who are good at running on flat courses already have track to excel.

Its time we make cross country a mens sport with brutal hills. Ups and downs.

Bring back the hay bells. Or make mud pits like they do in africa!!!

NOW THAT IS RUNNING!!!!!!

SAVE CROSS COUNTRY....

SAVE THE WORLD!!!!!!!

Enough with all the garbage about changing the mile I agree runners need to put their efforts into changing cross country!!!

Cross country needs to become a man's sport again!

Joe 6-Pack never watched track and field when everything was all yards, and he won't watch it now; he prefers watching stock cars and funny cars and douchebags wearing sunglasses indoors playing poker. This suggestion will do no more, possibly less, to popularize viewing track and field than bringing back the 100-yard dash, and calling the long jump the broad jump. People who are not interested in watching human beings race and throw things won't become interested because the distances remind them of the units on their cars' odometers.

iiuuyy wrote:

Joe 6 Pack won't be watching track and field whether or not there is a mile. Is he watching indoor ncaa championships? The last time I looked there is a mile at that meet. Are people rushing the gates because they can't get enough of the ncaa indoor mile? No. It wont help outdoor either. Deal with it.

Joe 6 Pack is such a big fan of the indoor mile, due to the popularity of the Wanamaker Mile, the Millrose Games had to move to a bigger venue.

It's unclear what your objection to the mile could be. The 1500 will be not changed at the Olympics, and there isn't too great of a chance that track and field will ever become a huge spectator sport. But why is it a good thing to run the 1500 here in the USA, aside from achieving the Olympic qualifying standards?

No one is saying that the mile will resurrect track and field. Some are saying it could add some allure to some meets. I, and a few others, are saying that as long as our country's long distances are denominated in miles, and as long as ONE MILE is the gold standard for a distance race in the popular mind, why should we make our sport more inconsequential than it already is? Why make it more obscure by using 1500 meters when the American public has a very good idea how far a mile is, and most have actually run one (well, most have run 1600 meters, but close enough to be the same thing in the public's eye.)

Look at all the good things associated with the mile:

- A MILER sounds bad ass. "Half miler", "distance runner", "cross country runner" or "marathoner" all have no allure and the last three conjure up the image of a scrawny misfit. Just say the word "MILER." It's got some prestige to it, even today.

- The mile is a basic unit of measurement that almost everyone has run/walked for time at least once. I never ran cross or distance, but I could tell you my best "mile" time. Backs and receivers on my college football team had to break 6 in spring football and at the start of fall camp. My entire preparation consisted of playing pick up basketball a couple of hours a day, lifting and sprinting. I ran just hard enough to run 5:45 for 1600 and probably could have run about 10-15 seconds faster if I had pushed harder. It was a hard test and made me understand where I stood in that contest with someone who was actually good at it. I realized I could not get anywhere near 5:00 without some training, and I could truly admire someone under 4:00. That was from a typical football/ basketball/ baseball guy who didn't see the value in being a skinny, weak distance runner that I could smoke in a short sprint. But a good miler - that I could respect.

- Even if the 4:00 mile has been achieved over a thousand times, everyone, including non track people, know that it is an accomplishment. 3:40, 3:41, 3:42 - how many people in the country have any idea if that is good or bad for the 1500? A couple of percent, maybe?

- There is a frame of reference and simplicity in ONE mile you won't get with 1K (different race altogether) or 1500 (odd distance that has little relevance to American life) or 2K (which would be a similar race, but is not ONE unit of measurement and is never run anyway.) We all have a good idea of how far a mile is, partly because of our odometers, yes, but most Americans have NO understanding at all of 1500 meters or 10,000 meters. Those numbers are just noise. Why not use the most relevant distance to Americans when in America?

- There is a history to the mile in this country. When someone gets good enough in high school, they can be compared to American Titans - Ryan, Liquori, Danielson, Webb and now Verzbicas. If Webb had run 3:37 at Pre, it wouldn't have gotten as much buzz outside the track community.

