1600 foibles....

[Conor Dary]

As I reported earlier my old high school, Hinsdale Central in Illinois still has some sort of phobia when it comes to the mile. Briefly, the record listed was 4:19.8 when in reality someone in 1975, John Herbert, ran 4:12.36 for 1609 meters!

Anyways, I contacted the coach with the documentation of the race and I thought it was all good.

But Noooooo.....Billy Fayette, a senior ran 4:14 this year and, sadly, is now listed as the school record! Oh, boy.... An excellent time to be sure, but it is still not as fast as a 4:12 for a longer distance.

The coach replied that they don't want to convert. Well Don't!

Frankly, I was hoping the kid would run 4:12 so this mess would be over, but no....Meanwhile the battle continues.

[kuha]

Astonishing--but far from rare.

[lonewolf]

Why can't they just maintain yard (100, 220, 440, 880, mile) records and metric records?
They are at different distances. When the record for the longer distance beats the record for the shorter distance it replaces it.

[DrJay]

Dontcha just love people who don't want to be confused by the facts?!

[Conor Dary]

The biggest problem is this fixation on nomenclature, like the 1600 is a completely different event from the mile. The correct way to think about is HS runners run a race called M. M in the old days was 1609 meters, now M is 1600 meters. The same event but slightly shorter.

It would be saying that only changing the name of Citizen Kane to A story about a Newspaper Baron and declaring that now it is an entirely different movie.

[kuha]

Why can't they just maintain yard (100, 220, 440, 880, mile) records and metric records?
They are at different distances. When the record for the longer distance beats the record for the shorter distance it replaces it.

The real answser--almost always--is that the old records make today's folks look bad. Much easier to wipe the slate clean and start all over with a flurry of new "records."

[Conor Dary]

Dontcha just love people who don't want to be confused by the facts?!

That's the point. We are talking about a high school, where I presume facts and logic are suppose to mean something. I have taught high school mathematics, and this kind of sloppy thinking makes ill....

[Dutra]

Why can't they just maintain yard (100, 220, 440, 880, mile) records and metric records?
They are at different distances. When the record for the longer distance beats the record for the shorter distance it replaces it.

The real answser--almost always--is that the old records make today's folks look bad. Much easier to wipe the slate clean and start all over with a flurry of new "records."

LOL! I keep letting my son know that his district champion 1600m relay team couldn't beat my HS team's mile relay team made up of 4 kids who grew up within a few blocks of each other and run 40 years ago.

[kuha]

Exactly. Those who ignore the past have no pressure to live up to it.

[Marlow]

So what do y'all suggest I do with the coach at a local school who started listing his kids' marks that were measured metrically as new School Records even though the Imperial marks were vastly superior? When I tried to explain why that wasn't logical, all I got was, 'yes, but these are the best METRIC marks in school history!'

[kuha]

even though the Imperial marks were vastly superior?

And, again, that's WHY he's doing it. One argument could be: "Why are you stealing records from that previous generation--from people who clearly deserve them? How is that fair? If one of them actually came to protest, what would you say to them?"

Logic obviously has no traction with these twits. Maybe shame/guilt will work.

[no one]

I would:
1. Write a cogent letter to the local newspaper
2. cc that letter to the state athletic governing body
3. solicit some kind of grassroots support - pro very grass roots because there are fewer and fewer geezers that have any recollection of races being held in yards.
4. I would think about including the principal in the communications but my guess is most are totally uninformed
5. Consider .... consider ... addressing the state or local coaches association.

Ask the HS coaches if they know who broke the 4:00 mile barrier. Then ask them who broke the 4:00 1600 m barrier. If They answer the first one correctly, there might be a window of opportunity. If they have any answer for the second one its a grim prospect. And I think I realize its a school by school travesty, as many coaches are certainly uneducated about our sport.

Put them up on center stage in the school gymnasium and heartily boo them and throw wrotton veggies etc at them - but be careful if your the only one booing

[Marlow]

Ask the HS coaches if they know who broke the 4:00 mile barrier. Then ask them who broke the 4:00 1600 m barrier.

That's a great way to look at. 99% would be totally stumped!!

[hc10003]

Ask the HS coaches if they know who broke the 4:00 mile barrier. Then ask them who broke the 4:00 1600 m barrier.

That's a great way to look at. 99% would be totally stumped!!

Just out of random curiosity, what is the answer to that question -- who, where, when? Not en route to a mile, but in an actual 1600m race? And again, asking purely out of curiosity -- not at all equating the 1600 with the 1500 or mile in terms of legitimacy. Thx!

[kuha]

Good question. Has it even been done?

[Marlow]

Ask the HS coaches if they know who broke the 4:00 mile barrier. Then ask them who broke the 4:00 1600 m barrier.

