NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:48 pm

I agree...

When you look at it in terms of laps, the 1600 and the mile are 4 laps around the track (of course, the mile on a 440y track). Just like the 200m and 220y are both half-lap races. So, why is some many people insisting that the race be 4 and 9/400 laps around the track. Tradition back in the day was to have a race of 4 laps -- just happened to be a mile. Today, the 4 laps happen to be 1600m instead. What's the big deal?

Now, the 1500. OK, so it's been the internationally recognized distance for years and years and years, while the mile was once an American staple. Perhaps we should have and still should switch to the 1500 at the high school level.

Here's the problem... for the casual observer of track and field who sees a runner run 3:40 or so in the 1500, he's probably going to ask "Wow, that's fast. Is 1500m close to a mile?" and we'll respond, "No, but it's the international equivelent to the mile of yesteryear. However, if that same runner were to run a mile instead, his time would translate to something around 3:55 or so." The casual observer then replies "Huh???".

No, fastforward... the causal observer of track and field sees a runner run 1600m in about 3:55 or so. He says, "Wow, that's fast. Is 1600m close to a mile?" and we'll respond, "Yes, it just a few meters short". The casual observer than replies "WOW, THAT"S REALLY FAST"
Guest
 

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Postby 197hjsteve » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:06 pm

let's just kick this same old horse just a little bit more but in a wider context:

It all boils down to USA's refusal to adopt the metric system. We made a half-***ed attempt back in the 70's or thereabouts, INCLUDING GOING TO METERS FOR TRACKS AND TRACK EVRENT LENGTHS ( cap.s added for emphasis) but it cannot and will not work in the real world unless we "bite the bullet" and force the metric system down the public's throat... and then people, particularly little kids then growing up..... THINK in meters !

How has it worked in places like the UK, Canada, and Ireland ? From what I have seen, pretty well.

We are so provincial in the USA in so many ways, always thinking the rest of the world is out of step. USA, look in the mirror !

Brits, Canadians, etc. out there whose countries have made the switch, more or less, how is it ?

In those countries, what do they teach kids in school.... meters, etc., or feet/yards/miles ?
197hjsteve
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:17 pm

>let's just kick this same old horse just a little
>bit more but in a wider context:

It all boils
>down to USA's refusal to adopt the metric system.
>We made a half-***ed attempt back in the 70's or
>thereabouts, INCLUDING GOING TO METERS FOR
>TRACKS AND TRACK EVRENT LENGTHS ( cap.s added
>for emphasis) but it cannot and will not work
>in the real world unless we "bite the bullet"
>and force the metric system down the public's
>throat... and then people, particularly little
>kids then growing up..... THINK in meters
>!

Even as a mathematician, I find it 10 times easier to add distances in meters and distancs in feet and inches.

Imagine a "long jump relay"-- the team of 4 with the longest combine distance wins. What's easier to add?

20'1'' + 19'10.25'' + 21'3.5'' + 20'6.75''
or
6.21m + 6.03m + 6.45m + 6.28m

Sure, people will have to change the way they think about distance: "Move the dresser 2ft to the left" becomes "Move the dresser 61cm to the left" We'll live...


How has it worked in places like the UK,
>Canada, and Ireland ? From what I have seen,
>pretty well.

We are so provincial in the USA
>in so many ways, always thinking the rest of the
>world is out of step. USA, look in the mirror
>!

Brits, Canadians, etc. out there whose
>countries have made the switch, more or less,
>how is it ?

In those countries, what do they
>teach kids in school.... meters, etc., or
>feet/yards/miles ?
Guest
 

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Postby 197hjsteve » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:47 pm

sorry to turn all this into a generalized discussion of the metric system but as i said earlier, that's the crux of the whole thing, isn't it ?

But a full legal, educational and psychological conversion to metrics will not happen in the forseeable future. The pols cannot and will not force it down our throats.... it's called democracy, and the majority does not want it.

Ergo, it will not happen.

But it's funny, we "went metric" with our monetary system over 200 years ago back in about 1792 ! That's when it should have happened across the board.

Too late now.......
197hjsteve
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:48 pm

>I agree...

When you look at it in terms of
>laps, the 1600 and the mile are 4 laps around the
>track (of course, the mile on a 440y track). Just
>like the 200m and 220y are both half-lap races.
>So, why is some many people insisting that the
>race be 4 and 9/400 laps around the track.
>Tradition back in the day was to have a race of 4
>laps -- just happened to be a mile. Today, the 4
>laps happen to be 1600m instead. What's the big
>deal?

Now, the 1500. OK, so it's been the
>internationally recognized distance for years and
>years and years, while the mile was once an
>American staple. Perhaps we should have and still
>should switch to the 1500 at the high school
>level.

Here's the problem... for the casual
>observer of track and field who sees a runner run
>3:40 or so in the 1500, he's probably going to
>ask "Wow, that's fast. Is 1500m close to a
>mile?" and we'll respond, "No, but it's the
>international equivelent to the mile of
>yesteryear. However, if that same runner were to
>run a mile instead, his time would translate to
>something around 3:55 or so." The casual
>observer then replies "Huh???".

No,
>fastforward... the causal observer of track and
>field sees a runner run 1600m in about 3:55 or
>so. He says, "Wow, that's fast. Is 1600m close
>to a mile?" and we'll respond, "Yes, it just a
>few meters short". The casual observer than
>replies "WOW, THAT"S REALLY FAST"

Very well stated. Also, in high school dual meets the confusion of repositioning the start and finish would likely be more trouble than its worth.
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests