Explain why high schoolers race 1600 and not 1500

not their choice wrote:

Explain wrote:

Explain why high schoolers race 1600 and not 1500

You understand that high school runners don't really choose which event to run, right? High school runners race the 1600m because that is the event that is contested at high school meets. They would be DQed if they ran the 1500m instead.

No sh!t, what makes you think he doesn't understand that? Thanks captain obvious.

In most states 1600 is used vs. 1500 because it's close enough to a mile that you can call it "the mile" and everyone in the US understands running a mile.

actually Iowa Girls Basketball was 3 on Offense and 3 on defense. Then they switched to the other half of the court after a score. Weird......That has changed to 5 on 5 now.

This highlights one of my favorite stories from High School track. Our coach, on our original dirt track always had run the 1500 and 3000 at dual meets for the reason that it matched the college and international races. Once, we had a visiting team where the coach threw a royal hissy-fit that we weren't running the 1600 and 3200. Finally, our coach gave in and we ran 4 and 8 laps that day. Only, he didn't tell the visiting coach that the track was actually a 440yd oval that remained from the 60's, he had just chalked everything for the modern distances. So, we started at the finish line and ran the mile and 2-mile that day. Our coach said, "at least we will run a real distance" instead of the 16/32...

Your coach is a jerk....1600 and 32 00 are easily compared to the mile and the two mile.

The people who brought you the 1600 and 3200 races are the same people think it's a good idea to keep elite athletes such as Mondo Duplantis from competing in events like the Texas relays.

This has been asks many time in this board. The 1500m came out of convenience. Before 400m became the standard many were varied lengths and many 500m which made three laps an easy race option. So obviously that is wher the 1600 developed as well with the 400m standard track. Four laps just makes it convenient. Remember that 20+ years ago many track were still cinder (some still are) and lines had to be painted every meet creating an easy environment for mistakes.

78hh wrote:

Your coach is a jerk....1600 and 32 00 are easily compared to the mile and the two mile.

No, the mile is a historical distance, the 1600 is a lazy version of a real distance. In case you ever get to run a national championship race, you will find that they run a mile (not the lazy mile or 1600), check the NCAA indoor results, check the Penn Relays, check the NB indoor and out door Nat's, check the Brooks PR results, see a pattern there?

The 1600 is Lazy!

That's what we get for being one of three countries not using the metric system. The other two are Liberia and Myanmar.

The English gave us this arcane system of units, then switched to metric. They're laughing at us now.

blort wrote:

1600 and 3200 are odd distance for countries who use the metric system - where these distances came from (a pretty long time ago).

You can ask why they run 400 and 800 instead of 500 and 1000 for the same reason.

So a 400m race on a 400m track is odd? Really? And a 2 lap race on a 400m track is odd? Really? Just because the number is not multiple of 500 doesn't make it an odd distance.

Running multiples of laps is correct.

Running 3.75 laps is odd.

miles ryun wrote:

No, the mile is a historical distance, the 1600 is a lazy version of a real distance. In case you ever get to run a national championship race, you will find that they run a mile (not the lazy mile or 1600), check the NCAA indoor results, check the Penn Relays, check the NB indoor and out door Nat's, check the Brooks PR results, see a pattern there?

The 1600 is Lazy!

The 400m is just a lazy quarter.

The 800m is just a lazy half.

You are an idiot.

Explain2 wrote:

Schools keep 1600 records separate from mile records. Lil Jonny 2018 runs 4:20 and holds the school 1600 record. The mile record is still 4:15 from 1975 but nobody talks about that.

Not sure what school records you are looking at, but every school around here converts between imperial and metric records. My school 800m record is held by a guy who ran the half in the 70's. His time was converted and there is a little footnote to explain this. The quarter/4, mile/16, and 2-mile/32 records have all been been broken, but in our top 10 list the previous imperial converted time is listed with a footnote.

Most schools in my area do this. Actually not many imperial records are still around in my area.

The mile/15 and 2 mile/3 would be much more difficult to convert and not as accurate.

If everyone just followed the lead of the greatest state in the nation (Massachusetts) then HS meets would compete at the 1 mile and 2 mile. I really don't think it's hard to run an extra 2 stripes on the oval to have a 1 mile and 2 mile start line. It's seems disingenuous to the kids competing.