That's a great way to look at. 99% would be totally stumped!!

Just out of random curiosity, what is the answer to that question -- who, where, when? Not en route to a mile, but in an actual 1600m race? And again, asking purely out of curiosity -- not at all equating the 1600 with the 1500 or mile in terms of legitimacy. Thx!

Really??!!The Mile does include an actual 1600 race in it!!

German F is the closest HSer at 4:00.29 and no one else runs it.

[kuha]

The Mile does include an actual 1600 race in it!!

No. Sadly, your brilliant streak has ended. He asked a legit question. So the answer is: no, it hasn't been done...?

[Marlow]

The Mile does include an actual 1600 race in it!!

No. Sadly, your brilliant streak has ended. He asked a legit question. So the answer is: no, it hasn't been done...?

YOU may think it's legit; I think it's inane, in the same way that people want to consider the two events as different. I am one of the few people who think HSs should be running 1600s, but even I know that the Mile includes the 1600 (but not vice versa).

And YES, it most certainly HAS been done!!!

[kuha]

You're stating something so obvious that it doesn't ever need to be stated (here, at least). The actual question was wether a sub-4 had been run in a 1600m race. A mile actually IS NOT a 1600m race. It is a mile race...

Oh, boy. I can see a month of wrangling over this conceptual bon-bon.

[Marlow]

You're stating something so obvious that it doesn't ever need to be stated

That's exactly what I was thinking!!

[Conor Dary]

The first 4:00 1600 was probably Gunder Hagg in 1945. He went 3:45.4 at 1500 en route to 4:01.4. That is 16 seconds. 100/109.344 is about 14.6 secs thus 4:00.0 at 1600.

[kevinsdad]

I am happy to report that I am listed as my high school's current record holder in the 1600 based on the mile time I recorded 40+ years ago less 1.6 secs, and as part of the 4 x 800 record setting relay team based on our 2 mile relay time less 3.2 secs. The present track coach at the school is apparently a reasonable guy who realized it was the appropriate and fair solution to the problem.

[cigar95]

Here is what Bob McGuire and I do in the CIF Southern Section (Los Angeles area), and the way we have convinced them to do it at the state level:

Yard marks are converted to the "metric equivalent", according to the usual process. If the best metric time is better, that becomes the new record. If the yard time remains superior, it keeps the record, but . . . and this is the big deal - the time we list as the record is the *actual* time recorded for the non-metric race, with a "y" annotation.

In other words, the only marks we list as records are the marks that were actually recorded. For instance, in one of our divisions, the best mark is a 4:08.4 for a mile. We list the record as "4:08.4yh". If someone runs 4:07.88 for 1600, they have not broken the old record. (This happened a couple years ago, and I took no small amount of grief for it.)

I absolutely realize that this type of comparison for record purpose would never fly for determining a World or American record. At this level, though, one of the main purposes of records is very simply "who ran the fastest?" With conversions, apart from the possibility of very close comparisons, this method allows us to do that.

The presence of hand-timed marks throws in yet another monkey wrench. Do we play more games with the 0.14 factor? So far, we don't have an actual policy. A few years ago at state we had to compare Stember's 4:04.00 to a 4:05.4yh. Bob and I argued about it, and he got his way because he's been in his job longer than I have, even though I was right. I think in one case we actually listed co-records for marks that were very close, one hand timed, one fully auto in hundredths.

[26mi235]

Bravo - give that man a cigar!

[hc10003]

Thx for the answer re G Fernandez...and for the record, I don't believe the mile contains "an actual 1600m race". To be mathematically technical, it contains an infinite number of 1600m sub-distances (the first 1600m, from 0.01m to 1600.01m and so on) depending on how/where you take that slice. But none of these parts of the race are an actual race -- just ask the runner who led for the first 1600m of a mile race but was passed in the final couple of steps how he feels and I'm sure he wouldn't claim happiness for winning the 1600m race, just as the guy who led the third lap would take no joy in winning that slice of the race unless he led at the tape, too. Anyhow, didn't intend to spark a debate, was just curious, though probably should have stated my inquiry as Mr. Kuha did -- whether a sub-4 had ever been run in a 1600m race, since that was my point of curiosity, as opposed to whether someone ever covered 1600m in under 4:00, which has obviously been done repeatedly.

[Marlow]

To be mathematically technical, it contains an infinite number of 1600m sub-distances (the first 1600m, from 0.01m to 1600.01m and so on) depending on how/where you take that slice.

??!! No, it does not. The only '1600' it contains for our sport is the one from a standing start.

[hc10003]

To be mathematically technical, it contains an infinite number of 1600m sub-distances (the first 1600m, from 0.01m to 1600.01m and so on) depending on how/where you take that slice.

