50+ Masters Training and Racing Open Forum

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

AK-67 wrote:

The bottom line is that money was an issue for most schools which is why they took the economical route and simply moved the start lines and redid a few other markings. It was the easiest and most economical method which is why it was the preferred solution.

Of course that is why 440 yard tracks remain the standard configuration in the United States.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

syracuse wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Of course that is why 440 yard tracks remain the standard configuration in the United States.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Can't speak for Igy, but I chuckled.

Of course, there's a difference between short-term stop-gap measures, and eventual major changes/improvements. What I saw at my high school: For a few years, they just marked the existing track to accommodate metric distances. Then built a brand new facility with a 400m all-weather track.

Allen1959 wrote:

syracuse wrote:

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Can't speak for Igy, but I chuckled.

Of course, there's a difference between short-term stop-gap measures, and eventual major changes/improvements. What I saw at my high school: For a few years, they just marked the existing track to accommodate metric distances. Then built a brand new facility with a 400m all-weather track.

Agreed. I’m too young to recall the yards-to-meters revolution, but I can’t imagine budget-conscious high schools reconstructing an otherwise useful track simply to make it metric. Tweaking a few lines would have made the most sense until it was time for a new track.

syracuse wrote:

Allen1959 wrote:

Can't speak for Igy, but I chuckled.

Of course, there's a difference between short-term stop-gap measures, and eventual major changes/improvements. What I saw at my high school: For a few years, they just marked the existing track to accommodate metric distances. Then built a brand new facility with a 400m all-weather track.

Agreed. I’m too young to recall the yards-to-meters revolution, but I can’t imagine budget-conscious high schools reconstructing an otherwise useful track simply to make it metric. Tweaking a few lines would have made the most sense until it was time for a new track.

Sure and football can pay thousands for field re-seeding and new goal posts. Basketball can have their gym floors re-sanded and finished for thousands more than doing a metric track conversion correctly. OK, no dispute really, but as noted to do it correctly was a rather simple process of reducing curve radius. And, if the track was ready for a resurface this was an option provided and taken in most cases. To do the other way was penny wise and pound foolish. Old markings would have to be painted over. That is why there are tens of thousands of tracks that have not been re-built just converted to metric. I run on one at Boise High School several times a week.

Igy

I did live through that conversion. It was annoying as you know what. The actual conversions were UGLY and as far as I can tell they did not apply the standards consistently.

My home track, I actually watched the poor thing slowly get transitioned from first, cinder at 440 yards; To then, literally scrapings in the dirt that “converted” it to meters….for about 2 meets before the cinders, like a shaken etch-A-sketch erased everything.

It had a raised 8-inch concrete rail that presented a problem with moving the track in to shorten it. So they just graded the dang thing and used actual asphalt like, you know, the road, and paved over the rail, skooching it in a few inches for good measure (but without actually measuring it!). It stayed brick-hard like that for years until they finally scraped together the money to put a real surface on it that was less likely to shatter your shins on impact. And then, finally, they had the thing marked. And it’s still long by about a 3 feet.

My college track on the other side of the valley they simply waited until it deteriorated and finally skooched it in. I think that one is accurate. I actually donated money for that resurface. Oh, we used TAPE to go metric before that and had big fights about how to mark it.

We have one true 440-yard track left in my city. Of course, it was in the poor side of town so they had no money to convert it. It was cinder and red clay until about 3 years ago. It was the softest, nicest track in the world. Thankfully, again, because it’s in the poor neighborhood, they used cheap, thin pavement and it retains some of its wonderful soft touch.

Igy, we needed that danged manual 30 years ago! You'd think it was non-existent or written in hieroglyphics considering how poorly the standards were applied.

Rtype,

Funny story but not surprising. As a coach I had a tough time getting accurate 1,600 meter relay splits on a 440 yard track.

Another thing that changed for the better as some of the college tracks went thru renovations or retrofits we began to see more steeplechase water jump pits. This took another step forward once they added to women’s events. At one college I was at they refused to add a waterjump so we would run a dry steeplechase.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

... That is why there are tens of thousands of tracks that have not been re-built just converted to metric. I run on one at Boise High School several times a week.

Igy, I plead ignorant on this topic. On my high school track, all the lane lines, start lines, zone lines, etc, had to painstakingly applied from scratch before EVERY home meet (with lime). This was a crushed stone surface ... which they raked loose before striping. (It was only a few years old, and horrendous to run on!). Other schools had cinder tracks. They were a joy to race on, but also had to be laboriously marked with lime lane lines, etc, before every meet.

At college, we had a rather old all-weather "tartan" track with permanent lanes and markings. That was 440y, although it had markings for metric races. It was never changed during my four years there.

