Hot take? The 1600m makes more sense than the 1500m or Mile

it depends what pattern you want to stick to i suppose. 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 makes sense to me. but then what do you do with the 5K and 10K? 1500, 5000, 10000 makes sense too if we're going with a 5n sort of theme. either way i do wish that either the flat 3000 or 3200 was contested outdoors past high school. it's such a fun distance.

Make the tracks imperial again. Run the mile.

Why did we ever go metric?

fetullah al gulen rupp wrote:

it depends what pattern you want to stick to i suppose. 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 makes sense to me. but then what do you do with the 5K and 10K? 1500, 5000, 10000 makes sense too if we're going with a 5n sort of theme. either way i do wish that either the flat 3000 or 3200 was contested outdoors past high school. it's such a fun distance.

In a world where people thought of these things beforehand, we'd probably do something like

100 - 200 - 400 - 800 - 1,600 - 4,000 - 8,000

No need for 25 laps on a track. Let's keep that to the roads and XC.

No it doesn't. It harks back to the days of imperial measurements. Only a few countries in the world still use imperial. Everyone else has moved on to metric.

I think the 1500m makes way more sense, as does the 3000m.

hamsters wrote:

No it doesn't. It harks back to the days of imperial measurements. Only a few countries in the world still use imperial. Everyone else has moved on to metric.

I think the 1500m makes way more sense, as does the 3000m.

You think a 3.75 lap race and 7.5 lap race makes more sense than 4 and 8 lap races?

birdbearddos wrote:

hamsters wrote:

No it doesn't. It harks back to the days of imperial measurements. Only a few countries in the world still use imperial. Everyone else has moved on to metric.

I think the 1500m makes way more sense, as does the 3000m.

You think a 3.75 lap race and 7.5 lap race makes more sense than 4 and 8 lap races?

Why are tracks still 400m if we race things like the 1500, 3000m, 5000, 10,000. Why not have 500m tracks?

1500 and 3000 are because of 500m tracks to begin with. And 500m tracks are the fault of the olympics idiots who destroyed the sport for more than 30 years with their stupid spectacle. They got rid of the stupid tracks but kept the stupid distances.

99% of all track races are at schools, and the vast majority of those at high schools where they don't run 5000 or 10000 on the track. 10000 should never have been on a track.

Many states already do the 1600 and 3200. Colleges and pros are the only holdouts, and the reason once again is the idiotic olympics. For the sake of fat people on the couch who watch track once every 4 years we carry on this stupid tradition and have the same stupid arguments.

2 laps, 4 laps, 8 laps, done. Everything else belongs on the roads.

Perfect take.

Sham 69 wrote:

Perfect take.

Bad Wigins wrote:

1500 and 3000 are because of 500m tracks to begin with. .

What?

super hot take here: replace 1500/1600/Mile entirely with 1000 and 2000

Sham 69 wrote:Make the tracks imperial again. Run the mile.

Why did we ever go metric?

We've actually been metric for well over a hundred years. The USA is just a little late to the party.

All distances are arbitrary anyways, so the least we can do is keep it consistent: 100-200-400-800-1500-5000-10000-3000st like the olympics.

High schools in the US should just switch to the 1500/3000, as every single other country does . It doesn't make sense that colleges + pros run 1500, but high schoolers run 1500m. Mile can be kept for its historical relevance, but only indoor abd for some special invite meets, the distance shouldn't really matter unless you're going under 4. 1600m ... forget about it.

Personally : I prefer the 1500 to the 1600, starting a distance race on a straight line is better than starting on the curve. More time to get into position and less jostling.

You could have

100 - 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 - 3200 - 6400

1600 replaces 1500

3200 replaces 3000

6400 replaces 5000 & 10000 (we dont need both)

I ran hs in the state of OR and we ran the 1500m and 3km. When you go to college and compare times it would be like: "well I ran 8:46 for 3km in hs...so that's like about a 9:23 for 3200m?" Everyone else (from the US) wanted to compare 3200m and "2-mile" times as a distance runner. Still we mostly all ran 5km for cross country instead of just 3-mile courses a lot of times it seemed.

I think the biggest issue (not really an "issue" but an observation) is a lot of hs kids always refer to 1600m as "the Mile" and 3200m at the "Two Mile" and don't even bother adding 2-4 seconds to their times (or worst, not even knowing that a Full Mile is actually 1609m). So if I ran a 4:30 for the 1600m in reality I'm not actually a 4:30-miler but more like a 4:32 guy. Doesn't really matter but the lack of understanding there is interesting.

But the imperial system is pretty stupid anyway. Metric runs the world. Kids these days should probably focus more on learning the metric system mainly. Math and Science.

flvmmox wrote:

super hot take here: replace 1500/1600/Mile entirely with 1000 and 2000

to elaborate:

1000m - this will be the true race to showcase "the fastest distance runner", the 800 sticks around because it's a specialized event. yes, i get that dudes running 140mpw saw success in the 800m. but is a guy who runs 46, 1:45, 4:15 mile, and does workouts like 3x400 full rest 3x a week really a distance runner? i don't think so. maybe that guy races a 1k in preparation, but speedy distance runners absolutely beat the long sprinters in the K.

2000m - an even 5 laps, generally the same talent/skillset required for the mile events, but i feel this event might be a little more flexible tactically. im sure sometimes instead of being a 3 lap hobby jog followed by a 400 2 seconds off your PR, it might be a 4 lap hobby jog followed by a 400 2 seconds off your PR. but the extra lap provides a little more opportunity for someone in the race to say to say "F IT!!!" and break off from a slow pack

XC courses where I grew up were 2.6 miles until a few years before I started high school. Prior to that, they were 2 miles.

I agree with:

100

200

400

800

1600

3200

6400

And the marathon should be 50K.

bulbasaur wrote:

You could have

100 - 200 - 400 - 800 - 1600 - 3200 - 6400

1600 replaces 1500

3200 replaces 3000

6400 replaces 5000 & 10000 (we dont need both)

I like this tbh. Having both the 5,000 and 10,000 on the track feels like overkill. It allows athletes to only run one and some watered-down champions. 10,000 is too long a distance to race on the track.