May 6, 1954


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby norunner » Wed May 15, 2013 3:53 pm

BBTM media wrote:
noone wrote:No joke; per the media and general public, it certainly was and is. What has been bigger in the sport and still resonates so strongly and regularly? Search "Roger Bannister" and you will find plenty of articles on Bannister and the first sub-4 (not all sports-related); you can find a small sampling of such articles at his BBTM bio - note the Forbes Nov 2005 article.
Once again, which media are you talking about? In 1954 the "Hamburger Tagesblatt" was the biggest newspaper in Germany. Luckily they put scans of all their issues dating back to 1948 online. So i checked, on may 7th 1954 the article about Bannisters WR appeared on page 16: http://www.abendblatt.de/archiv/pdf.php ... HA_016.pdf
You'd think an earth shattering event like the first man below 4 min over the mile would deserve the front page. On the other hand, Heinz Fütterer won two gold medals at the ECs in Bern that same year and he did make it to the front page: http://www.abendblatt.de/archiv/pdf.php ... HA_001.pdf
And since someone mentioned Bob Beamon, he also made the front page with his 8.90: http://www.abendblatt.de/archiv/pdf.php ... HA_001.pdf
norunner
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Wed May 15, 2013 3:55 pm

noone wrote:
Bruce Kritzler wrote:The single most important happening in track and field history?
The cover of the first issue of Sports Illustrated, also.


The most important happening in track and field history? Surely you mean this as a joke. What do we have? A blatantly rabbited "race", with a WR in a non-Olympic event, and within a few months the record was broken. The sub-4-minute mile has become commonplace, and far more frequent than the 28-foot long jump, for example.

Only "fans" with a very superficial knowledge of our sport think this was any more remarkable than, say, Rick Wohlhuter's 2:13.9 1000m WR in 1974 -- also a non-Olympic event but a mark that has stood the test of time far better.

Being the first under 4:00.00 is a wholly artificial "barrier", and no more difficult than being the first under 4:02.00 or 3:55.71.


:lol: :roll: :lol:

For the umpteenth time, no amount of grousing or nay-saying changes the actual facts here: Bannister's 3:59.4 is the benchmark achievement in the entire history of the sport. No amount of carping, kicking, or screaming will change that fact.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Pego » Wed May 15, 2013 5:58 pm

noone wrote:Only "fans" with a very superficial knowledge of our sport think this was any more remarkable than, say, Rick Wohlhuter's 2:13.9 1000m WR in 1974 -- also a non-Olympic event but a mark that has stood the test of time far better.


Well, I must be a "fan" with a very superficial knowledge of our sport" then. I did not know that.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Wed May 15, 2013 6:01 pm

Pego wrote:
noone wrote:Only "fans" with a very superficial knowledge of our sport think this was any more remarkable than, say, Rick Wohlhuter's 2:13.9 1000m WR in 1974 -- also a non-Olympic event but a mark that has stood the test of time far better.


Well, I must be a "fan" with a very superficial knowledge of our sport" then. I did not know that.


:lol:
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby BBTM media » Wed May 15, 2013 6:26 pm

norunner wrote:Once again, which media are you talking about? In 1954 the "Hamburger Tagesblatt" was the biggest newspaper in Germany. Luckily they put scans of all their issues dating back to 1948 online. So i checked, on may 7th 1954 the article about Bannisters WR appeared on page 16: http://www.abendblatt.de/archiv/pdf.php ... HA_016.pdf
You'd think an earth shattering event like the first man below 4 min over the mile would deserve the front page. On the other hand, Heinz Fütterer won two gold medals at the ECs in Bern that same year and he did make it to the front page: http://www.abendblatt.de/archiv/pdf.php ... HA_001.pdf


What media? The media from 1954 to the present who have written (and will continue to write) about Bannister and the sub-4 minute Mile. Using a German newspaper for your point is a specious example, at best; did enjoy the Mile WR table in the article. No offense to Heinz Fütterer, but he, like other world class T&F athletes, has/had no Bannister-like moment and later landmark/standard like the sub-4 minute Mile.
BBTM media
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:23 am

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby lonewolf » Wed May 15, 2013 7:29 pm

Hmmmm??? Small world. In May, 1954, I was stationed in Frankfurt/Main, Germany in the Northern Area Command Engineers Office, headquartered in the IG Farben hochhaus. I do not remember ever hearing of Heinz Futterer but I do remember hearing about Bannister's mile, probably from one of the German engineers on the re-construction team I was heading.

