1600 foibles....

[GeorgiaFan1]

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."[/quote]

You are right. Our formerly local high school (with a number of good track records) merged with the next nearest one. The other high school in the merger had not kept records very well. The new high school wanted to find the records from the not as good high school and use them as the new records - they did NOT want the good records.

[Marlow]

You are right. Our formerly local high school (with a number of good track records) merged with the next nearest one. The other high school in the merger had not kept records very well. The new high school wanted to find the records from the not as good high school and use them as the new records - they did NOT want the good records.

When our school added a Girls Weightlifting team, at the end of the season the coach put up a board of all the new 'records'. When I pointed out that seven years prior a girl had lifted on the boys team and ended up going to the Pan Am Jrs she was so good, he refused to recognize her records because they were TOO good and din't want to discourage today's girls.

The obvious solution for all of us to erase all records every year so this year's athletes can be record-setters too. BUT . . . so as not to discourage the also-rans, we should keep 'if-only' records too - if only Sarah hadn't beaten her, then Suzie would would have the 100 record at 13.74, and so on.

[Conor Dary]

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.

That doesn't surprise me at all. Since in my experience most HS coaches knowledge of the sport you could fit into a thimble. And, with a few exceptions, the longer the time coaching the smaller the thimble.

But hey they know all the rules....

[Marlow]

in my experience most HS coaches knowledge of the sport you could fit into a thimble. And, with a few exceptions, the longer the time coaching the smaller the thimble.
But hey they know all the rules....

I'm certainly not going to defend our ranks against people who do very little to support the sport at this level.

[Halfmiler2]

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.

So do they laugh when they watch a college meet or the Olympics or any other level of the sport?

The problem with the 1600 meter is that the average member of the public has no clue what it is. They all know what a mile is and can relate to it. At a time when we desparately need to popularize our sport, having the 1600 as an event detracts from it.

[Marlow]

So do they laugh when they watch a college meet or the Olympics or any other level of the sport?

And yet this is NOT college or the Olympics. It is (by and large aka the VAST majority) boys who will NEVER break 5:00 and girls who will never break 6:00 or a mile OR 1600 and DO NOT CARE (nor do their parents) WHAT the race distance is.

1. The problem with the 1600 meter is that the average member of the public has no clue what it is.
2. They all know what a mile is and can relate to it.
3. At a time when we desparately need to popularize our sport, having the 1600 as an event detracts from it.

1. True
2. False, they understand running a mile LESS than running a 1600 because the 1600 IS the race distance.
3. To paraphrase John McEnroe - you've got to be kidding me! If you think that has ANY bearing on track's current lack of social status, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

[Conor Dary]

There is nothing wrong in high schools running a 1600. Personally I think it is a dumb distance, but there you go. But the problem that started this thread is high school administrators and coaches believing that the 1600 is an entirely new event. It is shorter than a mile and yet the number of the people mentioned above who realize that is probably less than 1% and getting smaller by the minute.

[Marlow]

It occurs to that I (the one guy in the universe who has no problem with the 1600) have not stated the obvious. If (IF!) the NFHS or any state association does indeed bring back the Mile in lieu of the 1600, that will also be just fine with me. My point is, and has always has been,
it . . . just . . . doesn't . . . matter!
It's only High School.

[Daisy]

One advantage of the HS system is the starter doesn't have to wander around the track from start to start. Actually, why don't the schools get rid of the 200 while they're at it? That's a long hike for the starter.

[Norm Balke]

Who needs the open 200 in a HS meet? There are too many events anyway. If the starter has to move around, that slows down the meet. I will tell you now that I have been on the parent's side of track as well as the coaches, THIS is the track and field killer: meets are too long,with too much dead time. Other beefs: the metric measurements. If all tracks could go back to 440, that would take away a layer of disenchantment.

Signed,
USA-centric, track and field Neanderthal

[Daisy]

Who needs the open 200 in a HS meet? There are too many events anyway.

I sense the start of a movement here.

[Marlow]

Who needs the open 200 in a HS meet? There are too many events anyway.

I sense the start of a movement here.

The NIMBY Factor keeps ANY event from being cut. Every one is sacrosanct to SOMEone.

