Deeps 1600/Mile field ever for Ohio?

Was the 2024 Bizzarri Mile the deepest high school field ever in the state of Ohio?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 100.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3

VFL

Member
This question came up and we figured the folks on Yappi who know the history of T&F would know the answer.
Was the 2024 Bizzarri Mile the deepest high school field ever in the state of Ohio?

1600m - FAT
Ben Gabelman Wester. North4:05.24
Drew Zundell University High4:07.22
Calvin Kilgallon Lebanon4:07.26
Connor Long Anthony Wayne4:08.72
Max Liao Mason4:08.73
Lucas Towne Turpin4:09.29
Daniel Emmert Centerville4:09.70
Caden Ozbun Dub. Coffman4:10.12
Tyler Umbright University High4:12.56
Charles Payne Lakewood4:12.58
Luke Bowlsby Steele4:12.68
Michael Dellasanta Wester. North4:14.71

Mile - FAT
AthleteMile Time
Ben Gabelman Wester. North4:06.80
Calvin Kilgallon Lebanon4:08.61
Drew Zundell University High4:08.75
Max Liao Mason4:10.11
Connor Long Anthony Wayne4:10.25
Lucas Towne Turpin4:10.77
Daniel Emmert Centerville4:11.26
Caden Ozbun Dub. Coffman4:11.61
Charles Payne Lakewood4:14.11
Tyler Umbright University High4:14.13
Luke Bowlsby Steele4:14.21
 
 
I just looked at this yesterday as I updated my all-time lists. The answer is yes. I'll post details later today.
 
MarkNameSchoolGrad YearDivisionGradePlaceHeatMeetSiteDate
1600mFirstLast
4:03.40°DustinHORTERLiberty Township Lakota East2018I121FRod Russell InviteMason HS4 May 2018
4:07.26°CalvinKILGALLONLebanon2024I122FRod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:09.13°BenGABELMANWesterville North2024I113FRod Russell InviteMason HS5 May 2023
4:08.73°MaxLIAOMason2024I124TF1Rod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:08.72°ConnorLONGWhitehouse Anthony Wayne2024I125TF1Rod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:09.29°LucasTOWNECincinnati Turpin2024I126FRod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:09.70°DanielEMMERTCenterville2025I117FRod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:10.12°CadenOZBUNDublin Coffman2024I128
F​
Rod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024


These represent the best marks-for-places 1st thru 8th for any Ohio-based race for 1600m. As you can see, Friday's mile race @ Mason produced best mark-for-places 2nd, and 4th-8th. The Bizzarri mile has ALL the top 1-8 places. Quite a little collection by that race.
 
Last edited:
I think a pretty strong argument can be made that, adjusting for shoes, the 2017 D1 state meet 1600 was at least as deep a field.
Screen Shot 2024-05-07 at 7.32.52 AM.png
 
Attached here you'll find the current 1600m / 1-Mile combined lists for the boys. As you know, I don't keep separate lists for 1600m and the mile. Instead, I combine them, and I've added an additional column just to the right of the mile times to show the mile rankings. Looking at the left-most column, you'll find the 1600m rankings. By comparing the two, you can see all the data needed to make your own conclusions.

Enjoy.
 

Attachments

  • Ohio All-Time Lists - Boys - Outdoor - 1600m & Mile Combined Rankings.pdf
    62.1 KB · Views: 37
The shoes may be the difference, but a survey of the usage of shoes at the HS level in 2024 vs. 2017 would have to be done to come to a more definitive analysis.

The pole vault provides a somewhat similar analogy. When one looks at the 1st half of the 20th century, the bamboo pole was in use for the period of most of the 1900-1950 era. Post-WWII, metal pole use (aluminum/Swedish steel) became common, but performances actually DROPPED a small % as those poles were LESS flexible than the bamboo. The fiberglass pole first appeared in the late 40s, and 1948/52 Olympic Decathlon champion Bob Mathias was one of the first to use the earliest models. It took about 10 years worth of development during the late 40s-late 50s, but by 1960, the writing was on the wall about the future of the pole vault. Don Bragg was the last man (1960) to win the Olympic pole vault using a non-fiberglass pole. After those Games, the world record shot up almost 1' 7" from 1961-64, a roughly 11% improvement. While the new "super" shoes in use haven't provided that same % improvement, their impact on performance for at least those that can afford the shoes is definitive.
 
@galesxc and I have both done some work trying to quantify shoe effects. It is difficult to get much precision, because as you say you have to account for whether athletes are using the shoes. Even in the 2020s I have had good middle distance kids who used traditional spikes for racing. But I do know what shoes my athletes wear, and I have looked at their middle school times not wearing the new shoes to high school times where some do and some don't. It is more problematic to just compare the number of athletes breaking a threshold as evidence for the effect of shoes, because lots of fast times breeds more fast times.

