Mile / 1,600 / 1,500: Which ??

[trackjc]

WHICH ARE THE BETTER EVENTS FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL DISTANCE RUNNERS:

MILE / TWO MILE
1,600 / 3,200
1,500 / 3,000

What to do you think should be run?

[Mr. Electric Ocean]

to me the 1500/3000 makes the most sense..

[trackjc]

Why does it make the most sense?

[jaylie]

1500/3000, but it will take time to get used to and understnad what is a good time or not.

[Wizardx]

Mile and two mile so we can brag to our peers.

[FMCCDiablo]

I think the 1500m and 3000m would make the most sense for high school runners to run, because the events you later run on in college and professional are: 1500, 3000, 5000, and 10000. We might as well start now. Also, we should run 1500m and 3000m, because we mainly run 5000m in Cross Country (atleast in big meets ex: district, region, state, footlocker). So I think we should just run the distances we will be running later on in our running careers, and then we won't have to make the transition.

[Oh yeah!]

i like americanized metric

1600 3200 gets my vote

[watchout]

16/32 got my vote, too. :) just because it's better.

[runneronfire]

16/32 is kind of pointless, becuase the only time its run is in american high schools. While it is annoying when friends ask you what your mile time is and all you have is a 1500, i still like 1500/3000 the most. The rest of the world does it, as does college and pro, and the start on the 1500 is in a cool place. The mile is a classic race though, and should be done occasionally.

[Shen Rules]

16/32 is kind of pointless, becuase the only time its run is in american high schools.


Pointless to whom? Professionals looking at HS times?

You should understand 99.9% of the people running these races will not be talking to people who know what a 1500 is.

[OneMoreRunner]

About the transition thing though... is it really a brutal transition going from the 3200 to the 3000? No. It's not. That being said I voted 1500/3000 anyways, because the 1600/3200 is just rediculous, we should either go full on mile/two mile or do what everyone else does.

[2317]

I vote 16/32. I think it makes the most sense. for the 1600, it is 4 laps. Thats all. Not some crazy 3 3/4 laps. I mean, i think the metric system is great and all, but the 1600 is basically a mile so it has some significance there, and it just seems better to run 4 laps around the track. More pure somehow.

[Wizardx]

I vote 16/32. I think it makes the most sense. for the 1600, it is 4 laps. Thats all. Not some crazy 3 3/4 laps. I mean, i think the metric system is great and all, but the 1600 is basically a mile so it has some significance there, and it just seems better to run 4 laps around the track. More pure somehow.

But who cares how long it takes you to run 4 laps? Why not 5 laps? Why not 3 laps? 4 is used because it is close to that of the mile...so why not just use the mile?

[VoidSix]

Because for a mile you would have to stagger the start back 10 meters.

I think 1500's, 3000's, miles and two miles are stupid. If you are going to have those, make tracks that support them in a lap system. 1600 = 4 laps exactly, not 3 3/4, or 4.05 laps. If you are going to race a 1500, why not use a 300m or a 500m track?

If you are going to race the mile/2mile, why not use a track that divides the laps evenly?

It's like playing a game of checkers on a chess board--it can work, but that's not what it was meant for.


16/32

[Wizardx]

Because for a mile you would have to stagger the start back 10 meters.

I think 1500's, 3000's, miles and two miles are stupid. If you are going to have those, make tracks that support them in a lap system. 1600 = 4 laps exactly, not 3 3/4, or 4.05 laps. If you are going to race a 1500, why not use a 300m or a 500m track?

If you are going to race the mile/2mile, why not use a track that divides the laps evenly?

It's like playing a game of checkers on a chess board--it can work, but that's not what it was meant for.


16/32

Have you ever heard of sprinters? Well, yea, they're kind of important to track too.

[SwiperTheFox]

Because for a mile you would have to stagger the start back 10 meters.

I think 1500's, 3000's, miles and two miles are stupid. If you are going to have those, make tracks that support them in a lap system. 1600 = 4 laps exactly, not 3 3/4, or 4.05 laps. If you are going to race a 1500, why not use a 300m or a 500m track?

If you are going to race the mile/2mile, why not use a track that divides the laps evenly?

It's like playing a game of checkers on a chess board--it can work, but that's not what it was meant for.


16/32

Because you can't put a football field inside a 300m track! :eek:

[SwiperTheFox]

Because for a mile you would have to stagger the start back 10 meters.

I think 1500's, 3000's, miles and two miles are stupid. If you are going to have those, make tracks that support them in a lap system. 1600 = 4 laps exactly, not 3 3/4, or 4.05 laps. If you are going to race a 1500, why not use a 300m or a 500m track?

If you are going to race the mile/2mile, why not use a track that divides the laps evenly?

It's like playing a game of checkers on a chess board--it can work, but that's not what it was meant for.


