>> Most importantly, start making tracks 500m and this would be perfect.
Until this happens and ignoring history (we're creating new events, remember?), why wouldn't we run 1600m internationally instead of 1500m? Ever since I was a kid (but not at the Mason-Dixon games, which I am sure were in yards), I have been bothered by the inconsistency of our metric track events. Why don't we standardize on either standard 250/500/1000m increments or on even numbers of laps at 200/400/800 increments? I don't recall any swimming events starting in the middle of the pool. If the 800 is acceptable, why not the 1600? If not, shouldn't we run 750m? Of course, I know the answers to these questions, but none of them really resolve or explain the inconsistency. The next time you see an 800m race, watch most of the folks in the stands at the bell lap. They will be watching the clock and doubling it to see how the race is going. Wanna know why I think the mile is still so popular? It's not because everyone has a soft spot for Bannister and Ryun, it is because they have a fighting chance of understanding whether the race is a good one time wise at each lap. I know I just made the point that times shouldn't matter (in a team meet, by the way), but I already spent that million. This is a different meet. Until the next million, that is my allotment of bandwidth for the day. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
