I really do not understand the logic of the 1500 and the 3000. Honestly, why not just make it 1600 and 3200?
Here we have the 100, 200, 400, 800 corresponding to .25, .5, 1 & 2 laps, respectively, then we randomly break the pattern and run 1500 and 3000 corresponding to 3.75 & 7.5 laps??
This is where the metric system takes a dive. we should either have a 500 meter track with 125, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 3000 races (which would be stupid) or a 400m track with 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200.
@eifersucht2 I think a lot of the early European tracks were 500 metres (hence the 1500m being 3 laps) while the US and the old British Empire countries of course used yards. So what we ended up with is a bit of a mix and match mess!
Yeah... I'm in track in highschool as well as cross country, and I'm pretty sure a mile is 1600 meters. So aren't they stopping 100 meters short? Whats that another 12-14 seconds?
@CoDCaliforniaPro I think I might understand the confusion. A mile is 1609 meters, a 1600 is just a 1600 race thats only run in the united States, a 1500 is a metric mile.
@PONYBOY430 hhhhhhh you are soooooooooooooo mistaken..that was the time when they abused drugs cos most of them could NOT be detected..and that's why the British dominated..steve ovett,steve cram,sebastian coe,dave morecroft..etc..then right after them you would never hear of a british middle distance runner again who would even qualify to the final.
@estifanico Idiot! Of course they were detectable. They're were many athletes in this era who were banned for positive tests. Though the IAAF didn't introduce out of season random testing until 1989, the UK were testing out of competition from 1981 and randomly out of season from 1985. Steroids weren't much use to middle distance guys, so most who were caught were either sprinters of field event athletes. There was no EPO then.
That only emerged in the mid 90's when it was undetectable until a test late in 2000. Even then it was considered an unreliable test until a new one was introduced around 2005. It was in the late 90's don't forget when all the current WR's from 800m to 2 Miles were set by 4 different athletes, whose times no one cam get near over a decade later. They're the ones to be suspicious of.
@mhrunner5 Oh, I guess I was 9 meters off... Don't they run miles consisting of 1600 meters?? If 1500 meters is 110 meters short of a mile then why is it called a mile?
@mhrunner5 I don't know why they call 1500 meters a "metric mile". It's NOT mile. It's 1.5 kilometers. In a race, 1500 meters is significantly shorter than a mile
@TheN3kROmAnCeR 1500 is not a mile whatever you say.. If you run a 1600 then it is a more ideal "mile." 3200 meter runs are 2 miles. Yes. 2 miles. 3200 meters divided by 2 is 1600 meters. Not 1500.
i ran 1 mile in 4 minutes and 5 seconds... and im 13.
MrFlash215 3 weeks ago
their mile pace would be my 100m pace....MAYBE.
TheSagittarian4e 3 months ago 3
I really do not understand the logic of the 1500 and the 3000. Honestly, why not just make it 1600 and 3200?
Here we have the 100, 200, 400, 800 corresponding to .25, .5, 1 & 2 laps, respectively, then we randomly break the pattern and run 1500 and 3000 corresponding to 3.75 & 7.5 laps??
This is where the metric system takes a dive. we should either have a 500 meter track with 125, 250, 500, 1000, 1500, 3000 races (which would be stupid) or a 400m track with 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200.
eifersucht2 9 months ago
@eifersucht2 I think a lot of the early European tracks were 500 metres (hence the 1500m being 3 laps) while the US and the old British Empire countries of course used yards. So what we ended up with is a bit of a mix and match mess!
ARRISIPPY 9 months ago
i wonder how the guy at the end feels =P
Perucamuchita 11 months ago
A mile is 1760 Yards. A lap around arunning track is 440 Yards.
However we are now in metres and tracks are 400m in length.
The mile is 1609m and as such is 4 laps and 9 metres.
This is why they start 9m back from the finish line.
The metric mile is 1500m, is different agian, which is 3.75 laps, which of course is less than a mile.
Paulsun1000 1 year ago
Yeah... I'm in track in highschool as well as cross country, and I'm pretty sure a mile is 1600 meters. So aren't they stopping 100 meters short? Whats that another 12-14 seconds?
CoDCaliforniaPro 1 year ago
@CoDCaliforniaPro I think I might understand the confusion. A mile is 1609 meters, a 1600 is just a 1600 race thats only run in the united States, a 1500 is a metric mile.
JoshMcRay 1 year ago
@CoDCaliforniaPro its actually more like 17 to 18 seconds, and thats for the faster guys.
ap1234512 1 year ago
imagine a 100ft tall man could probably run the mile in 2 seconds because it would be so tiny to him
zippo7224 1 year ago
@zippo7224 he would take 100 meter stride
Ignore14 1 year ago
@PONYBOY430 hhhhhhh you are soooooooooooooo mistaken..that was the time when they abused drugs cos most of them could NOT be detected..and that's why the British dominated..steve ovett,steve cram,sebastian coe,dave morecroft..etc..then right after them you would never hear of a british middle distance runner again who would even qualify to the final.
estifanico 1 year ago
@estifanico Idiot! Of course they were detectable. They're were many athletes in this era who were banned for positive tests. Though the IAAF didn't introduce out of season random testing until 1989, the UK were testing out of competition from 1981 and randomly out of season from 1985. Steroids weren't much use to middle distance guys, so most who were caught were either sprinters of field event athletes. There was no EPO then.
deano27671 1 year ago
That only emerged in the mid 90's when it was undetectable until a test late in 2000. Even then it was considered an unreliable test until a new one was introduced around 2005. It was in the late 90's don't forget when all the current WR's from 800m to 2 Miles were set by 4 different athletes, whose times no one cam get near over a decade later. They're the ones to be suspicious of.
deano27671 1 year ago
he said 1500 meter run
Terekada 1 year ago
@Terekada 1 mile is the same thing as a 1500 meter run
TheN3kROmAnCeR 1 year ago
@TheN3kROmAnCeR its 1609 metres
zippo7224 1 year ago
@TheN3kROmAnCeR no 1600 meters is one mile...
Terekada 1 year ago
@Terekada no, 1609.3 metres is a full mile.. you're an idiot. and 1500 metres is known as the "metric mile"
mhrunner5 1 year ago
@mhrunner5 Oh, I guess I was 9 meters off... Don't they run miles consisting of 1600 meters?? If 1500 meters is 110 meters short of a mile then why is it called a mile?
Terekada 1 year ago
@mhrunner5 I don't know why they call 1500 meters a "metric mile". It's NOT mile. It's 1.5 kilometers. In a race, 1500 meters is significantly shorter than a mile
nerdswith8guns 1 year ago
@Terekada i do track and i do the 1500 meter run witch is the mile
TheN3kROmAnCeR 1 year ago
@TheN3kROmAnCeR 1500 is not a mile whatever you say.. If you run a 1600 then it is a more ideal "mile." 3200 meter runs are 2 miles. Yes. 2 miles. 3200 meters divided by 2 is 1600 meters. Not 1500.
Terekada 1 year ago
British Athletics? What is that he is speaking of? Too bad the Brits have fallen off the map.
ecosmart123 2 years ago
What's the record today?
BravoRomeoSierra 2 years ago
3:43
st00pidfart 2 years ago