NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters


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

NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

Postby run4it » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:40 am

Read the story/ see photos of CRAIG MILLER, a 15 y.o. freshman runner from Manheim Twsp H.S. Lancaster County, PA. Amazingly, he has a TWIN
brother, who was injured just prior to post-season
meets. (BOTH finished in top 11 at PA State X-Country "AAA")
http://www.penntrackxc.com/features/fea ... RECORD.htm

(A must read article from www.penntrackxc.com)
run4it
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:54 am

Yeah, the 4:14.26 is the fastest 1600 ever, but Doug Smith's 4:15.5 mile from 1965 is worth 4:14.1 for 1600. On the other hand, if you add 0.14 for hand timing, then he's only 0.02 faster!
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:27 pm

>Yeah, the 4:14.26 is the fastest 1600 ever, but
>Doug Smith's 4:15.5 mile from 1965 is worth
>4:14.1 for 1600. On the other hand, if you add
>0.14 for hand timing, then he's only 0.02 faster!

Here is the problem that I have with the 1600/mile time argument. The standard conversion factor is to add 1.4 seconds to convert from 1600 to mile and subtract 1.4 seconds to convert from mile to 1600. Right? So, this is somebody's estimate of how long it takes to run the extra 9 meters.

But, wouldn't a 4:00 miler runnning 1600m run that extra 9 meters faster than a 5:00 miler? Wouldn't the 3:50 miler be faster over the extra 9 meters than the 4:00 miler? So, the +/- 1.4 second rule is at best a rough estimate.

Sure, using proportions it only works out to at most a few hundreths of a second difference for any given time. But, a few hundreths of a second is the difference between a world record and just another fast time.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:40 pm

and just as an obvious comment, showing the futility of any completely accurate conversion formulas, one runner can be virtually staggering to the line at 1600 m, while another looks like Michael Johnson. Yet the same conversion factor is used for both.

So just forget all this everybody, lean back, and just go with the flow.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:40 pm

and just as an obvious comment, showing the futility of any completely accurate conversion formulas, one runner can be virtually staggering to the line at 1600 m, while another looks like Michael Johnson. Yet the same conversion factor is used for both.

So just forget all this everybody, lean back, and just go with the flow.
Guest
 

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

Postby gh » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:16 pm

>Here is the problem that I have
>The standard
>conversion factor is to add 1.4 seconds to
>convert from 1600 to mile and subtract 1.4
>seconds to convert from mile to 1600. Right? >>

All depends what you call "standard." Nitflicker is obviously familiar with the T&FN conversion formulae and multiplied by 1.0058.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby gh » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:19 pm

>and just as an obvious comment, showing the
>futility of any completely accurate conversion
>formulas, one runner can be virtually staggering
>to the line at 1600 m, while another looks like
>Michael Johnson. Yet the same conversion factor
>is used for both. >>

It's irrelevant how one finishes. The conversion factors (which are admittedly hypothetical) attempt to show what would have happened had the athlete been running at the other distance, not to measure the time between the two.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:24 pm

>>Here is the problem that I have
>The
>standard
>conversion factor is to add 1.4
>seconds to
>convert from 1600 to mile and
>subtract 1.4
>seconds to convert from mile to
>1600. Right? >>

All depends what you call
>"standard." Nitflicker is obviously familiar
>with the T&FN conversion formulae and multiplied
>by 1.0058.

I don't disagree that there is a "standard". Just that the standard of 1.0058 applies only to the 4:00 (1600m) to the 4:01.4 (mile). Obviously this is (241.4 sec)/(240 sec). If you do the same thing to a 3:50 vs 3:51.4 conversion, 231.4/230 = 1.0061

My point is that the "standard" does not accurately convert times back and forth. Hence it should be used with a grain of salt, especially when you try to use to claim that someone's mile time from long ago is still equivalently faster than someone's 1600 time from last weekend.