In any event, last Friday's mile in Mason was an amazingly deep race. But even with a conservative estimate of the effect of the shoes it would be hard to conclude it was clearly deeper than the 2017 state meet race. For what it is worth, if you consider the kids who were not at Mason it might well be the case that this year's crew of boys milers/1600 runners is even deeper than the group in 2017.
 
MarkNameSchoolGrad YearDivisionGradePlaceHeatMeetSiteDate
1600mFirstLast
4:03.40°DustinHORTERLiberty Township Lakota East2018I121FRod Russell InviteMason HS4 May 2018
4:07.26°CalvinKILGALLONLebanon2024I122FRod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:09.13°BenGABELMANWesterville North2024I113FRod Russell InviteMason HS5 May 2023
4:08.73°MaxLIAOMason2024I124TF1Rod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:08.72°ConnorLONGWhitehouse Anthony Wayne2024I125TF1Rod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:09.29°LucasTOWNECincinnati Turpin2024I126FRod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:09.70°DanielEMMERTCenterville2025I117FRod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024
4:10.12°CadenOZBUNDublin Coffman2024I128
F​
Rod Russell InviteMason HS3 May 2024


These represent the best marks-for-places 1st thru 8th for any Ohio-based race for 1600m. As you can see, Friday's mile race @ Mason produced best mark-for-places 2nd, and 4th-8th. The Bizzarri mile has ALL the top 1-8 places. Quite a little collection by that race.
Unless I am reading this wrong, should Kilgallon be listed as the best time for a 2nd place finish? He was 3rd at the Rod Russell Invite. Drew Zundell was 2nd in that race in 4:07.22. Kilgallon's 3rd place time of 4:07.26 is better than Gableman's 3rd place time from the 2023 meet. I believe that you also switched the places of Max Liao and Connor Long.

I am using this as my reference:

 
Unless I am reading this wrong, should Kilgallon be listed as the best time for a 2nd place finish? He was 3rd at the Rod Russell Invite. Drew Zundell was 2nd in that race in 4:07.22. Kilgallon's 3rd place time of 4:07.26 is better than Gableman's 3rd place time from the 2023 meet. I believe that you also switched the places of Max Liao and Connor Long.

I am using this as my reference:

These are 1600m rankings, not the mile ranking. Frequently, there are changes of order between the two in the last 10m of a race between dualing runners.
 
This field is much deeper and better. Most estimate the shoes in the 5 - 7 second range over a mile. Take that off of these runners and you will go wow that is impressive.
Unfortunately, we'll never really know the exact effect. Weather, pacing, and other factors come into play as well.
 
These are 1600m rankings, not the mile ranking. Frequently, there are changes of order between the two in the last 10m of a race between dualing runners.
Perhaps I'm confused. From the results posted at FinishTiming, Kilgallon was listed as being in 3rd place at 1600 and 2nd place at the mile. In your post you appear to have Killgallon listed as having the 2nd best time in the 1600 ranking. Liao is listed as having the 4th fastest time when he was actually in 5th place at 1600 and in 4th place at the mile. Connor Long was in 4th place at 1600. Your chart with the times listed even has Connor Long having a better time than Liao at 1600 by .01 but you have him listed a place below him.

I'm also confused about what the meaning of the "TF1" notation that you have listed for Liao & Long is.

Below I linked to the 1600 times and the mile results. I hesitate to say 1600 "results" since those times are en route.

1600 times


Mile results

 
Perhaps I'm confused. From the results posted at FinishTiming, Kilgallon was listed as being in 3rd place at 1600 and 2nd place at the mile. In your post you appear to have Killgallon listed as having the 2nd best time in the 1600 ranking. Liao is listed as having the 4th fastest time when he was actually in 5th place at 1600 and in 4th place at the mile. Connor Long was in 4th place at 1600. Your chart with the times listed even has Connor Long having a better time than Liao at 1600 by .01 but you have him listed a place below him.

I'm also confused about what the meaning of the "TF1" notation that you have listed for Liao & Long is.

Below I linked to the 1600 times and the mile results. I hesitate to say 1600 "results" since those times are en route.

1600 times


Mile results

I can see where some confusion might come it, so let me chime in. In my list for best mark-for-place, I'm basing the place solely upon the placing at the prescribed distance of the mile. In this race, the following was true:

Name Mile Time (Place) 1600m split (place @ 1600m)
Kilgallon 4:08.61 (2nd) 4:07.26 (3rd)
Liao 4:10.11 (4th) 4:08.73 (5th)
Long 4:10.25 (5th) 4:08.72 (4th)

So, the best 1600m splits for the place over the prescribe mile distance, which is how marks-for-place are done, is correct. The order of finish at the mile is what counts, not the order at the split mark. Had I given the best mark-for-place for the mile, Long & Liao would naturally be reversed. I apologize for the confusion.

As for the TF1, that should've been applied to all the 2024 race marks as the top finishers were all in Timed Final #1. I've made the correction to my database. Thank you.
 
Top