Sheila Reid is losing It - Hilarity Ensues - Says switch from 1500 to mile is "male nostalgia"

Ah yes, PW. Earlier post about heavy social network users seems true: inverse relationship between performance and internet postings.

Carl Lewis has it right: get off the social network until you can back it up on the track.

Joe Vigil has it right: the majority of people are now narcissists.

True about all the narcissists. Damn, I should of invested in that selfie-stick company!

Earlier post about heavy social network users seems true: inverse relationship between performance and internet postings.

True. KG went quiet on the social media, and is having a great year. Won half marathon. Olympic qualifier favorite now. Go KG!

Not a gender thing either.

Here's a guy who went quiet on social media and focused on training. Last post 2012.

tweet for dollars or train for wins?

Canada has natural resources, only most of it is controlled by US companies. Canada is a good sub of the US.

yup........ wrote:

Since it looks like Phoebe Wright and others are reading this thread, you rock PW, calling it like it is:

https://twitter.com/Phe800/status/678956447682584576

She's creating a false equivalence.

The main reason why Sheila's tweet got more attention is that while both essentially made the same claim, Sheila did so in an accusatory manner, i.e., implying that this change is discrimination against women, and even more bizarrely, injected an anti-white, anti-old element into it later on. And people rightly pointed that out. On the other hand, Ben merely laid out out the case without the SJW verbiage.

Another reason why Sheila's tweet got more attention is that hers was was a tweet to her followers, while Ben's was a reply to someone else's tweet, i.e., more buried and seen by less people.

The fact that you guys are still tying yourself up in knots over this while Sheila has moved on is further evidence of her brilliance.

I feel sorry for people on this thread who have such a need to "win" the argument. Go outside. Hang with friends. Learn a skill. Be happy. Let it go.

Sjdjdjdjdjddj wrote:

The fact that you guys are still tying yourself up in knots over this while Sheila has moved on is further evidence of her brilliance.

I feel sorry for people on this thread who have such a need to "win" the argument. Go outside. Hang with friends. Learn a skill. Be happy. Let it go.

I wouldn't call pointing out bad reasoning being tied up in knots. If people stop making bad arguments, I'll stop writing about it.

Further, whether Sheila is brilliant or isn't brilliant has no bearing on the arguments she's made. She hasn't made a good argument for her position. She, and several others, have made bad arguments. I've pointed that out.

Lastly, you're creating a false dichotomy. I can post in this thread as I've been doing and at the same time be happy. Indeed, I am.

This thread was over a couple of days ago, then posters such as Sjdjdjdjdjddj came back attempting to do damage control. The pattern is plain to see. But people recognize truth when they see it, and recognize BS artists. More posts by those like Sjdjdjdjdjddj dig the hole deeper for themselves and show just how upset they are at getting called out on their indefensible positions.

It sounds like we agree that the mile is not normally run. Furthermore, if a standard distance doesn't make something more relevant, the fact that the mile is not run actually supports my point. It's pretty easy to measure off 9 meters, but it's not done. This is strong evidence that running a "full" mile is not relevant anymore.

Your last sentence doesn't fit reality. Is the 440y distance more relevant than the 400 meters? Is the 880y distance more relevant than the 880m distance? Is the 100y distance more relevant than the 100m distance?

Your last sentence is a conclusory statement that runs contrary to the what concede earlier in the thread. Specifically, you concede that the mile is not run consistently anywhere but MA, or when the 4 minute barrier actually still serves as a barrier, mainly when a high schooler is trying to break it. other than these two instances, the mile is a novelty run at a couple meets for nostalgic reasons.

I'll make one final point on this because I have real world issues to deal with today. I think those changing the race have the burden of justifying the change. The justification given here is to play to the general public's sense of history (i.e., nostalgia) regarding the 4 minute mile barrier. That barrier has no real significance today as illustrated by the fact it's harder to be an all-american today than it is to break the 4 minute barrier. The 4 minute barrier has no significance to women's competition, and there is an equivalent barrier for women in the 1500m. So, I'm not really sure why Sheila's initial post was controversial. People are calling here whiny and a "victim", but I see a lot of "victimization" being suggested by her "opponents" in this thread.