So, by your logic wrote:

miles ryun wrote:

No, the mile is a historical distance, the 1600 is a lazy version of a real distance. In case you ever get to run a national championship race, you will find that they run a mile (not the lazy mile or 1600), check the NCAA indoor results, check the Penn Relays, check the NB indoor and out door Nat's, check the Brooks PR results, see a pattern there?

The 1600 is Lazy!

The 400m is just a lazy quarter.

The 800m is just a lazy half.

You are an idiot.

No, the 800 and 400 are pretty legit distances. The Mile is a standard for distance runners all over the world. They even run the mile in Europe at major meets because breaking the 4 minute barrier means something. No where in the world do they run a 1600 (and 3200) except in the US, at the HS level. It is just lazy.

miles ryun wrote:

No, the 800 and 400 are pretty legit distances. The Mile is a standard for distance runners all over the world. .

Please, enlighten me with your amazing intellect: how exactly are 400m and 800m legit distances but you call the 1600 a lazy mile? You really need to work on your logic, sista'.

The quarter and the half were just as standard as the mile before Imperial countries converted to metric tracks. The 2-mile and 3-mile was, too.

The fact is US high school is playing by its own rules with 1600 and 3200. Rediculo!

The US HS system and imperial measurements aside, the problem is that back in the day, apparently, there were discrepancies over whether standard tracks would be 400m or 500m. With a 500m track, 500m, 1k, 1500m, 5000m, etc., would have made sense. With a 400m track, it would be more logical to go 400, 800, 1600, etc. But no one took control of the situation and so we are where we are today. It was before the internets, remember.

Nope Nope Nope wrote:

Because 1609m doesn't make sense on a 400m track. It's not that hard, people. Take the English distances that used to be run, then find the whole number metric distances that closely match them on a 400m track: 440yds becomes 400m, 880yds becoomes 800m, mile becomes 1600m, 2 mile becoomes 3200m.

It really isn't that difficult, people. Any way you look at it the 1500m is the odd man out.

Doesn't make sense?

Well, almost every single world class and college mile is run on a 400m track, including all of the mile records in the last half century.

Somehow it made sense to do it for all of those races but it doesn't make sense to throw down an extra start line for US high school track?

Star wrote:

Nope Nope Nope wrote:

Because 1609m doesn't make sense on a 400m track. It's not that hard, people. Take the English distances that used to be run, then find the whole number metric distances that closely match them on a 400m track: 440yds becomes 400m, 880yds becoomes 800m, mile becomes 1600m, 2 mile becoomes 3200m.

It really isn't that difficult, people. Any way you look at it the 1500m is the odd man out.

Doesn't make sense?

Well, almost every single world class and college mile is run on a 400m track, including all of the mile records in the last half century.

Somehow it made sense to do it for all of those races but it doesn't make sense to throw down an extra start line for US high school track?

It is just pure laziness, only Massachusetts seems to have enough paint to add a mile and a 2 mile line on their HS and college tracks. Have watched a track meet or two in Massachusetts, never saw anyone trip over those extra lines either.

Star wrote:

Somehow it made sense to do it for all of those races but it doesn't make sense to throw down an extra start line for US high school track?

Why stop at one extra line? Add a quarter mile line, a half mile line, a mile line, a two mile line, a three mile line, a six mile line. I mean if you are refusing to switch to metric, just go all in.

The possibilities are endless and it wouldn't be confusing at all. Oh, and you'll need to add some split lines, too. You can use the imperial start lines for some of the race splits, but you'll have to add a 3/4 mile split line, a 1.25 mile split line, a 1.5 mile split line, a 1.75 mile split line, a 2.25 mile split line, a 2.5 mile split line, a 2.75 mile split line, a 3.25 mile split line, a 3.5 mile split line, a 3.75 mile split line, a 4 mile split line, a 4.25 mile split line, a 4.5 mile split line, a 4.75 mile split line, a 5 mile split line, a 5.25 mile split line, a 5.5 mile split line, and last (but not least) a 5.75 mile split line.

No prob at all.

IMPERIAL DISTANCES ON A METRIC TRACK MAKE NO SENSE!!!!!!!!!