1500/3000 wouldn't work, because most high school coaches are too stupid to figure out the starts, and too lazy to walk back and forth. Also most high school kids are out of shape and can't run for more than a minute, so they prefer really short stuff.
In America most tracks use the metric system, 400m size tracks. So, instead of using distance that are conventional in metric they do 1600m and 3200m. If you are going do this why not just use the 440y distance track to just make it a mile and two miles? Also, what are your thoughts if they added 5000m and 10000m to high school meets?
The real question is why does the rest of the world run races that are 3.75 laps and 7.5 laps. We run on 400m tracks, races shouldn't be shortened just to have a number ending in "00." 1500 and 3000 makes no sense.
When it comes to the 5000, I loved running it in high school, but it is too long for the average high school meet. Most meets got rid of it in the late 90's.
America needs to go back to running the mile and two mile if you want to increase the popularity of track and field. I ran HS track in the 70's and you might be amazed how popular track and field was compared to today. Prefontaine was a major star. Once the US decided to convert to metric you lost many Americans. No one cares about the 1500, look at how few Americans even know Centrowitz won the "metric" mile in 2016 in the Olympics.
Pre and the other stars of old, in my opinion, were stars because of their personalities. They were more than just cookie-cutter interview responses and fast times. IMO, track needs some personality if it's ever going to be popular again. Sha'Carri Richardson, Nick Symmonds, Craig Engels, Usain Bolt etc. etc. draw criticism for a variety of reasons and aren't the fastest athletes (except for Bolt, out of those examples), but they all market themselves or are unique in some way that garners them higher exposure and therefore garners the sport more exposure. I'm not saying every athlete needs to sell out, dance post race, wear fake nails and tattoo brands on their bodies, but there's too many who by design or by accident just sound like Galen Rupp in interviews and don't give people any reason to be invested in them or the sport as a whole.
This is such a stupid debate because 1600 and 3200 are the obvious and sensible middle distances for a 400 meter track. They are the binary progression after 800 meters. And they are the closest metric approximation to the old mile, much easier and more reliable to convert.
1500 is a better metric standard why? So you can take splits every 500 meters? Many coaches are too fat to roam around yelling splits from different places.
After 3200, that should be it. No 10,000 and no 5,000, both are jokes.
Bad Wigins is right in this case. 3.75 laps is just stupid, and 7.5 is a little better, but not ideal.
Two laps for the "half mile", Four laps for the "mile", and 8 laps for "2 mile". Logically it is the best solution if we stick with 400m tracks.
Now personally, I'd like to see 500m tracks and then we can easily do 1500, 3000, etc, but the 800 would have to change to a 1000.
Few schools would have the space available to expand a track to 500 meters. It’s easy to get 400m splits for the 1500/3000m so there is no problem to fix.
I asked an official in Maryland about this 20 years ago. His response was that it was too inconvenient to have the start and finish at different spots. When I asked about the 100, 110H, 200, and 300H they run he just turned and walked away from me.
As someone who has been involved in organizing and putting on track meets at multiple levels the changing start lines are only an issue when the timers and the starter are struggling. I think it would cause many more problems at the dual meet level (or at a poorly managed invitational) than it would at a well run meet like Arcadia or a state championship. Considering the typical meet schedule where the 3200 follows the 200 adding a 3000 would not even add an additional start line move.
I am personally have no problem with the 1600 and 3200 meter distances but that may be a product of growing up in an era and location where they were the norm. However, at the middle school level (USATF Junior Olympics) I ran the 1500 and 3000 and there were no issues there either. I think the lack of consistency between different states and different levels of competition can be confusing for the athletes when they are trying to compare times with their peers or with old records from bygone eras.
The 5000/10000 would be a bad idea as standard HS distances. As many posters have mentioned they would add a huge amount of time to already long meets. I have to say that even as a former 3200 guy it is pretty brutal to have to watch kids running 15 minute 3200s at a dual meet. Imagine that 15 minute 3200 athlete in a 5000, let alone a 10000. Cross country is different because there are fewer races to complete in a given meet and spectators are there specifically to watch a distance running event. All that being said, the 5000 is a great event at the HS level under specific circumstances. I ran in one of the two editions of the 5000 at Arcadia and it was an incredible experience. I believe that the fans enjoyed it as much as the athletes based on the noise level during the race. In a setting where it brings together a group of talented kids who are going to run fast and be competitive the 5000 is great, but not at most meets.