They knew I was only one year removed from collegiate T&F and frequently engaged me in conversation on Athletics..and were very interested in the Cowboy and Indian history of Oklahoma.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby norunner » Thu May 16, 2013 3:17 am

BBTM media wrote:
norunner wrote:Once again, which media are you talking about? In 1954 the "Hamburger Tagesblatt" was the biggest newspaper in Germany. Luckily they put scans of all their issues dating back to 1948 online. So i checked, on may 7th 1954 the article about Bannisters WR appeared on page 16: http://www.abendblatt.de/archiv/pdf.php ... HA_016.pdf
You'd think an earth shattering event like the first man below 4 min over the mile would deserve the front page. On the other hand, Heinz Fütterer won two gold medals at the ECs in Bern that same year and he did make it to the front page: http://www.abendblatt.de/archiv/pdf.php ... HA_001.pdf


What media? The media from 1954 to the present who have written (and will continue to write) about Bannister and the sub-4 minute Mile. Using a German newspaper for your point is a specious example, at best; did enjoy the Mile WR table in the article. No offense to Heinz Fütterer, but he, like other world class T&F athletes, has/had no Bannister-like moment and later landmark/standard like the sub-4 minute Mile.
The reason why i used a German newspaper (apart from being German): Germany is a purely metric country, we have never used the mile, we don't run miles, we don't count miles. And in Germany a local hero like Fütterer was more newsworthy than Bannister, which was my point all along. Bannister was/is a huge deal in English speaking countries, but i really don't think he is/was for the rest of the world.
norunner
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Pego » Thu May 16, 2013 4:56 am

lonewolf wrote:and were very interested in the Cowboy and Indian history of Oklahoma


Generations of central Europeans grew up on totally made up Karl May's Wild West books. To hear real history from a real Indian, they must have loved it 8-) .
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Thu May 16, 2013 5:23 am

norunner wrote:Germany is a purely metric country, we have never used the mile, we don't run miles, we don't count miles.


Do you not realize that ALL our current standard distances are derived, with greater or lesser variation, from the original imperial model? Think about it: Why is your standard distance, the kilometer, considered an "odd" event?
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby lonewolf » Thu May 16, 2013 6:48 am

The preference for imperial/metric is largely environmental.. I was raised and competed in imperial and still mentally convert metric performances to imperial..
That said, I admit metric is easier to use in recording and placing throws and jumps.
When I work HS meets, I find recording of fractions of inches a nuisance. For example, I usually record 21' 7 1/2" as 21.07.5.
With that minor concession, I still abhor the 1500 meters.. Bring back the mile :!:
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby BBTM media » Thu May 16, 2013 8:09 am

lonewolf wrote:The preference for imperial/metric is largely environmental.. I was raised and competed in imperial and still mentally convert metric performances to imperial..
That said, I admit metric is easier to use in recording and placing throws and jumps.
When I work HS meets, I find recording of fractions of inches a nuisance. For example, I usually record 21' 7 1/2" as 21.07.5.
With that minor concession, I still abhor the 1500 meters.. Bring back the mile :!:


Yup, base 10 is wonderful, but Americans think, speak and relate in miles - deeply embedded in our culture (i.e., environmental), and thus, with the Mile's rich history, the sub-4 standard and said embeddedness, let's bring back the Mile! Join us: http://bringbackthemile.com/home
BBTM media
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:23 am

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby James Fields » Thu May 16, 2013 8:17 am

"indeed, a fabulous event in 1994 . . . Apparently, Bannister had to be really talked into it back in '94"
------------------
Roger Bannister and John Landy were present for a commemorative gathering at Victoria, British Columbia, during the 1994 Commonwealth Games which I attended. Their 1994 reunion memorialized the "Miracle Mile" of 7 August 1954 at the "British Empire Games" which matched the first two men to run the mile under 4 minutes.

