Since we are in USA, most people think about miles because they think of their mile pace and also when driving think about miles per hours, they dont worry about km's as much, in Europe it's opposite
Since we are in USA, most people think about miles because they think of their mile pace and also when driving think about miles per hours, they dont worry about km's as much, in Europe it's opposite
People in the USA think miles only because that's what surrounds them. If you surround them with something else, they will get used to that too. I've heard many people say things like "I'll bring a 2 liter bottle of soda". The metric system doesn't confuse them per se. Mile markers at a race ONLY make sense because we, the exhalted denizens of America, STILL haven't switched to metric like the rest of the planet. Instead, WE WHINE ABOUT IT; like people who whine about mile markers in a standard km race distance. There's nothing that says you can't have both mile and km, but of course, it would be better in the long run if we finally got up off our loathesome, spotty behinds, decided to DO something positive for upcoming generations instead of just mouthing platitudes concerning "being competitive in the 21st century", and switched to metric once and for all.
Once we swtich, only historians will ever need to know that 5280 feet make a mile or that 16 cups constitute one gallon. No child will ever need to answer questions like "How many inches are in 3/4ths of a mile?" If not for yourself, then do it for the children. Think of The Children. Mighty Zeus in heaven, DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN! We can even make little rubber wrist bands that say "I'm switching to metric FOR THE CHILDREN" and sell them for a dollar.
bulldog35 wrote:
I little off the subject, but how can you tell if a track your running on is 400 meters or 440 yards?
find the start of the 400, then see where it ends. if it ends in the same place it is a 400 meter track. or just look at the markings, do you see 440, 880...or 400,800, 1000...
does the track get used for track meets? if so it was probably changed.
i also argree with the prior poster who said if it has been re-surfaced in the last quarter century it is probably in meters.
i suspect there are very few tracks measured in yards still out there.
Also, you can go to the waterfall start at turn one. Now walk backward about 9 meters. If you see another start line (usually thin and black), that's the mile start (sometimes labeled as such). In this case, you have a 400 meter track.
"People in the USA think miles only because that's what surrounds them. If you surround them with something else, they will get used to that too"
I agree with that statement, but so what? If it ain't broke don't fix it. Miles suit the vast majority of runners just fine.
skeptic wrote:
Cite your source for this statistic.
yardage wrote: Thirty-five years of competitive running experience.
You should know better, anecdotal evidence is completely inadequate, especially since you're clearly so extremely biased/rigid.
Wrong, they need splits that they are used to. Miles.
Hah! Don't be ridiculous, no one needs any splits to run "a pace that they know by experience." They know the pace by experience, just as you say, from practicing it in training and racing not by seeing what shows up on the watch after a mile or two. I'm quite surprised that you failed to pick that up in your supposed thirty-five years of competitive running experience.
Mike Lundgren wrote:
Many Oklahoma races have 1 km splits. I loved it, plus I think there are more certified courses in OK than anywhere but California, that are still in use. Very nice racing, plus they have a great state record keeping system. OK is very progressive this way. ML
I agree -- their record keeping system is great! Even though I've grown fat and ugly, I can still Google myself and find my name on the OK state record lists, so that for a moment at least I can feel like some sort of accomplished athlete. Sweet!
yardage wrote:
In the US, people know MILES. They know their paces in miles per minute.
That's exactly correct. I think about my pace in miles per minute. Say I am on an easy run, maybe I do .13-.15 miles per minute. If I'm running a 5k on the other hand I will be around .21 miles per minute.
It is such an easy way to think...unlike the metric system I hate having to figure out what my kilometer split would have to be in a 3k, 5k, or 10k it is so hard!!!
This brings up something else. Why are we the ONLY place on the planet that has high schoolers run the 1600 and 3200? Why don't we just do the 1500/3000 like the rest of the world, OR just run the damn mile and 2 mile? Is it so hard to make a couple of start lines about 9 and 18 meters back?
Tnat matters even less. For most high schoolers, it's nothing more than an extra-curricular activity.
JimFiore wrote:
This brings up something else. Why are we the ONLY place on the planet that has high schoolers run the 1600 and 3200? Why don't we just do the 1500/3000 like the rest of the world, OR just run the damn mile and 2 mile? Is it so hard to make a couple of start lines about 9 and 18 meters back?
i suspect the answer to that question is that the 1600 and 3200 are the equiv (almost) of the mile and 2 mile. when i was in hs i ran the "mile" and "2 mile," well actually the 1600 and 3200, but i told everyone the mile and 2 mile.
i think we run those distances as they are metric, and they needed to be metric since we changed to it, but we went with those distances since they were the basic equivs of the old imperial distances. it amounts to nothing more than our holding on to the old system, but in metric.
this is also the same reason we run the 400. what is special about 400 meters? nothing. but its not 400 meters, it is a quarter mile, now that is something to race. why are we running the 800 and not the 500? same reason.
so we went metric in t and f, sort of.
the ODD thing is we kept all the metric "equals" for the quarter and half, BUT NOT for the mile? following the logic of running the 200, 400, 800 we should be running the 1600.