16/32

Seriously, though, think about it this way: there is not a track size which will yield an even number of laps for every metric race. So the same argument you use against the 1500/3000 can be used against you for the 5k/10k. If you go to 500m tracks, the 400/800 makes no sense.

In this context the old 440y tracks made the most sense with distances of 440, 880, mile, 2M, 3M, 6M.

[nurunner614]

It's like playing a game of checkers on a chess board--it can work, but that's not what it was meant for.

is there really a difference between a checkers board and chess board?

Oh and i vote 1500/3000 bc in college and for pro thats what you run. And I agree with running the mile occasionaly, maybe at some big time meets bc of how much of an historic race it is.

[Wizardx]

is there really a difference between a checkers board and chess board?


HAHAHA. Pwned...literally.

[pcrunner17]

I voted 1600/3200, and I'll still brag to my peers that those times are my mile/2 mile times.

[Wizardx]

I voted 1600/3200, and I'll still brag to my peers that those times are my mile/2 mile times.

Sure, if you wanna go to hell.

[TI83]

though i wouldn't have any objections to running the mile/2mile as opposed to the 1600/3200 we run here in illinois, it seems pointless to change it to the 1500/3000. i know that it's what everyone else is doing but honestly, how many high school runners go on the run pro/world class? not a very high percentage so why change something that's only hurting a small small percent of the highschool running population?

[pcrunner17]

Sure, if you wanna go to hell.

As long as you don't tip them off, Wizard, they'll never know.

[pcrunner17]

Seriously, though, think about it this way: there is not a track size which will yield an even number of laps for every metric race. So the same argument you use against the 1500/3000 can be used against you for the 5k/10k. If you go to 500m tracks, the 400/800 makes no sense.

In this context the old 440y tracks made the most sense with distances of 440, 880, mile, 2M, 3M, 6M.

The 400/800 already makes no sense. Why did we pick those distances? Probably because they are 1/4 and 1/2 of a 1600 Meter race. I'm not 100% sure where the Void guy was going with that Checkers/Chess thing, but he does have a point about the tracks.

[Mark_WAHale]

I personally like 16/32 the best - makes it easier to analyze a race

but I vote for 15/30 - go with the standard to make comparisons

[2317]

Really, the whole system doesn't make any sense. We should either switch to pure metric with a 500m track and run the 500 and 1000 instead of the 4/8 and then run 1500 3000 etc, or we should use american and run 4/8/16/32. It doesn't make sense to have both. And since most the tracks in the world are set at 400m, it makes more sense to change the length of the race than change the length of the tracks.

[Sully 800]

football fields would fit much better inside a 500m track....many football stadiums today don't put tracks around their field because it doesn't allow them to be as wide....however a 500m track would probably solve that problem. :)

[milerkick]

football fields would fit much better inside a 500m track....many football stadiums today don't put tracks around their field because it doesn't allow them to be as wide....however a 500m track would probably solve that problem. :)

Sure and then we can push the bleachers out in the street.

[Distance4Life]

lol, yea bleachers would definitly be a problem if the track was extended. What's really weird is that Oregon runs the 1500 and the 3000 while all of the other states (that i know of) run the 1600 and 3200. I'd havew to go with 1500/3000 cause that's what college does.

[laxcrunner]

I don't really think it matters either way, it's not hard to convert 1500-1600 or even full mile times, same as it isn't hard to convert 3000-3200-2 mile add about 36,37 seconds onto a 3k time for the 3200 time and another 2 seconds after that make up for the extra 18 meters, and 16 or 17 seconds on to a 1500 to make a 1600 and another second for full mile, i like running 1600 3200 just cause it's easier to figure out but i'd be fine running full mile and 2 mile

[78Champ]

I don't really think it matters either way, it's not hard to convert 1500-1600 or even full mile times, same as it isn't hard to convert 3000-3200-2 mile add about 36,37 seconds onto a 3k time for the 3200 time and another 2 seconds after that make up for the extra 18 meters, and 16 or 17 seconds on to a 1500 to make a 1600 and another second for full mile, i like running 1600 3200 just cause it's easier to figure out but i'd be fine running full mile and 2 mile
Obviously, it is much more difficult then you think. The accepted conversion from 3200m to 2 miles is no where near 2 seconds. Nor is the 1600m to mile conversion 1 second.

JW

[aviatorshades12]

Hmm ever think of just running. Just quit whining and run the race.

[Biscuit_AQ]

People act like its rocket surgery to take splits in a 1500 or 3000.

[luv2run]

Rocket surgery ... haha.

[BroeJob_5K]

considering, the rest of the world, including colleget US and elete use 1500 3000, i think all should be that. Mile/Twomile, is a rather odd distance if you think about it, there is no formality to it, its 1609 meters, kindof dumb if you ask me... 1500 and 3000 makes the most sence.

