In a daring move, the NCAA has accepted a proposal to run the Mile instead of the 1500 in its OUTdoor Championship meet, just as it now does in its INdoor version.
Also, individual Conferences will have the option to do either distance in their Conference meets.
This has EXPLODED across the Social Media world, with definitive sides being taken, even (especially?) among some of those who would be directly affected--the current crop of Collegiate middle distance runners.
I strongly and totally support this decision!
So let's take a breath, and see how we came to this point, and what it all means.
When I started running--in 1962--all OUTdoor tracks were 440 yards around, making it exactly 4 full laps to the Mile.
By around 1980, the switch to 400 meter tracks was on.
And with that switch--a very expensive one!--came a change in which distances runners raced over.
From 220 yards to the 200 meters.
From 440 yards to the 400.
From 880 yards to the 800.
Those were easy, based on the new track measurements.
But some events saw even more drastic revisions.
The 3 Mile became the 5000 meters, a difference of 188 yards, or about 172 meters.
The 6 Mile became the 10000 meters, a difference of 376 yards, or about 344 meters.
A VERY short distance was subtracted from the 120 yard Hurdles, when they changed it to the 110 meter Hurdles.
But with this switch to metric tracks came the decision to eliminate the TWO Mile!
Two Miles is 3218 meters.
Instead of keeping the Deuce, Collegiates then raced the 3000 meters.
Which was okay, I guess, except that the Two Mile has always been my favorite distance!
So when US High Schools changed to metric tracks, they wanted to stay as close to the Mile and Two Mile as they could.
Instead of adopting the 1500 and 3000 meter runs as their go-to's, they went the absurd route of just doing 4 or 8 laps of these new metric tracks (just as the Mile & 2 Mile were 4 & 8 laps of 440 yard tracks!)--thus "inventing" the 1600 and 3200 meter race distances!
The history of the English distance was so strong, and its legacy so ingrained in American psyches, that we as a nation have thus far held off a 100% switch to the metric system.
What would happen when/if we DO switch?
Well, have you been to Canada recently?
As soon as you cross the border (For me, it's at the Peace Arch in Blaine WA!), Speed Limit signs change from 65 MPH (Miles Per Hour) to 100 km (kilometers) Per Hour.
For ultra-distance runners, that should be an easy one to figure out--it's about 62 MPH!!
Then you'd be changing how you measure temperature--from Fahrenheit to Celcius.
All the gasoline prices would confuse you, as we'd be measuring it in "imperial" gallons, which comes out a whole lot "cheaper" than the US gallon!
(Funny story. When my wife & I drove into Vancouver B.C. on our honeymoon 25 years ago, we saw a gas sign saying a gallon was 59 cents! At that time, I believe US gallons sold at around $2.00. So we were temporarily amazed--until we figured out the reason! LOL)
But back to Track and Field.
Think what would happen with Field Events!
A Shot Put of 70 feet would become 21.34 meters.
A 300 foot Javelin Throw would then measure 91.44 meters!
A Long Jump of 28 feet becomes 8.53 meters.
And what about Our National Pastime--baseball?
Would the pitcher's mound still be 60 feet 6 inches from home plate--or its metric equivalent?
Would a football field be 100 yards, or as noted above, 91.44 meters?
(Imagine ESPN announcers screaming at you that the 49er's just ran the ball back 87.38 meters for a Touchdown!! How exciting is THAT?)
What degree of difficulty is involved in doing the switch that the NCAA has decided on?
I'll tell you!
A coach--or even one of those dumb jocks!---could take a tape measure, mark the place 9.344 meters BACK of the current finish line, maybe install a PERMANENT marker on the curb, and VOILA, you've got the starting line for the Mile!
(Do the same for the TWO Mile, except measure & mark back 18.688 meters behind the current finish line!)
So what would happen to all those wonderful 1600 & 3200 "records" and other fast times run over those distances these past 35 or so years?
The SAME EXACT thing that happened to all those 120 YARD Hurdles marks, and those 220, 440, and 880 YARD records--not to mention all those 3 & 6 MILE times that have disintegrated from people's bin of awareness!
(Who seeks out the HISTORY of our sport anymore---except nerdish historian geeks like yours truly??)
The late co-founder of The Bible of the Sport, Cordner Nelson of Track and Field News, published a FANTASTIC history of the Mile (and the 1500 meters!!) back in 1985, covering the entire history of the event, all the way back to the mid-1800's, up to the 1984 season and the Olympic Games of that year!
It's called "The Milers", and was co-written by Roberto Quercetani!
I URGENTLY recommend you seek out a copy (Amazon??)--and read it!
It has the FULL history of the event, with MANY great photos, and TONS of stats!
It's a fascinating read that will instill in your "metric brain" the LEGACY of the Mile!
(BTW, a BIG negative to this book is that it does NOT include a women's history! For that, I would recommend you turn to Frank Murphy's great work "The Silence of Great Distance". That book DOES have an EXCELLENT historic account of the evolution of women's distance records!)
Sheila Reid took the reins yesterday on Twitter, saying it was a bad move, and that for women, there's no "iconic" standard of greatness, as the Four Minute Mile is for the men!
