>I have always thought that 1600 didn't make as
>much sense as either the mile or the 1500. We
>are constantly talking about conversions and it's
>frustrating sometimes. The worst of it is as
>someone else wrote about the old english distance
>times being swept aside when they are so
>obviously superior. Not only is there Ann
>Henderson's time, but Alan Scharsu's 2 mile of
>8:44 gets pushed aside. Our link to a rather
>glorious past in Ohio is summarily shunted and
>that not only shows disrespect to some legendary
>athletes, but it doesn't allow a proper
>historical perspective for the current crop of
Perhaps it's a problem of over-simplification... the record keepers of many state associations may be pressed to fit all the records on one page (it fits nicely in the program, doesn't it?) For the sake of history, I appreciate seeing the "Old records" lists showing what people ran before meters. At least the history is preserved...
At a minimum, maintain the old "yards" record in addition to the metric record. At least until the "metric" record is clearly (beyond a reasonable doubt) superior. Growin up, I remember seeing done numerous times: there may be a "shared" record in the 200m/220y until it was clear that the 220y time was truly the "old record"