the 1500 is the wrong distance for us to be running based on how we decided what other distances to race.
at 1500 meters we went metric, from there on out they are logical metric numbers.
as far as i am concerned, the "metric mile" is 1600 meters.
as always, ymmv.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it"
in this case, this is wrong, this is stupid. the fact of the US's using the imperial system in 2005 definitely needs "fixed." simply because we have no discernable problems with our system (conveniently ignoring all the confusion with trying to sync up with the rest of a world that uses metric) does not mean that we cannot use some intelligence and realize that there is a far better system available for our use.
in 1850, slavery wasn't "broke" in that it served its economic purpose almost flawlessly. but of course some people finally had enough sense to end that holdout and of course we are all better off.
Two splits is fine for a 5K.
In the past century the rest of the world went metric and we didn't.
Look what happened.
We were the decisive factor in two world wars.
We developed the nuclear bomb.
We put a man on the moon.
We led the way in the computer revolution. The list goes on...
Metric is an abitrary system developed by the French.
We will eventually adopt it.
Until then, so what?
If our system was flawed, we would be failures.
When last I checked, this was not the case.
We also crashed an expensive satellite because we forgot to convert back from English to metric after our calculations. Remember that fiasco?
You also lost a space probe because someone forgot to do a conversion between the imperial units and the correct metric ones.
"You also lost a space probe because someone forgot to do a conversion between the imperial units and the correct metric ones."
Don't you hate it when that happens.
I instantly know that 6 min/mile is going to be a hard pace, but I have less of a "feel" for how hard 3:45/k is.
What percentage of people running road races in the US know the difference between 3:30 and 4:00 per kilometer?
It's dead easy to mentally convert these paces to something familiar to all of us. Multiply by 10 and you get 10K pace.
3:30/k is 35 minute 10k pace
3:45/k is 37:30 10k pace
4:00/k is 40:00 10k pace
I don't think you have to be a math genius to do these calcuations in your head almost instantly. 3:xx is in the 30s something pace. For the xx part, whatever fraction of a minute that is, multiply by 10 minutes...
For example 2:48/k is 20+48/60 = 20+ 8/10 = 28 minute 10k pace.
rick wrote:
If our system was flawed, we would be failures.
When last I checked, this was not the case.
There are plenty of specific failures as noted above, regarding our mars probe for example. There are also less noticed "failures" in that they permeate our everyday existence and become part of our "background inefficiency" such as trade with other nations. One must also remember that in the fields of sciences and engineering, almost all practitioners in the USA use the metric system. A quick example: I'm an electrical engineer. If I look up some data on a transistor (those little items that made your computer revolution possible) such as a temperature coefficient, I know it will be in metric units (per degree Centigrade in this case). As this is the case, consider how much extra work engineers have to do because they'll need to convert to/from imperial units for the consumption of the general public.
Further, the general public has no intrinsic need to use imperial units, it's just pure, unbridled laziness and inertia coupled with very short-sighted accounting on the part of certain businesses. By this I mean for example that the average Joe can't eyeball a distance with any great accuracy (and doesn't need too). If someone is golfing and they are precisely 83 yards from the pin, what sort of estimates will you hear? Same thing if I held up a partly filled pitcher of water and asked folks to tell me how much was in it. The average person doesn't care if the soda bottle is measured in quarts, ounces, liters, or Rigelian Transooms. All he knows is "This should be enough for the party" by looking at it.
It says a lot more about our culture and attitudes that we refuse to accept the standard used by the rest of the planet, particularly when that standard is easier to use. We are presented with a system that will simplify things yet we cling to an outmoded, unwieldy system simply because it's the way we've always done it. That's just dumb.
Of course, if by "we" you meant the country as a whole, there are several ways to interpret that, some of which have nothing to do with our choice of measurement units, so it's an empty claim.
skeptic wrote:
You should know better, anecdotal evidence is completely inadequate, especially since you're clearly so extremely biased/rigid.
If my goal was to publish a thesis, you might have a point. I have no need to cite a statistic no one has ever bothered to college when my contacts with racers from high school, college, running clubs and road racers over many hears have made this point clear:
Americans know miles. They prefer miles.
Sorry, that's just the way it is. If you have a problem with that, maybe you can get Congress to fully embrace the metric system. In the meantime, don't blame me for reporting what anyone with any experience out there already knows. You are clearly biased and rigid as well.
Hah! Don't be ridiculous, no one needs any splits to run "a pace that they know by experience." They know the pace by experience, just as you say, from practicing it in training and racing not by seeing what shows up on the watch after a mile or two. I'm quite surprised that you failed to pick that up in your supposed thirty-five years of competitive running experience.
Most people DO need splits. From a weekend warrior to the world record holder. The top racers in the world both on road and track use splits. Gebrsellasie, Tergat, Bekele, etc. They know their pace by experience but they still need and use the splits, whether they are in miles or km. Are you surprised at them too? I'm sure they'll be so disappointed.