She's the same person who only made the Olympics because she and her camp whined so much that AC ignored its standards and sent her anyways.

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

yup........ wrote:

Since it looks like Phoebe Wright and others are reading this thread, you rock PW, calling it like it is:

https://twitter.com/Phe800/status/678956447682584576

She's creating a false equivalence.

The main reason why Sheila's tweet got more attention is that while both essentially made the same claim, Sheila did so in an accusatory manner, i.e., implying that this change is discrimination against women, and even more bizarrely, injected an anti-white, anti-old element into it later on. And people rightly pointed that out. On the other hand, Ben merely laid out out the case without the SJW verbiage.

Another reason why Sheila's tweet got more attention is that hers was was a tweet to her followers, while Ben's was a reply to someone else's tweet, i.e., more buried and seen by less people.

What's your mile PR?

I screwed up my last user name. But how am I doing damage control? I just chimed in when I realized that you guys have been wastin so much time trying to win the internet - an I winnable fight.

It really was just for your benefit. I have no dog in this fight other than I generally find Ms Reid quite amusing.

So here's my take.

I'm a passionate, knowledgeable fan of T&F. I find it as exciting to see a male chase 3:26 in the 1500m as chasing 3:43 in the 1mi. Just as I find it exciting to watch a woman chase 3:50 in the 1500m or 4:12 in the 1mi. Sure i'm talking world records, and world records that aren't often approached.

Barrier discussion

So what about more relevant "barriers". A 4 minute mile for men is not a meaningful competitive mark anymore as pointed out a hundred times in this thread, too many people break it for it to be a meaningful competitive barrier.

But it is still a meaningful personal and publicly relatable barrier, I will never approach running a 4 minute mile in my life, but I have a few friends who have/will and it's not arguable that it's relatable when you hear someone can run a sub 4 minute mile, whether you're a track fan or not. It's more relatable than explaining to a fringe T&F fan that a friend has run 3:39 in the 1500, which is generally accepted to be the equivalent to well under 4 minutes for the mile.

So what about the 4 min 1500m for women? I jumped off my couch when I watched Jenny Barringer break 4 for the first time and tried to explain to my wife what a big deal it was. Hopefully many more collegiate women break 4 minutes in the 1500m in the future, it would be great for competition within the sport. The fact is though that even if it's a meaningful personal barrier, or mid-level competitive barrier, it's not a publicly relatable barrier. A fringe-track fan or potential new fan is not going to relate to it in any meaningful way.

Distance discussion

But let's think about outside the scope of barriers. What's a 1500 meter race? It's 3.75 laps, which is convenient for race staging (since apparently pros can't handle waterfall starts), it's ~0.93 miles. It's 1.875 times longer than an 800 meter race. In other words it's an arbitrary distance that's pretty close a a mile. Admittedly, it's a distance they happen to run in the olympic games and in the world championships. This is significant to be fair.

What is a mile race? To the average American it's 4 laps around your local high school track, we all know it's ~4.0225. To the average American it's a distance that superhumans run in less than 4 minutes. It is easier for the non-fanatic track fan to digest what is impressive in a mile race than it is to digest what is impressive in a 1500m race. Your garmin probably shows your distance in miles, your car reads miles per hour, your fitbit estimates distance walked in miles, you join the mile high club, Denver is the mile high city, you beat your friend "by a mile" when you drunkenly raced after drinks at the bar, you run beer miles. Sure a mile is 5,280 somewhat arbitrary feet, but it's a distance which is well-seasoned in the American culture, rich with connotations (nostalgic and recent) that make it a more relevant/digestible distance. Even if 4 minutes isn't a significant barrier anymore, it's interesting how far under the men go and how close to 4 minutes women get.

My Conclusions/Final Ramblings

Moving from the 1500 to the mile is not going to change the world, it's not going to make T&F as well loved in America as football, or even hockey. But I do think it's a very small step in the right direction towards public digestibility of a struggling sport and that small steps in the right direction matter. I'll also concede that "the right direction" can change. Down the road moving back to the 1500 could be the right move, with the right combination of factors.