[luv2run]

I agree with your content, if not your grammer/punctuation.

[tb1223]

1600 and 3200 definitely make plenty of sense. the 100, 200, 400 and 800 are all standard events, so it would only seem logical to keep doubling the distance. if there were more 440y tracks around, then my vote would be for the full mile/2 mile, but since 400 meter tracks are the reality of today's world, i have to go with 1600 and 3200.

[CrossTrack]

1600? 9 meters short of a mile, and 100 meters longer than a distance that matters to anyone in college and beyond.

3200? 18 meters short of a two mile, and 200 meters longer than a distance that matters to anyone in college and beyond.

GO TO THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD....Heck, it's even our national standard (EXCEPT for the highschools) in track and field (USATF).

The LEAST we could do it get 1500/3000m times en-route to the full mile/1600 and 3200/2 mile - we could then get away from all the stupid conversions.

Trivia question time - WHY are the 1500 and 3000 standard distance events internationally?

[luv2run]

Trivia answer -- 500-meter tracks used to be the standard in Europe.

And who wants to run an extra or less distance when you can just round it to the nearest number of whole laps?

That's what we do with the 1600/3200, anyways.

[bad hammy]

This is America, dammit: mile/2 mile!

What made Webb famous, getting him on the front pages throughout America as a high schooler and onto the Letterman show? It certainly had nothing to do with his times in the 1500 or 1600.

[SpeedKILLS]

The 1500/3000 was the dumbest idea ever created, especially for college and international competition. People have never asked me my 1500 time, and for all most people outside of track know, they have always run the mile.
People have fallen in love with the mile and the glamour behind it with guys like Bannister, Cram, Coe, El-Guerroj, Lagat, Webb and everyone else. Bannister was made world-famous for breaking the mile barrier, not the 1500 m barrier. Not only that, it's an ugly 3.75 laps around a track, which are all 400 meters anyway. I say make it the mile, or better yet to appease the metric world, the 1600. 1.5 sec. difference is not a huge deal, especially if everyone is running the same distance. All international and collegiate competition should switch over and run the 1600 as well, just because it makes more sense.

[BroeJob_5K]

The 1500/3000 was the dumbest idea ever created, especially for college and international competition. People have never asked me my 1500 time, and for all most people outside of track know, they have always run the mile.
People have fallen in love with the mile and the glamour behind it with guys like Bannister, Cram, Coe, El-Guerroj, Lagat, Webb and everyone else. Bannister was made world-famous for breaking the mile barrier, not the 1500 m barrier. Not only that, it's an ugly 3.75 laps around a track, which are all 400 meters anyway. I say make it the mile, or better yet to appease the metric world, the 1600. 1.5 sec. difference is not a huge deal, especially if everyone is running the same distance. All international and collegiate competition should switch over and run the 1600 as well, just because it makes more sense.



do you really care what those people asking you what your mile time think??? if you do, please stop running now..

[trojanrunna]

The 1500/3000 was the dumbest idea ever created, especially for college and international competition. People have never asked me my 1500 time, and for all most people outside of track know, they have always run the mile.
People have fallen in love with the mile and the glamour behind it with guys like Bannister, Cram, Coe, El-Guerroj, Lagat, Webb and everyone else. Bannister was made world-famous for breaking the mile barrier, not the 1500 m barrier. Not only that, it's an ugly 3.75 laps around a track, which are all 400 meters anyway. I say make it the mile, or better yet to appease the metric world, the 1600. 1.5 sec. difference is not a huge deal, especially if everyone is running the same distance. All international and collegiate competition should switch over and run the 1600 as well, just because it makes more sense.
people didn't just say "hey, lets do something different. instead of running the mile, lets invent a new measuring system and creat our own distance!" the brits had the mile, everybody else had the 1500 because they use the metric system.

[Jew]

I think the 1500m and 3000m would make the most sense for high school runners to run, because the events you later run on in college and professional are: 1500, 3000, 5000, and 10000. We might as well start now. Also, we should run 1500m and 3000m, because we mainly run 5000m in Cross Country (atleast in big meets ex: district, region, state, footlocker). So I think we should just run the distances we will be running later on in our running careers, and then we won't have to make the transition.


i agree

[1996AA]

I personally don't mind the idea of the 3000, but the 1500 is nonsencial even in the international scene. Why did they even set up the 1500. To me it was a half ass attempt to make a metric mile, but the metric mile should be the 1600m. If your trying to copy the mile--1600 is going to be the best you can do. The mile was set up as four perfect laps on a 440yd track. The 1600 acomplishes this on a 400m track that was set up to change the world to the meters standard. The 1500 doesn't meet the vision of four balls to the wall laps. The 1500 doesn't even try to covert the world to meters. If you're going to meters go to it, but that means you add two races to replace the mile (1000m and the 2000m).