WRONG---mostly!
The MEN'S Mile history (See Nelson's book!!) dates back, as noted, to the Civil War era, or before!
(That's the American Civil War, folks! LOL)
But the women?
Their Mile history extends back only about 50 years--or less.
But so do SEVERAL women's events--in which men have practiced them for 100 years--with the Discus & Javelin (among others) dating back MILLENNIA's!!
The TJ, PV, HT!
And on the track, the 5000, 10000, the 3000SC and even the 1500, which didn't become an Olympic event for women until 1972!!
(What would happen to the Marathon, that race which extends 26 MILES 385 YARDS? Or 42,195 meters! Would they reduce the distance to a round METRIC number, such as 40,000 meters--or raise it to 50K?? Can't imagine a headline saying "Kipsang runs WR at the Berlin 42,195 meter race!"---can you?)
For an event that basically BEGAN (for women) around the time of the passage of Title IX--just over 40 years ago--MUCH progress has been made.
Same with the other events "new" to women!
So Sheila Reid's complaint doesn't hold up very well--if you take into account the brief history they've celebrated!
Reid said a 4:30 for women doesn't hold the same "marketability" as does the sub-4:00 for men!
True!
But why CAN'T it?
If the ATHLETES--and the coaches, and the SPORT in general--EMBRACE a certain time as being "marketable"--then it WILL be!!
4:30.
Or 4:25.
Or 4:20.
(Keep in mind that Genzebe Dibaba's 3:50.07 WR for 1500 meters is equal to (if run at the same pace!) a Mile in 4:06 or 4:07!!)
Even Shannon Rowbury's new American Record is worth a Mile in 4:12 or 4:13!!
And the TWO Mile?
How thrilling was it to note that Daniel Komen's 7:58.81 WR was TWO 3:59.4's run back to back, non-stop!
(BTW, Roger Bannister's FIRST sub-4 was---3:59.4!!)
For the Women, I was just as thrilled when Meseret Defar ran the Deuce in 8:58.58 in Brussels in 2007!
That's TWO 4:29 Miles run consecutively, non-stop!
Sheila, embrace THOSE historic moments!!
(Her Mile PR is her INdoor time of 4:27.02, at Millrose in 2013--leading Mary Cain to her HSR of 4:28.25!!
Who says the MILE can't be ICONIC--and IMPORTANT--for women??
It can, and with the blessing of the NCAA, it WILL!!
On a personal note, I'm looking forward to ALL my MILE DDD's being DRASTICALLY revised this spring!!
BRAVO!!
Track and field as an organized sport has a long history. It predates baseball, football, and basketball, and probably predates just about every other sport too. That's "organized" track and field. If we consider ancient history, a footrace (of arbitrary distance) was probably the first competitive sporting event in human history -- actually pre-history as it must go back to our hunter-gatherer past.
ReplyDeleteThe sport does well to respect its history -- it's one of its greatest assets. It is my view that many changes (not all) made over the years have been to the detriment of the sport, and the change to meters, while probably inevitable as the sport became internationalized, is one of those detrimental changes.
It seems that, as an organized sport, the origins of track and field took place mostly in England and the United States. Thus imperial measurements go back to the very origin of the sport. Metric units came later, though there are some early appearances of metric units also. Consider the difference between the shot put and the discus throw: The shot put ring is seven feet in diameter, and the shot weighs 16 pounds -- both imperial units. But the discus ring is 2.5 meters in diameter and the discus weights 2.0 kilograms -- both metric units. I don't know why one event is calibrated in feet and pounds, and the other in meters and kilos. Interesting question -- do you know the answer?
The mile has been perhaps the most iconic event in the sport. I have always mourned its demise due to the dominance of metric measurement that has come to be the norm in the sport. I have also never seen any good reason why all events should be measured in the same units. In fact, they're not. Besides the example of the shot put given above, there is also the marathon with its own unique and characteristic distance which doesn't translate readily into either imperial or metric distances -- it's just the marathon, operating by its own rules -- and that's been good enough for everyone for a long time. And I've never heard any serious suggestion about changing that distance.
I like what the NCAA is doing. Most events will remain in meters, but the mile is a special case. No reason why not. I wish this could be the convention at all levels, including the Olympics!
Couldn't quite grasp what you thought of my post.
DeleteSeems you're half in, half out.
But just now, in thinking about all the noise surrounding this NCAA change today, it occurs to me that the entire communal thought process is "half in, half out.
Meaning, we argue over changing the 1500 to the mile ONLY on the OUTdoor Collegiate level---while leaving the rest in limbo.
For decades, the USA has been debating whether to "go metric"m and has thus far not done so---on a WHOLESALE level!!
We've changed things here and there, in dribs & drabs, but not all the way.
It's like we want to be just 50 percent pregnant! LOL
People like Sheila Reid (of Canada, a metric nation!!) say a woman's mile isn't "marketable".
WHAT??
Look how popular the Mry's have been here---Decker Slaney & Cain.