??!! No, it does not. The only '1600' it contains for our sport is the one from a standing start.

Even so, that does not make the first 1600 of a mile a race -- no medals for crossing the 1600 point first in a one mile race.

[Marlow]

Even so, that does not make the first 1600 of a mile a race -- no medals for crossing the 1600 point first in a one mile race.

Nope, but rest assured, whatever time you are credited for in the Mile, you can totally claim for the 1600 also!

[kuha]

To be mathematically technical, it contains an infinite number of 1600m sub-distances (the first 1600m, from 0.01m to 1600.01m and so on) depending on how/where you take that slice.

??!! No, it does not. The only '1600' it contains for our sport is the one from a standing start.

No hc is right. The mile only "contains a 1600m race" to the degree that it contains a 100m race, a 205m race, a 387m race, a 654m race, and so on. Ridiculous.

[Marlow]

No hc is right. The mile only "contains a 1600m race" to the degree that it contains a 100m race, a 205m race, a 387m race, a 654m race, and so on. Ridiculous.

If it's sooo ridiculous, why do we get 1500 splits in the Mile and call it a record if it's faster than before? If there were a camera at 1600 in Webb's 3:53 mile, would that not be the 1600 record? Since there was no camera, the HS 1600 record is now 3:53 is it not??!! So, yes, the 4-minute barrier HAS been broken in the 1600.

[Marlow]

Made me laugh - there's yet another "I hate the 1600' reminder on this site's front page. I love this quote:

We understand the change [to metric tracks] and we applaud it. But what we do not understand, and cannot applaud, is the rather strange decision to run 1600 meters and 3200 meters in place of the mile and 2M.

The most obvious answer is that the HS races are all (logically) lap based. We have _____ lap races:

1/4
1/2
1
2
4
8

Just because the Olympics EFFED it up and went with the

1/4
1/2
1
2
3.75
7.5 Steeple
12.5
25

doesn't mean that high schools have to be moronic also. HS Track is a juvenile form of T&F (you may take that any way you wish) and as such has no reason to be illogical like 'adult' track is. Down here in the grass roots, we're happy as clams running the 16 and 32. Sorry it doesn't fulfill YOUR expectations, 16-hatas.

[Alan Shank]

Made me laugh - there's yet another "I hate the 1600' reminder on this site's front page. I love this quote:

We understand the change [to metric tracks] and we applaud it. But what we do not understand, and cannot applaud, is the rather strange decision to run 1600 meters and 3200 meters in place of the mile and 2M.

How about "in place of the 1500/3000"? I mean, if you have to screw around with putting the start line 9/18 meters back from the finish and you can't figure out how to take splits (Todd Williams), doesn't that tell you something is wrong? When I lived in Oregon, the high schools up there were running 15/3; do they still do that?

Just because the Olympics EFFED it up and went with the

1/4
1/2
1
2
3.75
7.5 Steeple
12.5
25

one-and-a-half kilos
three kilos
five kilos
ten kilos
Please.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA

[Alan Shank]

How about "in place of the 1500/3000"? I mean, if you have to screw around with putting the start line 9/18 meters back from the finish and you can't figure out how to take splits (Todd Williams), doesn't that tell you something is wrong? When I lived in Oregon, the high schools up there were running 15/3; do they still do that?

Of course, at the time that article was written, the tracks were still 440y, so they had to fool around with the starting lines to run the metric distances. Any 440y tracks left?
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA, USA

[BBTM media]

Down here in the grass roots, we're happy as clams running the 16 and 32. Sorry it doesn't fulfill YOUR expectations, 16-hatas.

Not all, and probably not most, are "happy as clams" running the 16/32.

Abandoning the Mile and 2-Mile for the 1600 and 3200 was the easy way for the high school federations when new tracks countrywide went metric (400m), but it was a foolish, shortsighted decision because outside of HS, both distances are not run as official events (i.e., record events), and moreover, the 1600 does NOT - and never will - have the historic, promotional and media value of the Mile. How many kids dream of breaking 4 in the 1600?

Massachusetts was the only state to see the Big Picture of keeping the Mile and 2-Mile at the high school level. See: http://bringbackthemile.com/news

[Marlow]

Not all, and probably not most, are "happy as clams" running the 16/32.

As a 20-year (continuing) HS coach, I can assure you that very, very few people - coaches, athletes, parents, spectators -have a problem with the 16/32 we run.

All we care about is the competition and the relative times: 16 vs. 16 and 32 vs. 32. Only historical stat freaks wish to put their 'needs' above the practicality of the races as we have them.
There is zero logic to run 4 laps PLUS 9 METERS, every time we have a meet. It would be laughed off the track. So would 3 and 3/4 laps.