I understand where the perception of a sexist bias could come from. There's blatant sexism, unintentional but real sexism, and then conflation of perceived sexism. For me this issue might sit somewhere between unintentional but real sexism and conflation of perceived sexism. The reason I'm not compelled to say we should stay with the 1500 instead of move to the mile is that I don't think there's convincing evidence that there are actually negative affects for women's T&F of moving to the mile. I would argue that the known 4 minute barrier in the mile, which women aren't currently threatening to break still provides valuable context for would be T&F fans to understand what they're seeing.

One last thing...training for the mile and training for the 1500 are equivalent, can we please stop with that argument?

That's it, i'm done rambling!

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

I can post in this thread as I've been doing and at the same time be happy. Indeed, I am.

Relax, brother. The PC nuts always try to shut down the discussion when they're asked for facts. And when their "facts" are proven to be nothing but a bunch of lies, they want people to disregard the facts but nevertheless accept their "substantial" arguments that are built upon these lies. Hypocrites will never change.

Even if you didn't win the Internet, you won this discussion.

reader of reader otf 2.0 wrote:

reader of the forums 2.0 wrote:

I can post in this thread as I've been doing and at the same time be happy. Indeed, I am.

Relax, brother. The PC nuts always try to shut down the discussion when they're asked for facts. And when their "facts" are proven to be nothing but a bunch of lies, they want people to disregard the facts but nevertheless accept their "substantial" arguments that are built upon these lies. Hypocrites will never change.

Even if you didn't win the Internet, you won this discussion.

If repeating the line 'A naughty girl said something bad about 'old white dudes' and it made me cry' over and over again over the course of a week is 'winning a discussion', chapeau to you sir, undisputed champ.

Have not read a bit of this thread but I'm with sheila - NCAA should run whatever the WC and OG runs - I don't see a good enough reason to make changes.

agip wrote:

Have not read a bit of this thread but I'm with sheila - NCAA should run whatever the WC and OG runs - I don't see a good enough reason to make changes.

Why stop there? Push the 1500m down to high school. Ruin the early freshman phenom's shot at a walk-off sub 5 and the stellar girl's shot at sub 5.

Liberals love spoiling the party in favor of their definition of fair.

No, it's not strong evidence that the mile is not relevant.

You're merely saying what you previously implied, i.e., because the mile is not a standard event, it is not relevant.

It is not the case that an event not being a standard event makes it not relevant. It doesn't matter what the reasons for it not being a standard event are. The standard event at the high school, NCAA outdoor track, and US national championships could be changed to 1323 meters, but that would not make it more relevant than the 1500 meters (the current "standard" event).

The mile is more relevant in the US because the US is not a metric country.

In the United States, they are. Similarly, the 2 mile is more relevant than the 3000 is in the United States.

But those events are not official IAAF events where a world record is recognized. The mile is.

No it doesn't.

The fact that the mile is not run as often does not contradict the claim that "It never stopped being more relevant than the 1500 meters."

Again, it is not the case that an event not being a standard event makes it not relevant.

No, that is not the case.

The four minute barrier had nothing to do with it. Here a quote from the actual proposal:

"Everyone has run a Mile, for time, at some point in their life. To allow the audience to experience and watch our top collegiate men and women running that same Mile will not only increase interest in the sport, but it will also inspire the next generation of athletes, audience and TV marketers."

It does not follow that because it is more difficult to do some other thing, that therefore, this less difficult thing is not significant.

Further, again, the proposal had nothing to do with the 4 minute barrier. So this is an irrelevant objection.

Again, the proposal had nothing to do with the 4 minute barrier.

Further, the 4 minute 1500 can't be regarded as a barrier for women any more than the 3:30 1500 for men is. Indeed, men have gotten closer to breaking 3:30 in NCAA competition than women have to breaking 4:00 in NCAA competition.

And neither are remotely close. There is no special draw to see this.

Because she implied that this change is discrimination against women, and even more bizarrely, injected an anti-white, anti-old element into it later on.

People on the internet saying stupid sh!t anonymously.

I agree that the 1500 should be the universal championship distance (except indoors due to the awkward start on a 200m track), but Sheila making ad hominem attacks is just crass.

One woman who should embrace the mile is Dibaba: she can be the first woman under 4:10. Maybe Sheila can rabbit by starting at the 1500m mark ;)