When someone gets good enough in college, it is still a great accomplishment to break four. They go on lists that are filled with prestige, like X number of 4:00 milers trained by coach Y or even how many runners have broken four in a certain conference or state.

- Even if you run 5K or 10K in college, or you run the half, or even if you run marathons, answer this honestly. If you're American, when people you meet find out you are a distance runner, don't they usually ask, "What can you run the mile in?"

Men are Silly wrote:

clearing the bs up wrote:

(1) ...It is a distance that people can relate to, understand, and are in awe of...

(2)...If you told the average person you ran a mile in 3:59, they would be very impressed.

(1) No it's not.

(2) The average person would not be impressed. You are grossly exaggerating the average person's knowledge of or interest in footraces.

herp derp

how bout, youre wrong

1) it's definately more relatable

2) yes the average person is. At school if someone cares at all, "they'll ask, how fast can you run a mile in?" If you say something under like 5 minutes, they think you're amazing. This is coming from people who dont/barely know Usain Bolt.

Are we also calling for the return of the two mile? I just want to make sure I have my talking points right.

What I'd like to see is the "Combined Mile":

Competitors can choose whether they want to run for 1500 meters, OR for the full mile, but they have to keep which it is to themselves. One start, two finishes. If a runner is dominant, he/she will likely go for both, collecting prize $$ for both. But the judgment is made on the fly. Is that guy who just shot into the lead at 1200 going the full or the 15? You probably won't know for 250 meters anyway. Should the full mile guy try to nip him at the 15 finish then stagger in to the full mile trying to stave off the chasers? The potential for drama is exponential.

Combines running with poker strategy and rewards a different kind of talent and savvy.

The only reason the 1500m is run is because it's close in distance to the mile.

as a track athlete and fan in high school I would enjoy both running, and watching the mile more than the 1500 or 1600. Not because I want to bring more interest to track but because I like the history of the mile and in a small way I would like to be a part of it.

Loving all 1760 yards of this campaign...milers unite!

MF

In response to the statement that even the average person can respect the fact that you broke 4 in the mile.

In all honest the average person is in shock that you can actually run a mile or 3 or 4.

The reason people don't watch track is because they don't understand it.

The only way to understand track is to run!

Only a runner really knows the meaning of breaking 4 in the mile.

The same runner would know that running a 3:44.5 1500m or so is equivalent.

We don't need to change to impress others, or just to be different.

1500m has landmarks as well and a real runner knows what they mean and respects it.

Also Changing Cross Country seems like a more worthy movement!

Yee HAW, Time to Cowboy up Cross Country!!!!!!

the argument among anti milers here seems to be that switching to the mile wont save track so why even bother.

That is terrible reasoning, very similar to saying running an extra mile today isn't going to make me any faster this weekend.

It won't but its going to help you later on if you keep doing one extra mile.

Converting to the mile won't save track but I definitely think it would help and I am sure it won't hurt tracks popularity.

LetsRun is the only place I have ever been where the 1500 is regarded as preferable to the mile.

C'mon people you all know deep down the only reason you like the 1500 is because you have a flashy 1500 pr and you want it to have some meaning. If you had a better mile PR than 1500 (which few do because the 1500 is run outdoors) you wouldn't have any connection to the 1500.

Even without a flashy mile PR everyone of you has a connection to the mile. You log your running in miles per week, your speed at minutes per mile. I would be shocked if anyone honestly said they track their running in Kilometers.

You young kids amaze me. Funny how you want to convert a 1500 to mile by adding 16 seconds (the same as the wr) to make you feel fast. First off the difference is 110 meters not 100. The 1500 is just over 90% the distance of the mile. You slow down running the longer distance just as you do running 3k to two miles. Not the same race.

The 1500 is run so the start is on the straight not the turn.

Why can't we just use the METRIC SYSTEM like everyone else?

Although we are the powerful USA, we aren't the only people on this planet. Therefore, it's not going to happen because we aren't going to get everyone else in the world to switch from the 1500 to the 1609.344 meters. It's just not going to happen.