Of course, this applys to measuring time over a cetain distance. When comparing distances, 1 inch will always equal 2.54 cm
Guest
 

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

Postby gh » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:46 pm

>I don't disagree that
>there is a "standard". Just that the standard
>of 1.0058 applies only to the 4:00 (1600m) to the
>4:01.4 (mile). Obviously this is (241.4
>sec)/(240 sec). If you do the same thing to a
>3:50 vs 3:51.4 conversion, 231.4/230 =
>1.0061>>

You're missing the point. Any fixed number, is only good in a small range, for sure. That's exactly why we use a multiplier. The slower you run, the larger the difference becomes.

A 3:38.7 for 1600 is a 3:40.0 mile (1.3 seconds differential). A 7:46.8 for 1600 is a 7:49.5 mile (2.7 seconds). The 1.4-second conversion works well only at about 4:05 mile level.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 1:58 pm

>>I don't disagree that
>there is a "standard".
>Just that the standard
>of 1.0058 applies only
>to the 4:00 (1600m) to the
>4:01.4 (mile).
>Obviously this is (241.4
>sec)/(240 sec). If
>you do the same thing to a
>3:50 vs 3:51.4
>conversion, 231.4/230 =
>1.0061>>

You're
>missing the point. Any fixed number, is only
>good in a small range, for sure. That's exactly
>why we use a multiplier. The slower you run, the
>larger the difference becomes.

A 3:38.7 for
>1600 is a 3:40.0 mile (1.3 seconds
>differential). A 7:46.8 for 1600 is a 7:49.5
>mile (2.7 seconds). The 1.4-second conversion
>works well only at about 4:05 mile level.

Oops, my mistake... I misinterpeted the 1.0058 multiplier as a time factor (4:01.4/4:00) = 1.005833. Didn't realize until now that the original poster was using at the a distance factor (1609.34/1600) = 1.0058375.

In this case, I DO agree that the 1.0058 multiplier would be appropriate. The ratio of distance is always the same, regardless of the time. Much better than simply adding 1.4 seconds to any time. In cases where records for 1600/mile are combined (state HS track), I would hate to see a 1600 runner not get a record because his time is inferior due to the 1.4 sec "rule".
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:15 pm

Garry, I see your point, if we are speaking literally about conversion factors and nothing more. But if we are looking at a real life situation, with 2 high school running coming into the line at 1600 m, with one staggering and one blasting, and they hit that 1600 together in enough under 4:00 that one can say, using the conversion factor, they still both would have broken 4:00 if they had run a bit further, that would not necessarily have been true for the staggering runner. The blasting guy might have had as fast as a 3:59.0, but the staggering guy might have had as slow as 4:01 or worse... does this make sense ?
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 2:37 pm

>Yeah, the 4:14.26 is the fastest 1600 ever, but
>Doug Smith's 4:15.5 mile from 1965 is worth
>4:14.1 for 1600. On the other hand, if you add
>0.14 for hand timing, then he's only 0.02 faster!

You can certainly make this argument about the 1600 vs mile. However, unless another US HS freshman boy has run the 1600 METERS faster than the 4:14.26, the young man in the article listed at the top of the thread has now run the fastest 1600 time ever recorded for a freshman boy.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 3:29 pm

As a foreign observer here in the US I have to say the HS's using 1600 & 3200 is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of in T&F. Took me a few years to realise I wasn't looking at typos.
Guest
 

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

Postby gh » Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:30 pm

>Garry, I see your point, if we are speaking
>literally about conversion factors and nothing
>more. But if we are looking at a real life
>situation, with 2 high school running coming into
>the line at 1600 m, with one staggering and one
>blasting, and they hit that 1600 together in
>enough under 4:00 that one can say, using the
>conversion factor, they still both would have
>broken 4:00 if they had run a bit further, that
>would not necessarily have been true for the
>staggering runner. The blasting guy might have
>had as fast as a 3:59.0, but the staggering guy
>might have had as slow as 4:01 or worse... does
>this make sense ?>>