[Norm Balke]

We are going off subject here, but...

When I first started coaching, I never thought the PV would be cut in Iowa HS comps.

I would guess that those who have been around would never that certain events would only be contested certain years in the GP.

Some events are more equal than others. A couple of hammer accidents with the ensuing litigation and I can guarantee that event will disappear.

The 100, 1500/mile, and the 5000/10000 will never disappear.

[kuha]

The 100, 1500/mile, and the 5000/10000 will never disappear.

The mile is on the endangered list--seen generally now only under bell jars in dusty old Victorian museums--and the 10,000 is getting less and less common.

[runforlife]

That doesn't surprise me at all. Since in my experience most HS coaches knowledge of the sport you could fit into a thimble.

40 years ago (don't know if it's true today as I'm hundreds of miles from there) LaPorte, IN HS would NOT count a school record unless the athlete won the event. No matter the meet. Talk about a small thimble!!

[gh]

I can't speak to field events, but until the '60s, many/most institutions at all levels didn't accept non-winning times as school records, and not without decent reason: the unreliability of single-watch timing on places after 1st.

[runforlife]

the unreliability of single-watch timing on places after 1st.

I can definately understand that. At LaPorte in the early 70's they had students doing the timing. One of the top sprinters in the area ran here and they timed him in 9.4 (100y). This remained the South Bend area record until metrics. I timed him in 9.8. Sad commentary on LaPorte but they were known for fast sprint times back then.

[Halfmiler2]

So do they laugh when they watch a college meet or the Olympics or any other level of the sport?

And yet this is NOT college or the Olympics. It is (by and large aka the VAST majority) boys who will NEVER break 5:00 and girls who will never break 6:00 or a mile OR 1600 and DO NOT CARE (nor do their parents) WHAT the race distance is.

1. The problem with the 1600 meter is that the average member of the public has no clue what it is.
2. They all know what a mile is and can relate to it.
3. At a time when we desparately need to popularize our sport, having the 1600 as an event detracts from it.

1. True
2. False, they understand running a mile LESS than running a 1600 because the 1600 IS the race distance.
3. To paraphrase John McEnroe - you've got to be kidding me! If you think that has ANY bearing on track's current lack of social status, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in.

And you are about as wrong as John McEnroe is on most things!

[26mi235]

Anyone who thinks having the mile is easier than the 1600 is clearly not thinking straight. Everything is easier with the 1600 than with the 1609.433m event. Maybe they should just have the mile at the State Meet and the special, year-end invites. Those are the places where the event is a big deal, and that way they might educate people to the correspondence. And, the state bodies should then also indicate that a 1600 time gets multiplied by 1609.45/1600......

[kuha]

Anyone who thinks having the mile is easier than the 1600 is clearly not thinking straight. Everything is easier with the 1600 than with the 1609.433m event. Maybe they should just have the mile at the State Meet and the special, year-end invites. Those are the places where the event is a big deal, and that way they might educate people to the correspondence. And, the state bodies should then also indicate that a 1600 time gets multiplied by 1609.45/1600......

As all sane people agree, the 1600 is an abomination, but, sadly, it appears to be "our" abomination and it can't be put in a bag with a brick and thrown in the river. I'd be totally fine with ALL HS championship meets--or at least all state meets--reverting to the mile and 2 mile. When kids are running 5:10s or even 4:30s, it hardly matters. But top-level performances--and "official" championships--should really stick with the old imperial measures.

And if this happens anytime soon, my head will explode with astonishment.

[runforlife]

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.

Great post!! I totally agree!!!

[Marlow]

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.

Great post!! I totally agree!!!

Finally - sanity prevails!!

[bad hammy]

Other beefs: the metric measurements.

While running US meets in metrics may have little or no effect on participation numbers, it does have something to do with how US sports fans do or do not relate to the sport, and not for the better. Of course T&F will look brilliant when someone beat's Webb's or Verzbicas' records with an equivalent 1600 or 3200. So far we have thankfully been spared that indignity. In fact, the top of the men's combined four & eight lap events are deep in imperial - top six for the mile and top seven for the two.

On the other hand, running imperial 4/8s just at state meets and big invites would be fine with me - it would be a big improvement over what we have now.

[Marlow]

running imperial 4/8s just at state meets and big invites would be fine with me - it would be a big improvement over what we have now.

Fine with me too. Just don't mess with us 99%ers!

[bad hammy]

running imperial 4/8s just at state meets and big invites would be fine with me - it would be a big improvement over what we have now.

Fine with me too.

Wow, most of a decade later can we put this 16/32 thing to bed? We have a plan - we just need to get the fine folks over at the NFHS to buy in. Big meet promoters mostly have. Make it so.

[Marlow]

Make it so.

Warp Factor 9, Mr. Chekov. Engage.

[JRM]

Make it so.

Warp Factor 9, Mr. Chekov. Engage.

Mixing generations! Please, Marlow! Isn't that the premise of this thread?

[Marlow]

Make it so.

Warp Factor 9, Mr. Chekov. Engage.

Mixing generations! Please, Marlow! Isn't that the premise of this thread?

Dammit, JrM, I'm a teacher, not a diplomat!

[dj]

As all sane people agree, the 1600 is an abomination, but, sadly, it appears to be "our" abomination and it can't be put in a bag with a brick and thrown in the river. I'd be totally fine with ALL HS championship meets--or at least all state meets--reverting to the mile and 2 mile. When kids are running 5:10s or even 4:30s, it hardly matters. But top-level performances--and "official" championships--should really stick with the old imperial measures.

Underscore mine.

Of course it matters. In the summer after senior year of high school I broke 5 minutes for the mile for the first time (I was a 2-miler and had never run a competitive mile in high school.) When I told my mother I'd run 4:58.6 she was so proud that I was now a four-minute miler, in the same class with Roger Bannister!

Wrong as she was, I don't think she'd have commented with the same degree of pride were I suddenly a 4-minute 1600-meter runner.

[Marlow]

Wrong as she was, I don't think she'd have commented with the same degree of pride were I suddenly a 4-minute 1600-meter runner.

IF (!) she knew the difference (which, of course, she would not have), she would have understood that it was close enough to warrant her unconditional love ANYWAY!!!

[Pego]

One thing I cannot understand is the degree of passion reasonable people expound in these 1500/1600/mile threads. As long as all high schools run the same distance, it is properly timed, numbers are comparable, where is the problem? I must be dense, but I just don't get it .
Is Marlow saying the same thing or am I misunderstanding everything?

[kuha]

As all sane people agree, the 1600 is an abomination, but, sadly, it appears to be "our" abomination and it can't be put in a bag with a brick and thrown in the river. I'd be totally fine with ALL HS championship meets--or at least all state meets--reverting to the mile and 2 mile. When kids are running 5:10s or even 4:30s, it hardly matters. But top-level performances--and "official" championships--should really stick with the old imperial measures.

Underscore mine.

Of course it matters. In the summer after senior year of high school I broke 5 minutes for the mile for the first time (I was a 2-miler and had never run a competitive mile in high school.) When I told my mother I'd run 4:58.6 she was so proud that I was now a four-minute miler, in the same class with Roger Bannister!

Wrong as she was, I don't think she'd have commented with the same degree of pride were I suddenly a 4-minute 1600-meter runner.

I hear ya and basically DO agree. However, I was trying to be "moderate" and "reasonable" about this issue, while you are more of an absolutist.

[lonewolf]

I still think in Imperial distances but is really not that difficult to resolve.
If run a a 400m track run the 1600 and 3200. If on a 440 track (are there any left?) run the mile and two mile.
The 1500 is a bastard distance that makes no sense and should never be run on any track by anyone under any circumstances.
Just MHO.

[Daisy]

Is Marlow saying the same thing or am I misunderstanding everything?

Marlow is saying that as long as the parents are not complaining, he is not complaining.

[Marlow]

Is Marlow saying the same thing or am I misunderstanding everything?

Marlow is saying that as long as the parents are not complaining, he is not complaining.

Close enough!
I like the idea of contesting the Mile/2-Mile at Big Meets only, because all the rest, 99% of high school meets, just need clarity and simplicity, which, given 400m tracks, is the 16 and 32. There is ZERO reason to try to conform meets to some hidebound reactionary notion of Imperial distances.