Bannister's first-under 4:00 was in a low-key meet with a surprise result causing page remakes in newspapers many time zones away. After Landy's sub-four run there was considerable advance copy written before their head-to-head Games matchup which was labeled "The Miracle Mile" (and still used 40 years later on the big lapel pin souvenir I got at Victoria.)

By the way, I sat next to John Landy's father at the 1954 race which I looked on later as the biggest athletics thrill of my youth. However, I did not have much time to savor it back then because I had to report a few days later for U.S. Army service, having been drafted during the Korean War.
James Fields
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Knoxville and Seattle

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 8:27 am

BBTM media wrote:let's bring back the Mile!

Can we also bring back the Tug-of-War, Three-Legged-Race and the Sack-Race, please? They all part of our collective nostalgia, that in many ways still exists just fine in their appropriate mileux (oooh - good wordplay - didja see 'mile' in there?). The Mile is a quaint harkening back to the days of the 100y, 220, 440, 880, 3 Miles, 6 Miles, etc.. It hasn't GONE anywhere, I see it every year in many meets - why on earth would we need to 'bring it back'? HS, NCAA, USATF and IAAF have moved on . . .
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby KDFINE » Thu May 16, 2013 9:02 am

Accept the mile as a milestone based on the word derivation alone.
The men's shot and hammer each weigh 16 pounds; the high hurdles are three feet six inches in height; and the intermediates are 3 feet even. I don't see anyone grousing about the legacy of the mile complaining that the implements be changed to a nice round metric number.
I don't have any trouble accepting that the sport has a rich heritage in imperial measures as well as metrics.
Finally, if there is a real concern that a number of records could be tainted, switch to the imperial distances.
KDFINE
 
Posts: 975
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Thu May 16, 2013 10:34 am

KDFINE wrote:the sport has a rich heritage in imperial measures as well as metrics.


As I tried to suggest above, the basic framework for the sport was established completely in imperial measure. Your comments about the weight of the shot, height of hurdles, etc., underscores that nicely. Whether people like it or not, the sports essential DNA is imperial; there's been fiddling around the edges with metric "conversions," but nothing fundamental has been changed.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 11:08 am

Once the OG went to metric distances, the world-wide conversion was inevitable, even though it took the USA over 70 years. The reporting of USA marks in metric has already begun: it's the coin of the realm in colleges and even USATF. HS will follow. My generation was raised on Imperial so we rage, rage against the dying of the light, but this too shall pass (he said allusively). That said, people will continue to run Mile races, just for the diversion. It's all good, bro.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby BBTM media » Thu May 16, 2013 1:18 pm

Marlow wrote:
BBTM media wrote:let's bring back the Mile!

Can we also bring back the Tug-of-War, Three-Legged-Race and the Sack-Race, please? They all part of our collective nostalgia, that in many ways still exists just fine in their appropriate mileux (oooh - good wordplay - didja see 'mile' in there?). The Mile is a quaint harkening back to the days of the 100y, 220, 440, 880, 3 Miles, 6 Miles, etc.. It hasn't GONE anywhere, I see it every year in many meets - why on earth would we need to 'bring it back'? HS, NCAA, USATF and IAAF have moved on . . .


You are taking "bring back the Mile" too literally. Of course, the Mile hasn't gone away. Our main objective is to elevate & celebrate the Mile (the storied distance, the events and past & present athletes) - in short, it's about promotion, and if HS meets and State federations dropped the 1600 for the Mile, that would be nice too.
BBTM media
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:23 am

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 1:33 pm

BBTM media wrote:You are taking "bring back the Mile" too literally. Of course, the Mile hasn't gone away. Our main objective is to elevate & celebrate the Mile (the storied distance, the events and past & present athletes) - in short, it's about promotion

OOOOooooOOOOooooh - Ain't nothing wrong with that. It's like Civil War Reenactment Clubs.