The theory (and i emphasize, it's just THEORY, but it's the best one we have) behind the thinking is that one makes the kick to the finish from the same point away from the finish, not the start, and that all the running prior to that point equals out. If your two hypotheticals cross the 1600 point "together" they would also cross the mile point "together" if the race had been a mile.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 4:34 pm

was he in the same city - yes
was he in the parking lot - yes
was he in the 'ball park' - yes
was he sittin next to smith - yes
was he right on top of smith - yes (i know not too proud of this one either)
was he in the exact same spot as smith - well not EXACTLY
heckuva run (and beyond?)

okay ... and that 1600/3200 thing is nuts, can't anyone flex any muscles on that
Guest
 

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

Postby 197hjsteve » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:11 pm

ok Garry, you win. But all this just shows the futility of us ALL being over scientific. We're building skyscrapers on sand foundations.
197hjsteve
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:11 pm

Sorry, GH, but as perhaps the world recordholder at deceleration in the last 7 meters of an 880, I have to disagree with the "philosophy" behind the conversion. A lot can happen in those last few yards/meters.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:24 pm

>Sorry, GH, but as perhaps the world recordholder
>at deceleration in the last 7 meters of an 880, I
>have to disagree with the "philosophy" behind
>the conversion. A lot can happen in those last
>few yards/meters.

I thought I held that record! I've been claiming it for years. Legs of stone on that legendary day.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Tue Jun 10, 2003 5:26 pm

Stop and think a second...

All this fuss over the 1600m and 3200m runs! We're talking about high school track here. This alone is not killing the sport of T&F in the US. If it weren't for track and field in high school, the sport would be dead. In many cases, it's more fun to watch HS athletes compete than college and post-collegiates. Why?

High school athletes run 2, maybe 3 meets a week during the season. While there is a BIG meet at the end of the season, they're not seeting their training schedule for that one meet alone.

High school athletes compete in more than one event in a meet. Most compete in up to 4 events. A sprinter might run the 100, 200, 4x1, and either long jump or maybe the 400 or 4x4 all in one day. Heck, in the state meet, he might even have heats in the 100 and 200. Or, an oustanding distance runner might triple in the 800, "mile" and "2 mile" ; and win all three in pretty impressive times. And guess what? You seldom here any complaints.

While opinions will differ, which would you rather see? A sprinter blow the field away in the 100, 200 and 400 -- all within a couple of hours and a distance runner turn a 4:10 and follow that up with an 8:55 an hour later. Or, are you more turned on by the sprinter who runs 9.8 in his only race of the last 2 weeks or the miler who runs 3:52 in his third race of the season
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 11, 2003 6:44 am

What are you talking about? I am definetly going to be interested in watching someone who runs 9.8. Congrats to every HS kid that can triple in their state, but to diminsh collegiate athletes because they get ready for their conference and Nationals differently than a high schooler is not right. In fact, there are several athletes who will be doubling and tripling at the NCAA meet this weekend.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:05 am

I gotta agree that the 1600 and 3200 cause some problems with the normal fans. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the difference to the casual fan. It just creates a huge mess, especially when you get down to the 4min barrier. They should just go with the mile, it'd make things a whole lot less confusing to the casual observor.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:53 am

>What are you talking about? I am definetly going
>to be interested in watching someone who runs
>9.8. Congrats to every HS kid that can triple in
>their state, but to diminsh collegiate athletes
>because they get ready for their conference and
>Nationals differently than a high schooler is not
>right. In fact, there are several athletes who
>will be doubling and tripling at the NCAA meet
>this weekend.

True... But, based on previous discussions regarding the NCAA's, it seems like too many of the top athletes, coaches, and programs in general are more interested in only the big meets. Once they achieve their times, the focus is soley on the conference meet and NCAA.

In high school, these athletes perform night after night to help their team win the dual meets.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:55 am

>I gotta agree that the 1600 and 3200 cause some
>problems with the normal fans. I can't tell you
>how many times I've had to explain the difference
>to the casual fan. It just creates a huge mess,
>especially when you get down to the 4min barrier.
>They should just go with the mile, it'd make
>things a whole lot less confusing to the casual
>observor.

