NEW U.S. FROSH BOY RECORD 1600 meters

[197hjsteve]

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

ok Garry, you win. But all this just shows the futility of us ALL being over scientific. We're building skyscrapers on sand foundations.

[Guest]

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

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

>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

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

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

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

>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

>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

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

>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

<< 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

><< 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

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

>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

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.