BBTM media wrote:if HS meets and State federations dropped the 1600 for the Mile, that would be nice too.

Nice, as in unicorns and fairy dust. :D

P.S. Why are you NOT fighting for the 100y, 220, 440, 880, etc. also? Seems rather discriminatory. Aren't the runners of those races worth the bother?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Thu May 16, 2013 1:41 pm

Marlow wrote:P.S. Why are you NOT fighting for the 100y, 220, 440, 880, etc. also? Seems rather discriminatory. Aren't the runners of those races worth the bother?


He delegated that job to me. See what a fantastic job I'm doing?
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby bambam » Thu May 16, 2013 4:50 pm

Marlow wrote:
BBTM media wrote:You are taking "bring back the Mile" too literally. Of course, the Mile hasn't gone away. Our main objective is to elevate & celebrate the Mile (the storied distance, the events and past & present athletes) - in short, it's about promotion

OOOOooooOOOOooooh - Ain't nothing wrong with that. It's like Civil War Reenactment Clubs.

BBTM media wrote:if HS meets and State federations dropped the 1600 for the Mile, that would be nice too.

Nice, as in unicorns and fairy dust. :D

P.S. Why are you NOT fighting for the 100y, 220, 440, 880, etc. also? Seems rather discriminatory. Aren't the runners of those races worth the bother?


When they went "fully" metric, I had sorta wished they had kept the 100 yards at least, in addition to the mile, but that's the Merkan in me coming out.
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby norunner » Thu May 16, 2013 5:11 pm

kuha wrote:
norunner wrote:Germany is a purely metric country, we have never used the mile, we don't run miles, we don't count miles.


Do you not realize that ALL our current standard distances are derived, with greater or lesser variation, from the original imperial model? Think about it: Why is your standard distance, the kilometer, considered an "odd" event?
So what you are saying is, when it was decided to run the 100m in Paris in 1900, they didn't do that because they had established the metric system in France a 100 years earlier and not because 100 is a nice round number, but they did so because someone in the US ran 100 yards? Now if you actually put it the other way round it makes more sense to me. In the US they ran 220/440/880 yards, which all coincidentally is the same as 200/400/800 meters. Now why would they choose these weird numbers 220, 440 instead of 200, 300, 400? Seems to me they ran 220 yards because it equals 200m, not the other way round?
norunner
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 5:29 pm

norunner wrote:Now why would they choose these weird numbers 220, 440 instead of 200, 300, 400? Seems to me they ran 220 yards because it equals 200m, not the other way round?

Um . . . because they represented 1/8 mile, 1/4 mile, 1/2 mile and a century of yards?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby runforlife » Thu May 16, 2013 5:37 pm

noone wrote: A blatantly rabbited "race",

So what's the point?? I don't understand this interjected into the conversation. What's wrong with rabbits?? The person is not being carried or pushed. He still has to run the race under his own power. If he can do it better and faster with rabbits, so be it.
runforlife
 
Posts: 387
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Drake Relays: finish line - row 1

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Marlow » Thu May 16, 2013 6:25 pm

runforlife wrote:
noone wrote: A blatantly rabbited "race",

So what's the point?? I don't understand this interjected into the conversation. What's wrong with rabbits?? The person is not being carried or pushed. He still has to run the race under his own power. If he can do it better and faster with rabbits, so be it.

DUCK!!!
I love rabbited races (I hate 'tactical' races); that's probably just the Marks Snob in me, but many (!) people here hate/hate/hate them, saying they destroy the true 'competitive' nature of an event.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby BBTM media » Thu May 16, 2013 6:36 pm

Marlow wrote: P.S. Why are you NOT fighting for the 100y, 220, 440, 880, etc. also? Seems rather discriminatory. Aren't the runners of those races worth the bother?