Perhaps that's why people are so disintersted in track these days. Individuals like yourself are constantly trying to explain to others why the race they're watching (1600m) isn't a real race.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 11, 2003 4:01 pm

I don't explain to them that it's not a race. I was talking about how explaining how going sub 4 for 1600 isn't like going sub 4 for a full mile. It's a pain to do it, but you don't want people getting overexcited for nothing.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 11, 2003 5:21 pm

>I don't explain to them that it's not a race. I
>was talking about how explaining how going sub 4
>for 1600 isn't like going sub 4 for a full mile.
>It's a pain to do it, but you don't want people
>getting overexcited for nothing.

OK, but going under 4:00 for 1600 meters is still quite an accomplishment for a high school runner and those watching. How many have done it? A handful? Just say that it's a very rare achievement, even at 1600 meters. The average fan probably doesn't care that 3:58+ is the metric equivalent to the 4 minute mile.

How many years did it take the baseball record to accept Roger Maris's home run record (61 in 162 games vs 60 in 154 games for Ruth)? Perhaps the track world will be more gracious and give the next high schooler who runs 3:59 the respect and admiration he deserves.

Considering the fact that the mile run is rarely run, even at the international level, why would we want to to make a standard event at the hs level? While I'm really neutral regarding the 1500/1600 debate (each distances has its weeknesses), I think it would be a step backwards to go away from the metric distances. Isn't the rest of the world already laughing at because of our reluctance to stop measuring throws and jumps in feet and inches?
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:32 am

<< I think it would be a step
>backwards to go away from the metric distances.
>Isn't the rest of the world already laughing at
>because of our reluctance to stop measuring
>throws and jumps in feet and inches?>>


The rest of the world is already laughing at you for your stupidity in Iraq but you seem to be living with that quite nicely.
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 8:48 am

><< I think it would be a step
>backwards to go
>away from the metric distances.
>Isn't the rest
>of the world already laughing at
>because of our
>reluctance to stop measuring
>throws and jumps
>in feet and inches?>>


The rest of the world
>is already laughing at you for your stupidity in
>Iraq but you seem to be living with that quite
>nicely.

I agree... it's about time the US minds its own business and let's the rest of the world grow up and take care of itself. Couldn't the billions and billions of dollars each year spent aiding and protecting the rest of the world be better spent here at home? Why should Americans care that people all over the world are dying at the hands of disease, hunger, dictators...
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:17 am

Being an American (by accident of birth here), what I want to know is how did "our" oil get under their sand?!
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:11 pm

>Being an American (by accident of birth here),
>what I want to know is how did "our" oil get
>under their sand?!

Not sure about that... but, if it were "our" oil -- which would mean I have a claim to it, why do I have to pay close to $30 for a barrel of oil? Shouldn't it be free?
Guest
 

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

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:19 pm

I've always bought into the absurdity of the 1600 and 3200 too. But now I'm thinking 'why all the griping about races that consist of complete laps around a 400 meter track?' It makes sense that after building a 400 meter track there should be a contest to see who can beat the next guy four times around the track. In light of that notion the 1600 makes sense and the 1500 doesn't. Who decided that it makes sense to have a race to see who can run 3 and three quarters times around the track? Just because 1500 is one and a half times the number 1000? Maybe the absurdity lieth therein.

Racing started long ago when a couple of guys decided to see who was fastest in a race to a tree and back. Kind of absurd to have a race to see who is fastest to the tree and three quarters back again. They tailored the race to conform to the venue.

Why don't the Europeans run the 1600 if they insist on building 400 meter tracks? Maybe they should build 500 meter tracks so that they can justify their need to stay with the 1500, 3000, 5000, and 10,000. Tear down the 400 meter tracks and replace them with 500 meter tracks. Then the 200, 400, and 800 guys will look silly not completing even derivatives of the oval.

Lighten up tracksters, its all a complex version of the 'I can run faster than you can' boast.

Absurdity is in the eyes of the beholder and I get a kick out of dabbling in it.

I can see faults in my line of reasoning but then again I can see faults in the current system too. I guess its good that we can get all hot and bothered about something as trivial as who can run fastest.
Guest
 

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: aaronk, Google [Bot] and 9 guests