No. The 5k is between the 200 and 4x400. Take a guess why that's helpful. Your sprinters get rest after 200 and before the 4x400.
Instead of getting rid of events they should get rid of incompetent coaches. There are far too many coaches who aren't developing their talent and/or running them into the ground with overtraining/racing.
There is no point keeping that 9m which means 1 or 2 seconds. The mile was already history and came back when 4 was broken but now it doesn't matter cause you're comparing 3:45 to 3:47.
The 1500 was invented for 500 meter tracks, which are long obsolete, so yes get rid of it but go with the sensible 4 laps, 1600 meters. 1 lap, 2 laps, 4 laps, 8 laps, that's how it should be.
And no 200m, that's redundant, almost the same exact people as the 100m.
Also get rid of all hurdle events, they are ridiculous.
100, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 one each for men and women. 10 events, that's your track meet. 1 to 2 hours. Save the sport!
While we're at it, let's just include the field events at the end of the races. For example, how about the 400m Pole Vault. In this race the runner sprints the 400 as per usz, BUT he/she also carries the Pole Vault pole and has to attempt a pole vault when crossing the finish line. We could also have the 100m HJ, 800 m LJ, the 1600m Shot Put and the 3200m Hammer Throw. It would sure change the sport and make it train-wreckishly interesting. The scoring would be to just take the Decathlon scoring and apply it to the marks. the best score is the winner. LOL
Since all tracks are now 400 meters and not 440 yards, the 1600 makes more sense than the mile.
Now we know the kind of psycho that allowed the 1600m to ever be an event in high school.
I posted this question on another thread once. I can't remember the thread title and therefore can't find it. It may have been about a particular runner at the time. Anyway:
When was the first race over 1600m held?
There is a common misconception that it 'replaced' 1 mile because tracks changed. However, the standard track length has been 400m since long before any meet director would have been willing to offer a 1600. This new made-up 'event' was probably first held decades after track length had been settled. I say 'probably' because I don't know these 2 dates:
A. When the 400m track became standard. I don't know because it probably predates my birth (1960s). When I got into running (1970s) it certainly seemed to be normal. I went to the TAC (what USATF was called as recently as 1980) National Championship as a teenager and watched a not-yet-disgraced Salazar win the 10000. It was exactly 25 laps. There were races over 400 and 800m, etc. Also while in high school I remember going to an occasional meet at another track in the same city and watching various events. That track was also 400m. No 1600 nor 3200 was ever held with the exception of a 4X800 I remember. I saw Juantoreno run an 800 (2 laps exactly) in either 1979 or '80.
B. The other date I'm unaware of is when the 1600 (or 3200) came into existence. As of my high school graduation (1981), I'm guessing you'd have gotten a blank stare if you mentioned those distances in running circles. Just 'guessing' because I'd literally never heard anyone say the words 'sixteen hundred' in any context, ever. It simply didn't exist yet, I honestly believe. I ran pretty seriously in high school and my peers never mentioned the not-yet-popularized 1600 and 3200. They were measurable distances, but no one had ever held an organized race over either one that I had heard of - and I watched track.
The important point here is that date A. (when 400m tracks became standard) predates date B. (the first time a race was held over 1600m) by a long time. Maybe a century, but again, I can't say since I'm not aware of a time at which any 'official' (in any sense) track wasn't 400m. They were when I started following running and possibly when I was born. And again, I'd never heard mention of 1600 nor 3200 until I was getting into middle age - decades after I got out of high school.
So, maybe someone can shed light on when these (relatively) new distances became track events, and why. "Because tracks suddenly changed at the turn of the 21st century" is not why.
I'm not sure why anyone tries to get snooty about metric distances in track. Maybe it's just the default anti-Americanism to get a quick dopamine hit. It's not like you're titrating something, it's an arbitrary measurement for a race.
Anyway, I agree that the 1500 is "off." The mile would be ideal, but even the 1600 would make more sense. When watching a 1500 I, an experienced mid distance guy, still mentally convert the time to mile pace. I found it tough to get in a rhythm in the 1500.
Nothing is going to change - 1500 will remain the prestige distance and the mile will remain irrelevant outside the burgerland. This thread is completely pointless.
Outside of burgerland is irrelevant. Unless you live in Russia/China, most likely your country is a vassal state of burgerland.
What are they gonna say, sorry you skipped the last 9 meters, doesn't count? 99.9% of the people won't even know the difference.
No self respecting runner would run a 3:59 1600 and call themselves a sub-4 miler
No, but if you run a 3:57 1600, it's pretty much a given that you're capable of running sub-4. It's close enough that you know where that runner stands. The 1500 is pretty bizarre
This means nothing to me. If you're running anything under 3:00/km pace I literally have no clue how fast you're going besides "it's faster than 15 min 5k pace".
Race distances are arbitrary. You could also argue 26.2 is silly for a race distance. It's not the actual distance the first marathon was run, by Pheidippides. It's already been changed once so a Queen could get a better view.
25 miles, 40K or 50K might be more pleasing numbers to those who worry about these things.
But does it really matter?
25 miles would be nicer to look at, but 26.2 has the history behind it. That's also why I'd favor the mile over 1600m, because 1600m is actually better in every way except it's dumb bc it's just a mile but a tiny bit shorter.
in that case, T&F just needs to get rid of the 3000steeple. There is no objective reason to keep a long-distance event with the added requirement of barriers. But im sure you've found it entertaining to sit by the waterpit!
also to your point, why the need for a mile when the track is clearly a metric 400m? no spectator is going to "notice the last 9 meters"? you know how many MAJOR middie finals have been decided in the final 9 meters? funny to read that as you claim the mile would make the math easier
lastly, your last statement is obviously pointless and incendiary, but also expected based on your first 2 sentences coming in. the 1500 is one of the few races that is able to bring together (around the world) all different parts of T&F; 5k-10k's racing down, 800m's doubling up, heck even decathletes run it -the best of them probably faster than you-.
the 1500m really is an event of convergence. sad your preferred tv announcers never get that opportunity to showcase that
Nah we should keep the steeple bc it's cool to watch people jump over barriers and into water pits. I have no clue why it's a part of track meets and I used to think it was wack but i fw it now.
Major races may have been decided in the final 9 meters, but when doing mental math for what pace people are on, the final 9 meters are negligible. That's what I meant by it makes the math easier, because it's way easier to figure out the pace of a mile than it is at any time in the 1500.
Firstly, the mile has all the benefits you mentioned for the 1500. Secondly, I'll have you know many of the worst decathletes are faster than me.