Discriminatory? Hardly if you define/use the word properly. None of the above, as mentioned earlier, has had a Roger Bannister moment - historic and landmark standard (i.e., sub-4) - that still resonates. Also, only so much time in the day to bring back the Mile; others, like you, can take up the 100yd (or name your imperial distance) banner. For us, go Mile!
BBTM media
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 12:23 am

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby TN1965 » Thu May 16, 2013 11:12 pm

kuha wrote:With this as background, then the fact that they do or do not know the names of Bannister, Zatopek, Lewis, etc., becomes more meaningful, I would think.


You CANNOT be serious! :shock:

Lewis and Zatopek are far better known than Bannister in my (metric-oriented) country of origin. They are not even in the same galaxy. :roll:

Snell and Elliot are better known than Bannister, not to mention Coe and Ovett.
TN1965
 
Posts: 1182
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:38 pm

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby LopenUupunut » Thu May 16, 2013 11:51 pm

norunner wrote:
kuha wrote:Do you not realize that ALL our current standard distances are derived, with greater or lesser variation, from the original imperial model? Think about it: Why is your standard distance, the kilometer, considered an "odd" event?
So what you are saying is, when it was decided to run the 100m in Paris in 1900, they didn't do that because they had established the metric system in France a 100 years earlier and not because 100 is a nice round number, but they did so because someone in the US ran 100 yards? Now if you actually put it the other way round it makes more sense to me. In the US they ran 220/440/880 yards, which all coincidentally is the same as 200/400/800 meters. Now why would they choose these weird numbers 220, 440 instead of 200, 300, 400? Seems to me they ran 220 yards because it equals 200m, not the other way round?
100/220/440/880 were standard imperial distances long before their metric equivalents appeared... of course, similar distances might have turned up if the Europeans had been left to themselves, but UK/US lead did have a definite effect there.

5000 and 10000 are another matter entirely, though. While 3 miles and 6 miles certainly also existed before either of those, so did 2 miles, 4 miles, 5 miles, 10 miles etc. and those weren't similarly copied. The standard distances at AAA champs were 4 miles and 10 miles; the standard distance at AAU champs was 5 miles (3 miles and 2 miles both made occasional appearances, but in most years neither was held). 5 miles even appeared in the Olympics, something one mile never did. (And as we can see, when it comes to longer distances there was no single "original imperial model" for us Europeans to ape.)

5K and 10K became standard distances quite simply because they make lots of sense in metric; speed skating, a sport with much less imperial tampering, had 5K and 10K before we did.
LopenUupunut
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:20 pm
Location: Sleeping in Finland

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Pego » Fri May 17, 2013 3:20 am

My 2¢ worth.

The degree of passion of clinging on to the imperial system by USA I fully appreciate, but never truly comprehended. That said, I do like the mile. It is a classic and I would prefer it over 1500 (and clearly over 1600).
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Marlow » Fri May 17, 2013 3:52 am

Pego wrote:My 2¢ worth.
The degree of passion of clinging on to the imperial system by USA I fully appreciate, but never truly comprehended. That said, I do like the mile. It is a classic and I would prefer it over 1500 (and clearly over 1600).

I see your 2¢ and raise you 1¢. The USA clings to Imperial for kainotophobic and sentimental reasons which you don't 'comprehend'? Of course you do. You prefer the Mile over the 1600 for purely sentimental reasons. The 1600 is exactly 4 laps; the Mile is not. No one of pure rationality would prefer the 'bastardry' (excuse my French) of the Mile over the purity of the 1600 UNLESS they were sentimentally attached to it. I'm not a cold logician, but I certainly appreciate the 1600 over both the Mile and the 1500. If the track were 440 yards, I would prefer the Mile.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Pego » Fri May 17, 2013 4:20 am

Marlow wrote:
Pego wrote:My 2¢ worth.
The degree of passion of clinging on to the imperial system by USA I fully appreciate, but never truly comprehended. That said, I do like the mile. It is a classic and I would prefer it over 1500 (and clearly over 1600).

