Alan Webb U.S. Mile Record (3:46.91) -- Where (if anywhere) is it played?

The 3 1/2-second differential is an eternity. If it were the 100 meters, if would be the difference between running 9.78 or 9.94. And while 9.94 is smoking, it's too far off the WR to get worked up about.

I think the fact the Steve Scott's AR held up for 25 years speaks to the fact that distance running in this country went into a swoon at about the time that Prefontaine died. Scott was a warrior and deserves credit, but it's not as though what he did at the time should have turned into Beamon-esque. He managed to run at a high level (for a long time, I might add) at a time when the rest of our milers sucked.

 

but it's not the 100

and you can't make that comparison

the problem with that argument is that a 9.94 would be i think #13 all-time U.S

don't try to diminish what Webb did. it's a remarkable accomplishment. the mile record is probably the second-most significant US track record, behind only the 100

 

I used the 100m comparison for the sake of context, and I think it's a legit comparison because the 100 record has been set/threatened a lot more frequently than the mile has in the last 25 years. That would help SEs put Webb into perspective -- i.e., if breaking the 100m record has consistently merited a spot on the cover in recent years, then Webb deserves to be there. If not, then it's a bit more of an iffy proposition.

BTW, I'd definitely rank the 100 and the LJ ahead of the mile as far as significant US track records go. I'm on the fence about whether I'd put the decathlon ahead of the mile because the whole metric/standard issue has affected how readers view some track events. The sport would have been bettered served in this country if the 1,600m distance rather than 1,500m was considered to be the metric mile.

 

oh my god

 

Well, you certainly can't argue with logic like that

 

you can't be serious

the 1600 is a total bastardization, a meaningless distance that's a couple seconds faster than a mile, a distance that's used by nobody in the world except US high schools and their inane and inept governing body

the only real distances are 1500 meters and a mile

anyway, here is video of Webb today: http://www.flocasts.com/flotrack/coverage.php?c=69&id=4440

 

And yet, since they run the 400, 800 , you'd think the 1600 would be a natural progression -- especially for developing runners like US high schools...

 

At my shop, probably nowhere.

If I were running a sports section that at least aspired to be somewhat national, it'd probably go front page only because he's somewhat local to where I live and work. Otherwise, it'd go inside with a refer on the front of the sports page.

 

I will say this. It's about freaking time Webb lived up to the potential he showed as a HS senior at Penn

 

this sort of comment is baffling to me

he was Big Ten XC champ and 1500 champ at Michigan

he won the Olympic Trials in 2004 at 21 years old. he raced fast in Europe that summer and showed great range - 1:46 to 13:46

in 2005, he won his second US title and ran 3:32 for 1500, 3:48 mile and 13:10, sick range

last year his 27:34 was fastest 10,000 debut ever and #9 all-time US

earlier this year in Europe he ran 1:45 and won a Golden League 1500 with #4 all-time US

the notion that with this race he's finally broken through is preposterous.

maybe people just started noticing

 

The 1,500 is every bit as arbitrary as the 1,600 is. There was a time when the imperial distances meant something to a huge portion of the world.

If the international track community considers 100m, 200m, 400m and 800m as "legitimate" distances, they still owe me an explanation of why 1,600m isn't next in the progression. Why aren't we starting and finishing all races beyond the sprints from the same spot on the track?

And let us not forget that the fairly ridiculous 110m hurdles distance still sits out there as an international "standard," a blatant conversion from 120y.

 

no, the 110M is virtually exactly the same distance as the 120Y hurdles. there is no conversion. a 12.93 is a 12.93

and the 1600 is different from the other metric distances

the 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 3000, 5000 and 10,000 have been Olympic distances since 1896 (actually the 200 was introduced i think in 1904 and the 5000 and 10000 in 1912 or so)

the 1600 is a US high school invention