Anyway, that's my total experience with the subject. This was upstate New York, not far from "syracuse," if that has any bearing. :)

Allen1959,

I get it. Most of my experience was in states where track was somewhat of a priority. Still track sits down several notches from football and basketball. Unfortunately many times the athletic director at high schools or smaller colleges is a football guy. Not surprising that the muscle memory opted for a seemingly easy but less than adequate solution.

Hey, on another subject, looks like you are making some progress on the knee. Hope it goes well for you.

One of my good friends, a top masters, has similar issues and his orthopedist has given him some advice in the PT area that seems to be working.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Sure and football can pay thousands for field re-seeding and new goal posts. Basketball can have their gym floors re-sanded and finished for thousands more than doing a metric track conversion correctly. OK, no dispute really, but as noted to do it correctly was a rather simple process of reducing curve radius. And, if the track was ready for a resurface this was an option provided and taken in most cases. To do the other way was penny wise and pound foolish. Old markings would have to be painted over. That is why there are tens of thousands of tracks that have not been re-built just converted to metric. I run on one at Boise High School several times a week.

Igy

Another joke? Neither football fields nor basketball courts require that their dimensions be changed as you propose for track. And how often are football goalposts changed? Also did you mean stripping a basketball court? That’s not expensive, unlike reconfiguring the physical dimensions of a track, as you suggest. That would be penny wise and pound foolish.

Painting over old markings is no big deal. Just leave the lanes and finish line intact and redo the rest. It’s cheap and easy. Unless your town has an abundance of money to spend on a new track, adding/replacing a few markings is clearly the most economical method. Why do you think that is what most schools did?

OK, whatever....

KP and DB your strong results over many years, through this thread and other masters threads here, inspired me to look to national level races and eventually to move back to a temperate climate where I could train through the year. You guys killed it, and definitely use (or at least consider) the age grade factor at the time you participated. Otherwise, it's a sliding downhill slope and you're always falling behind. Think I have 7 +90%s, living at altitude I don't get the opportunity to go for it unless I travel to a flat sea level race, with decent weather.

re: tracks and the 400 m conversion. I started running track in college in the late 70s and it almost was all imperial distances through my junior year. One college had a brand new (asphalt though) track that was metric, probably 1976 or 1977 because they knew the conversions were coming.

At least for championships D1 switched over in 1977 I think and the high schools went metric a year later. I ran my last season of track in 1980 and most of our races were metric on tracks that had not yet been converted. And that some bigger name places like the Drake University stadium and Stagg Field in Chicago. The switchover was pretty quick after that I think and the only tracks that didn't make a conversion were out of the way/middle school or not much used-high school.

Have a good one all!

(oh yeah, 37 miles last week, ran every day but felt really beat down. Massage Saturday, easy run Sunday, rest on Monday, and felt great yesterda (just 6 miles), mostly sub 8s at 5800' and feeling like the breeze. So first day in a month that I wasn't racing (3 weeks in a row) or recovering).

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

As a coach I had a tough time getting accurate 1,600 meter relay splits on a 440 yard track.

Why didn’t you just run a mile relay?

Races were all metric, besides staggers and zones were for 1,600 meter relay. A little less complicated, albeit at a slower pace, splitting a mile race on a metric track, your split is plus 402, 804 and 1,206 meters.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Races were all metric, besides staggers and zones were for 1,600 meter relay. A little less complicated, albeit at a slower pace, splitting a mile race on a metric track, your split is plus 402, 804 and 1,206 meters.

If you had zones for 1600, then getting splits should not have been a problem.

If you had actually ever taken splits for one not as easy as assumed. But whatever you say is fine with me.

I’ve taken literally thousands of splits. If the passing zone is there, it is quite easy to get splits. What do you find difficult about it?

OId coach wrote:

I’ve taken literally thousands of splits. If the passing zone is there, it is quite easy to get splits. What do you find difficult about it?

If you are just taking inaccurate "handoff" splits it is easy. If you are trying to get good 400m splits you have to back up 2.33m with each leg (while trying to follow the action in the race if you are coaching).

The first steeplechase I ever ran was at the West Virginia Relays in 1974. Not only was it dry, it had no steeple barriers. They turned intermediate hurdles backwards and put them where the barriers would be.

HRE wrote:

The first steeplechase I ever ran was at the West Virginia Relays in 1974. Not only was it dry, it had no steeple barriers. They turned intermediate hurdles backwards and put them where the barriers would be.

Gosh if you hit that with your trailing leg toes you could be in for it. At Texas A&M Kingsville where we ran the dry steeple, I turn over the NCAA Track and Field Rulebook which had a great steeple hurdle diagram and they built me five. Order some oil based paint, an athlete and I painted them over Christmas break. Interestingly they are hosting the NCAA Division II Outdoor. I assume they have the real deal now.

Igy