I see your 2¢ and raise you 1¢. The USA clings to Imperial for kainotophobic and sentimental reasons which you don't 'comprehend'? Of course you do. You prefer the Mile over the 1600 for purely sentimental reasons. The 1600 is exactly 4 laps; the Mile is not. No one of pure rationality would prefer the 'bastardry' (excuse my French) of the Mile over the purity of the 1600 UNLESS they were sentimentally attached to it. I'm not a cold logician, but I certainly appreciate the 1600 over both the Mile and the 1500. If the track were 440 yards, I would prefer the Mile.


It does not happen often that you defend rational and I prefer traditional (sentimental, if you wish). Anyway, I did not say "I do not comprehend", I said "I do not fully comprehend." Yes, I know the reasons, it just does not quite make sense to me.

Oh yes, thank you for enriching my vocabulary :wink: . Kainotophobic, eh 8-) ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Daisy » Fri May 17, 2013 4:31 am

norunner wrote:In the US they ran 220/440/880 yards, which all coincidentally is the same as 200/400/800 meters. Now why would they choose these weird numbers 220, 440 instead of 200, 300, 400? Seems to me they ran 220 yards because it equals 200m, not the other way round?

I'd never looked at it this way before and it's an attractive argument. Until you stop thinking of the races in yards and instead think in miles. As the half mile and quarter mile those race distances are perfectly logical.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby norunner » Fri May 17, 2013 4:47 am

Daisy wrote:
norunner wrote:In the US they ran 220/440/880 yards, which all coincidentally is the same as 200/400/800 meters. Now why would they choose these weird numbers 220, 440 instead of 200, 300, 400? Seems to me they ran 220 yards because it equals 200m, not the other way round?

I'd never looked at it this way before and it's an attractive argument. Until you stop thinking of the races in yards and instead think in miles. As the half mile and quarter mile those race distances are perfectly logical.
I agree, but then 100 yards don't make much sense.Did they ever run 110 yards (without hurdles) ?
norunner
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Fri May 17, 2013 5:30 am

norunner wrote:
kuha wrote:
norunner wrote:Germany is a purely metric country, we have never used the mile, we don't run miles, we don't count miles.


Do you not realize that ALL our current standard distances are derived, with greater or lesser variation, from the original imperial model? Think about it: Why is your standard distance, the kilometer, considered an "odd" event?
So what you are saying is, when it was decided to run the 100m in Paris in 1900, they didn't do that because they had established the metric system in France a 100 years earlier and not because 100 is a nice round number, but they did so because someone in the US ran 100 yards? Now if you actually put it the other way round it makes more sense to me. In the US they ran 220/440/880 yards, which all coincidentally is the same as 200/400/800 meters. Now why would they choose these weird numbers 220, 440 instead of 200, 300, 400? Seems to me they ran 220 yards because it equals 200m, not the other way round?


You are just as correct as if you had said that Michael Jackson influenced the Beatles.

I repeat my question: why is the kilometer not a key and major distance in athletics? Why do we insist on running events as wacky as 1/5, 2/5, 4/5, and 1-1/2 times your standard, benchmark distance? Isn't that just a tad odd?

We have batted about our theories about the Olympic program's metric, i.e., European, i.e., specifically French, identify in the past. I've stated my own views on the matter. In many respects, there's nothing terribly mysterious about it at all. But the real point is that the Olympic program, and athletics on the European continent, came a full generation after the flowering of the sport in Britain and the U.S. And it was in that formative period that so much of what we now take for granted--distances based on fractions of a mile: 1/16 (110 hurdles), 1/8, 1/4, 1/2; the weight of the shot, height of the hurdles, etc.--was codified. Metric came significantly later and the result has been some minor "translation" from imperial to metric, but very little else. Like it or not, the basic DNA of the sport was and is imperial.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby norunner » Fri May 17, 2013 5:35 am