Thirty or 40 years apart (generally speaking), their MILE exploits were/are iconic in their time---and both were the darlings of the sport---for their MILE accomplishments---NOT for what they did over 5K or whatever!
What GD did in Monaco has opened the doors to speculation on a WOMAN's sub-4 MILE.
Not soon, but maybe in the next 20 to 50 years.
But DOable!!
(Sub-4 talk for the MEN basically started when Glenn Cunningham ran 4:06---which is close to the pace Dibaba ran with her 3:50!!
But back to the imbalance in our thinking.
Why be so selective---changing just ONE event---and then just on one LEVEL (Collegiate) of our sport?
We still hold mile races, so why not hold MORE??
As I said in my post, all it would take is one guy (or gal) to measure out the 9.344 meters back from the finish line, mark it somewhere (on the curbing?), and VOILA---you have a PERMANANT starting point for the MILE!!
As for records & lists, I covered that also.
When tracks changed to 400 meters, the 120H, 3 & 6 mile, etc, went the way of the 80 meter hurdles for women, or the standing "broad" jump!
So all of THOSE records and lists went down a black hole, rarely remembered today!! (Except by nerdy historical geeks like us!!)
The same would happen if HS's returned to the Mile, fully eliminating the 1600 (& 3200!!).
The marks would still be there, but ONLY in history books!!
Regrets?
Sure!
Same as---I'm pretty sure---there were regrets by bamboo and steel pole Vaulters when fibreglass came in....or for MALE DOMINANT sport when Title IX was passed!!
Anyway, I said my piece earlier today in my post.
I'm more than satisfied with it.
But if we REALLY want gto "go metric", then we'd better go all in!!
50 percent pregnant women DON'T produce babies!!
"....how popular the MARY'S have been..." , not Mrys!!
DeleteAren't you also "half in, half out"? Yes, you want the mile to be contested at all levels, but I don't hear you calling for a return to the 100 yard dash, 440, 880, etc. So, like me, you're willing to mix units in the sport -- some metric distances, and some imperial, such as the mile. As I said in my comment, I'm fine with that -- no problem having some metric and some imperial distances.
ReplyDeleteI like the mile because of its history and iconic status in the sport, not just because 4 minutes is a nice round number, though that's another bonus (though the "four-minute mile" lacks the stature it once had -- it's become too easy for the men).
I grew up in the sport when it was all imperial in the U.S. I'm familiar and comfortable with that. Over the years, by necessity, I've also become familiar and comfortable with the metric distances. So I'm fine either way. And the sport has history in both units. The Olympics have been metric since 1896. In other words, always.
I accept that sport went metric as it became more and more of an international sport. Most of the world uses the metric system, so it makes sense regardless of what is the standard in the U.S. However, the mile is a special case and I would like to see it contested more often. My earlier comment made the point that the sport still uses imperial units in some cases, such as the size of the shot put circle and the weight of the shot. No problem. So in a mostly-metric sport, there is likewise no problem in contesting the mile. It's already done anyway. Expanding the use of the mile would be a plus in my opinion. I would have no objection to seeing it replace the 1500 everywhere, but that isn't likely.
When you say "But if we REALLY want to "go metric", then we'd better go all in!! 50 percent pregnant women DON'T produce babies!!" you are making an argument AGAINST the mile. But why do we have to be "all metric" or "all imperial"? If that's necessary, then the mile is doomed because no one is ever going back to all yardage distances. Is that even what you want?
NO---that's NOT what I want!
ReplyDeleteJust for the mile (& 2 mile!).
Check again what I said about the changes in distance that happened when tracks became 400 meters.
The 440 lost about 3 yards, the 880 about 7, etc.
But the 3 & 6 mile ADDED 172 and 344 meters, respectively.
One person on Twitter (NOT Sheila!) said today that changing from 1500 to the mile would make it a different race, strategically speaking, because of the added 109 meters.
Well, didn't the 3 & 6 mile become wholly different strategic races also, as THEY added 172 & 344 meters, as I said!
(Didn't women have to adjust when the hurdles went from 80 to 100 meters for them?(
BTW, when I gave the example (in my post) of a 70 foot SP being 21.34 metric---I wasn't EXACT!!
Before writing that, I checked my Big Gold Book, and there is NO metric equivalent for 70-0!!
It jumps from 69-11.75 to 70-0.25 when the metric thing goes from 21.33 to 21.34.
So metrically speaking, 70-0 in feet & inches doesn't exist!!
Interesting!
(I've been using that Big Gold Book a LOT since receiving it!! LOL)
Must be getting tired!
ReplyDeleteDidn't finish my train of thought on a couple of sentences.
On wanting JUST the mile & 2 mile to remain (or come back!), yes, I AM being selective---AND going against what I said earlier!
Also unfinished was the sentence about the added distance to the 4 & 6 mile when tracks went metric here.
I meant to say---when the 3 & 6 became the 5000 and 10000!
(I'm SURE that was understood, but I wanted to make it clear!)
Anyway, it's been an interesting day on Twitter!
(I wonder how many PAGES of comments Let's Run has up now on Reid's comments!
It WAS at about 7 pages---but that was MANY hours ago!
Could be as many as 15 now!!