skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 3, 2009 0:31:00 GMT -5
Why not just do the Mile already, with it's history and all, and get it over with?
(Sorry Kevin.)
Aside: From 1976 to 1990, I got a 1500m PR every single year. But still.......
|
|
tree
New Member
Posts: 48
|
Post by tree on Oct 3, 2009 11:46:57 GMT -5
Because metric kicks ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by gl2728 on Oct 3, 2009 12:52:35 GMT -5
The Mile was a much more heralded event than the 1500m. A coach I know says going metric ruined this distance.
|
|
STIkS
Full Member
Posts: 243
|
Post by STIkS on Oct 3, 2009 14:04:27 GMT -5
Don't we run the 1500m because when the metric switch happened the tracks in a number of the metric system countries were actually 500m and not 400m, so it was 3 laps instead of 3 and 3/4?
|
|
skuja
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by skuja on Oct 3, 2009 23:15:11 GMT -5
Well, even at the 1896 Olympics they did 1500m. But The Mile was around so much longer than that.....I love the history. Was there a Mile WR sometime in the 1860s?
It always bugs me that there is a big gap from 1500m to 5000m in Championships, unless you want to jump over silly barriers for 3000m.
|
|
|
|
Post by marathondude on Oct 27, 2009 15:10:10 GMT -5
For Track and Field to cross over to the general public there must be some simple, but meaningful, times that are of interest. It is easy for non-track afficianados to get excited about a sub-10 second 100 meters or a sub-4:00 mile. The records are well under both marks, but the public is still fascinated by them. We need more fans and bringing back the mile would help. No one in the United States asks, 'Hey, what is your 1,500 meter time?' When I tell someone I ran a 4:21 mile in high school 34+ years ago, it has meaning as they know the 'mystique of the four-minute mile.' Anyway, enough rambling...
|
|