kuha wrote:
norunner wrote:
kuha wrote:
norunner wrote:I repeat my question: why is the kilometer not a key and major distance in athletics? Why do we insist on running events as wacky as 1/5, 2/5, 4/5, and 1-1/2 times your standard, benchmark distance? Isn't that just a tad odd?
Because it's too close to the 800m. And why is 1/5 of a kilometer wacky, but 1/8 of a mile isn't ?
norunner
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Fri May 17, 2013 5:52 am

norunner wrote:Because it's too close to the 800m. And why is 1/5 of a kilometer wacky, but 1/8 of a mile isn't ?


So you ignore my original question, which was about the range of fractional distances in metric: 1/5, 2/5, 4/5, and 1-1/2. Explain that logic to me without making reference to the pre-existing imperial standards. I think you will find it very difficult, if not impossible. There is no "internal" metric logic for this sequence. None.

As for the logic of 1/8, the fundamental means of determing fractional measure was the pre-metric/decimal system of taking a whole (e.g., one mile) and dividing it in half, then in half again, and again. That's the logic of 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1.

Are you genuinely not grasping that the sport was actually formed, and reached "adolescence" (at least) in a completely imperial context? This is a truly fundamental point.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby norunner » Fri May 17, 2013 6:05 am

kuha wrote:
norunner wrote:Because it's too close to the 800m. And why is 1/5 of a kilometer wacky, but 1/8 of a mile isn't ?


So you ignore my original question, which was about the range of fractional distances in metric: 1/5, 2/5, 4/5, and 1-1/2. Explain that logic to me without making reference to the pre-existing imperial standards. I think you will find it very difficult, if not impossible. There is no "internal" metric logic for this sequence. None.

As for the logic of 1/8, the fundamental means of determing fractional measure was the pre-metric/decimal system of taking a whole (e.g., one mile) and dividing it in half, then in half again, and again. That's the logic of 1/16, 1/8, 1/4, 1/2, 1.
100 yards is not 1/16th of a mile, so your reasoning is flawed. So is your reasoning regarding metric distances because you assume it's based on the kilometer. Seems to me it's based on the meter, after all, nobody runs 0,1 kilometers, they ran a 100 meters. And nowhere in official results do you see kilometers, you see 800, 5000 meters. So take a meter as base and all the fractional nonsense disappears.
norunner
 
Posts: 1283
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 12:21 pm

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Fri May 17, 2013 6:07 am

kuha wrote:Are you genuinely not grasping that the sport was actually formed, and reached "adolescence" (at least) in a completely imperial context? This is a truly fundamental point.


So your answer to this is "NO." Got it.
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Daisy » Fri May 17, 2013 6:57 am

norunner wrote:
Daisy wrote:
norunner wrote:In the US they ran 220/440/880 yards, which all coincidentally is the same as 200/400/800 meters. Now why would they choose these weird numbers 220, 440 instead of 200, 300, 400? Seems to me they ran 220 yards because it equals 200m, not the other way round?

I'd never looked at it this way before and it's an attractive argument. Until you stop thinking of the races in yards and instead think in miles. As the half mile and quarter mile those race distances are perfectly logical.
I agree, but then 100 yards don't make much sense.Did they ever run 110 yards (without hurdles) ?


I guess they used 100 as it is a round number. I'm actually surprised they didn't use the 200 yards as well, since we never hear the 220 called the 1/8 of a mile race.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby kuha » Fri May 17, 2013 7:09 am

Daisy wrote:I'm actually surprised they didn't use the 200 yards as well, since we never hear the 220 called the 1/8 of a mile race.


Let me introduce you to the word "furlong."
kuha
 
Posts: 9016
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: May 6, 1954

Postby Daisy » Fri May 17, 2013 7:13 am

kuha wrote:Let me introduce you to the word "furlong."

Ah, so that's what they're on about in all those horse races. Does the 1/16th of a mile have a name too?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests