Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Events that should be eliminated

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Events that should be eliminated

    OK... in a world where we like to shorten long numbers (10K instead of 10,000). But, how about the .2K meter dash?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Events that should be eliminated

      The true problem isn't 1500m, 1600m, or 1 mile - the problem is the track community cannot agree on a standard. Someone on the national governing body needs to step up and push for a standard. For my money let's make it the mile here in the U.S.A. (1500m for US championships is OK). Our sport looks silly with 3 distances so close togather.

      On a side note, Ohio had a soph. run 4:06 for the 1600m last weekend. What happens when he runs 3:59 in 2 years at the state meet and 22,000 fans (attendance this year at the meet) think they saw a sub-4 mile, only to be dissapointed later. Sure a few of us will know what happened, but to the casual T&F fan, it will make no sense.

      Bag the 1600m/3200m and go to the mile and 2 mile.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Events that should be eliminated

        >The true problem isn't 1500m, 1600m, or 1 mile -
        >the problem is the track community cannot agree
        >on a standard. Someone on the national governing
        >body needs to step up and push for a standard.
        >For my money let's make it the mile here in the
        >U.S.A. (1500m for US championships is OK). Our
        >sport looks silly with 3 distances so close
        >togather.

        On a side note, Ohio had a soph.
        >run 4:06 for the 1600m last weekend. What
        >happens when he runs 3:59 in 2 years at the
        >state meet and 22,000 fans (attendance this year
        >at the meet) think they saw a sub-4 mile, only
        >to be dissapointed later. Sure a few of us will
        >know what happened, but to the casual T&F fan,
        >it will make no sense.

        Bag the 1600m/3200m
        >and go to the mile and 2 mile.


        Cunfusius says El Supremo is wise man.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Events that should be eliminated

          El Supremo, If Jeff See, the sophomore to which you refer, runs sub 4:00 in two years, it can get in line with all the other Ohio record keeping failures. Did you notice the 3200 state record (source is state meet program) is Chris Kollar's 8:56 from this year's Arcadia? I guess Ricky Pittman, John Zishka, Scott Fry and others sub 8:50's didn't exist. And of course Alan Sharsu's 8:44 2 Mile must be inferior even though it was farther AND faster. Bob Kennedy holds the 1600 record (4:05) even though Zishka ran 4:03 for a full mile. Do other states have these yards/meter, recognized/unrecognized types of problems or is our glorious state unique in this respect?

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Events that should be eliminated

            >While the 1600 doesn't conform to the rest of the
            >world (college, international, etc), it does
            >perhaps make more sense to run 4 laps around the
            >track instead of 3.75. As far as the mile is
            >concerned... no need for a separate finsish
            >line.

            In some ways, the 1600 meters has more
            >signifance than 1500 meters. Does anybody no why
            >the 1500 is considered the mile equivalent?


            Then why not 2000 meters (5 laps) and 4000 meters (10 laps)?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Events that should be eliminated

              I have always thought that the 1500 meters is the goofy distance, at least in a world with 400 meter tracks... if we are going to run 1.5K's and 5 and 10K's then why not have 500 meter tracks? Maybe because we have a tradition of relays with 100m and 400m splits and world individual records at 200, 400 and 800 meters? If we stick with 400 meter tracks, then we ought to stick with races evenly divisible by 4's. Right?

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Events that should be eliminated

                The Ohio state track meet is great for track nuts, but not so great for other fans. Why no announcer for a meet drawing 20,000++ every year? Why no mention of See's accomplishment relative to others in the nation this year, and relative to soph. performances all-time? A kid takes out the 3200m in 3:19 (looking good, too) and holds on for the win and NOT ONCE was his name mentioned over the loudspeaker during the race. El Supremo had to fight his way down to trackside to get the kids bib number.


                Do any states have play-by-play announcers DURING the meet for the fans? Is there a rule against it, or as BUCKEYE II pointed out is Ohio just a little (lot?) behind the times?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Events that should be eliminated

                  Concerning the 1500/1600/mile debate. Let's not forget that we're talking about high school track.

                  I'm guessing less than one percent of high school distance runners will ever have a time low enough (4:10, 4:05, ???) that it even matters. I don't think the kid who just ran a sub 5:00 1600m for the first time in his life is going to be concerned that it wasn't a legitimate mile.

                  For the "elite" HS runner, he's going to get his chance to compete against his competition at the "true" distances during the summer and at the larger invitationals. What better way to settle the debate if Kid A's (4:02 1600m) is better than Kid B (4:04 mile) than a head to head competion at any distance? How about 1605 meters -- split the distance? Or 1550?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Events that should be eliminated

                    Any event that cannot be completed in it's entirety within the confines of the stadium.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Events that should be eliminated

                      The vast majority of people that watch or read about track and field relate 4:00 to Mile times. So when a high schooler does get close to 4 minutes, those of us who have no problem converting a 1600m time to a mile, still get frustrated that officials can not stagger the track a few yards on each lap to make a true mile. It is very simple to do, and would benefit all who have to be reminded that a 4:00 1600m converts to approximately a 4:01.7 mile. Let's not forget the idiocy of the 3200m, and how those times are tainted from actaul 2-mile efforts. Fans, I believe, would appreciate the effort that much more. I can think of no other country where where 1600m and 3200m are run rather than a mile and 3000m, especially when they are not internationally recognized distances.
                      Running 1500m would really be the right thing to do, but running 1 mile may actually be the best for fans to comprehend.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Events that should be eliminated

                        If you institute a rule like that, they'll start running marathons and 50k walks on the track. It's perfectly feasible... but do we really want that?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Events that should be eliminated

                          >The vast majority of people that watch or read
                          >about track and field relate 4:00 to Mile times.
                          >So when a high schooler does get close to 4
                          >minutes, those of us who have no problem
                          >converting a 1600m time to a mile, still get
                          >frustrated that officials can not stagger the
                          >track a few yards on each lap to make a true
                          >mile. It is very simple to do, and would
                          >benefit all who have to be reminded that a 4:00
                          >1600m converts to approximately a 4:01.7 mile.
                          >Let's not forget the idiocy of the 3200m, and
                          >d how those times are tainted from actaul 2-mile
                          >efforts. Fans, I believe, would appreciate the
                          >effort that much more. I can think of no other
                          >country where where 1600m and 3200m are run
                          >rather than a mile and 3000m, especially when
                          >they are not internationally recognized
                          >distances.
                          Running 1500m would really be the
                          >right thing to do, but running 1 mile may
                          >actually be the best for fans to comprehend.


                          For those who were in diapers in the 70s and early 80s, I would say we're more accustomed to viewing a "mile" race as four laps around the track; not a race that finishes at a line that is 9 meters in front of where it started.

                          As the US made the transition from yards to meters on the track, I'm sure all of the HS track officials felt it would make sense to switch over to 1600 meters because it's still 4 laps around the track.

                          It certainly would be interesting to learn what went through their minds back then. Why didn't they go 1500 and 3000???

                          Another question... why did they chose 1500 and 3000 as the metric equivalent to a mile and 2 miles? Since the mile seems to be used as the main measuring stick to judge a runner's potential and status as an athlete, why have him run a race more than a 100 meters shorter. For a runner who runs a 4:05 1600, it is easy to figure out that there mile time would be within a few seconds -- it's only a few meters difference. But, to say a 3:50 1500 would equate to a mile time just above 4:00 (sorry, I can't spit off the recognized conversion), seems at best a rough estimate.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Events that should be eliminated

                            >Since the mile seems to be
                            >used as the main measuring stick to judge a
                            >runner's potential and status as an athlete, why
                            >have him run a race more than a 100 meters
                            >shorter.

                            It may be used as the main whatever IN THE US, but that doesn't mean it's inherently superior as a test of running ability. You could just as well run 1.07 miles, or 1389 meter races, and it wouldn't make much of a difference. The thing is 1500 meters happens to be the internationally recognized standard distance. It DOES make sense to standardize distances worldwide, so you can compare performances. And it IS easier for one country to adjust to the rest of the world than vice versa, especially considering 90% of the world's population uses the metric system.

                            Believe it or not, in most places times achieved at 1 mile don't mean diddly-squat to anyone.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Events that should be eliminated

                              I only know this from the tracks around hometown, but the vast majority of HS tracks are of the 440 yard variety. Obviously there have been new tracks built for 400m, but given that most of the old tracks are still 440 yards, wouldn't you think it would be simple to run a good, honest mile on an "old" track? After all, weren't these old 440 yd tracks re-measured and the start lines adjusted for 400m?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Events that should be eliminated

                                The Mile is recognized as a record event by the IAAF and sometimes run on the European cicuit.

                                My understanding of the issue of Mile versus 1500 was that in the early twentieth century the UK had quarter mile tracks while the French had 500 meter tracks. On the latter, a 1,500 makes a lot of sense: 3 laps. The compromise that was ultimately struck was to use 400 meter tracks internationally which was metric but approximates a quarter mile, and use the English equivalents in the shorter distances (100,200, 400, 800) but use the French distances at the longer distances (1500, 3000, 5000, 10000).

                                As to running a Mile on a 400 meter track, it is very simple. You use the common finish line but start the race 9 meters behind it which is just inside the relay zone. I cannot believe that this is so difficult that the high schools had to invent a bastard event instead. It doesn't require Calculus, or even 9th Grade Alegbra to figure out how to do it.

                                The Mile makes sense for two reasons: (1) The public relates to it, but has no clue about the 1600, and (2) the long history of tradition about the mile.

                                If Webb had broken 4 minutes in the 1600, would the press and public cared at all?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X