This is such a stupid debate because 1600 and 3200 are the obvious and sensible middle distances for a 400 meter track. They are the binary progression after 800 meters. And they are the closest metric approximation to the old mile, much easier and more reliable to convert.
1500 is a better metric standard why? So you can take splits every 500 meters? Many coaches are too fat to roam around yelling splits from different places.
After 3200, that should be it. No 10,000 and no 5,000, both are jokes.
Bad Wigins is right in this case. 3.75 laps is just stupid, and 7.5 is a little better, but not ideal.
Two laps for the "half mile", Four laps for the "mile", and 8 laps for "2 mile". Logically it is the best solution if we stick with 400m tracks.
Now personally, I'd like to see 500m tracks and then we can easily do 1500, 3000, etc, but the 800 would have to change to a 1000.
I can't tell if this is satire or real. If Satire, well done.
It was much easier for track athletes to get noticed during Prefontaine days as track meets were regularly on television at a time there were only 3 channels. Few Americans understand the metric system and TV quickly lost interest in Showing meets once the conversion to Metrics happened. The interest in America is about 10% what it was before the conversion.
10ks and 5ks are too much. High School bodies are still young, and they would have to increase their training to deal with those distances on a regular basis.
Leave everything as is. That extra 100 to 300 meters helps, and they make their way to running longer distances in college.
But all the distance runners are already running the 5k for xc so why not let them do it on the track
How many high school track meets have you sat through on a Wednesday evening? The girls 3200 is already agonizing enough waiting for a few runners that have been lapped several times to finish. And while we are at it, let's eliminate blocks for non-varsity races.
1500/3000 wouldn't work, because most high school coaches are too stupid to figure out the starts, and too lazy to walk back and forth. Also most high school kids are out of shape and can't run for more than a minute, so they prefer really short stuff.
Our state does the 1500/3000. It works perfectly.
This isn’t the biggest issue in the sport, but efforts at those distances are largely ignored in national comparisons. What did someone run in the 1500 or 3000 in HS? Almost no one cares. What did someone run in the 1600, 3200 or mile? Everyone knows exactly what that means.
This isn’t the biggest issue in the sport, but efforts at those distances are largely ignored in national comparisons. What did someone run in the 1500 or 3000 in HS? Almost no one cares. What did someone run in the 1600, 3200 or mile? Everyone knows exactly what that means.
We run 1500/3000 in our state.
I had a friend in college that was recruited from another country that ran 3:41 at age 17 back in the early 90’s.
I asked an official in Maryland about this 20 years ago. His response was that it was too inconvenient to have the start and finish at different spots. When I asked about the 100, 110H, 200, and 300H they run he just turned and walked away from me.
Wrong. Look at the order of events pal. The blocks start at the 300m point for the hurdles and 100. Then they and the starter move to the finish for 400, relays, and 16. Then the blocks and starter move to the 100 point for the 300h, then they go around to the 200. There is a reason for that order moran the starter doesn't have to keep crossing the field to start various places. It keeps the meets moving. Geeze.
The 1500m is the only event longer than 100m that doesn't require starting in lanes, due to runners already having time to adjust their position before going into the first curve.
Bad Wigins is right in this case. 3.75 laps is just stupid, and 7.5 is a little better, but not ideal.
Two laps for the "half mile", Four laps for the "mile", and 8 laps for "2 mile". Logically it is the best solution if we stick with 400m tracks.
Now personally, I'd like to see 500m tracks and then we can easily do 1500, 3000, etc, but the 800 would have to change to a 1000.
I can't tell if this is satire or real. If Satire, well done.
What’s the argument for 1500/3000 in general compared to 1600/3200? If the goal is to have the distance be a multiple of 500 rather than 400 (however arbitrary that is), then why not do 500/1000 rather than 400/800? That’s what they do in speed skating.
The argument is those are the distances that make up track and field. US high schools choose events that 99% of the world doesn't do. It would be like US high schools choosing to run 100 yards instead of 100 meters.