Runners in high school always tend to call the 1600 meter run "the mile." Is this okay, since one mile is actually 1,609 meters, and is there reason to be picky about this term?
Runners in high school always tend to call the 1600 meter run "the mile." Is this okay, since one mile is actually 1,609 meters, and is there reason to be picky about this term?
This post was removed.
Your time for the 1600 is literally the exact same as "the mile" considering reaction time, running around people, moving into second lane, and all the things associated with a race. When someone says they ran a mile in 5:00 and it's actually the 1600, on ideal conditions you can assume it's the same time or maybe even faster.
As a conclusion: it doesn't matter.
A mile is just a 1600 with a running start.
the ban man IS SAD MAN wrote:
Your time for the 1600 is literally the exact same as "the mile" considering reaction time, running around people, moving into second lane, and all the things associated with a race. When someone says they ran a mile in 5:00 and it's actually the 1600, on ideal conditions you can assume it's the same time or maybe even faster.
As a conclusion: it doesn't matter.
If someone ran a 3:59:59 1600, would you say they were a sub-4 miler? I wouldn't.
Yeah, cooper tears ran 3:58 1600 but is not a sub 4 miler. RIP
I guess it doesn't matter the Peter Snell ran a true mile in the early 1960s in 3:54.4 on GRASS either.
End of story.
There is a difference---usage
The IAAF ratifies World Records at the mile distance. 1600 meters is not interchangeable with mile BUT in todays world of 400 meter tracks casual usage by Americans is four laps is a mile, two laps is a half mile and one lap is a quarter mile. If you claim a PR or speak of a specific time you should make the distinction mile or meters,
As much as I dislike the nonsense term full mile (do we relly have unfull miles scattered around somewhere?) it means the race distance was a mile and start and finish were adjusted to cover the exact mile distance not just 4 laps of a 400m track.
HS federations should have gone to the 1500 in the 1970s and 1980s as tracks tracks were converted to the 400meter configuration.
the ban man IS SAD MAN wrote:
Your time for the 1600 is literally the exact same as "the mile" considering reaction time, running around people, moving into second lane, and all the things associated with a race. When someone says they ran a mile in 5:00 and it's actually the 1600, on ideal conditions you can assume it's the same time or maybe even faster.
As a conclusion: it doesn't matter.
Who says todays education is failing and critical thinking is a lost art?
It depends on who you are talking to. Talking to a casual runner (or non runner) that doesnt know the difference? Say mile.... it makes no difference
Talking to someone that whole heartily knows the difference? Say 160