What are the distances of Olympic athletics events in the American measuring system? 100m, 200m, 1,500m...

Those pesky Europeans, always looking to make things awkward with their measuring system. I mean, what’s wrong with the imperial options: inches, feet, yards, miles, square inches, square feet, square yards, square miles, fluid ounces, cups, pints, quarts, gallons, ounces, pounds, tons..? Well, when it comes to distance in the Olympic Games (and elsewhere) the metric units win gold, including in the pool and cycling arena, with one notable exception.

So, for those of you much less familiar with things that can be neatly chopped into hundreds and easily compared, sized up, sized down, explained, here’s a quick guide to the athletic distances in both measurements:

Distance (Metric)	Distance (Imperial)
100 meters	328.08 feet
200 meters	656.17 feet
400 meters	1,312.34 feet
800 meters	2,624.67 feet
1,500 meters	4,921.26 feet
5,000 meters	16,404.2 feet
10,000 meters	32,808.4 feet
Marathon (42.195 kilometers)	26.219 miles

Which Olympic event uses imperial measurement?

I mentioned above that despite the prominence of metric units, there was one event that chose to stick to imperial. And that one is, you guessed it, the marathon.

You, like many people, may confidently state that the distance of a marathon is 26 miles. If you’re already mad for the metric system you may say 42 kilometers. Well, while both are decent answers, neither are precise. And precision matters when you’re chasing down a medal.

The official marathon distance is actually 26.2 miles, or to be even more accurate, 26 miles and 385 yards. That’s 42.195 kilometers in European money. Although, this exact distance wasn’t always set in stone. It wasn’t until May 1921 that the International Amateur Athletic Federation established the race’s current length after years of it fluctuating between 24 and 26 miles. So, now you know.

Where did the metric system come from?

The metric system, also known as the International System of Units (SI), originated in late 18th-century France during the French Revolution. The need for a standardized system of measurement arose from the diverse and inconsistent regional measurement units used across Europe at the time, which hindered commerce, science, and communication. OK, that makes sense.

In 1791, the French Academy of Sciences proposed a decimal-based system that was later adopted by the French National Assembly in 1795. This system featured a set of base units (such as the meter for length and the gram for mass) defined by physical standards accessible to everyone. These standards were originally based on natural phenomena, like the Earth’s circumference for the meter.

Over time, the metric system evolved and expanded into the SI system many use today, incorporating more precise definitions based on fundamental constants of nature. Its simplicity, decimal structure, and international acceptance have made it the standard system of measurement for science, industry, and everyday life across most countries worldwide. But not everyone agrees, of course.

Why has the US not fully adopted the metric system?

The United States is one of the few countries in the world that has not fully adopted the metric system. “Why?” you may ask. Well, the reasons behind this are complex and multifaceted, and have their roots in historical, political, cultural, and economic factors.

Historical and cultural factors

One reason why the US has not adopted the metric system is that it has a long history of using customary units of measurement, which are based on older British units (the Brits have generally switched over). These units have been deeply ingrained in American culture for centuries, and changing to the metric system would require a significant shift in thinking and practice.

Additionally, the States has a strong sense of national identity that is often tied to its uniqueness and independence from the rest of the world. Adopting the metric system, which is seen as a foreign and unfamiliar system, could be seen as a threat to this identity. I didn’t say these reasons were sensible ones.

Political factors

The federal government has played a role in the slow adoption of the metric system in the US. While the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 officially declared the metric system as the “preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce,” it did not mandate its adoption.

Furthermore, the government has been slow to mandate the use of the metric system in areas such as construction and transportation, which are heavily regulated by federal and state agencies. This lack of consistency in implementation has made it difficult for businesses and individuals to fully embrace the metric system.

Economic factors

Another reason why the US has been slow to adopt the metric system is that it could potentially be expensive for businesses and individuals to make the switch. Companies would have to invest in new equipment, retrain workers, and potentially change their packaging and marketing materials.

For individuals, the switch to the metric system could also be costly, as they would have to replace their existing tools and equipment with metric equivalents. Additionally, the transition could lead to confusion and errors in industries such as medicine, where dosages are measured in metric units. Given international trade, however, it seems like a solid investment.

Lack of urgency

Finally, the lack of urgency to fully adopt the metric system is another reason why the US has been slow to make the switch. The US is a large country with a diverse population, and there is no pressing need to conform to international standards. Additionally, which goes against my globalisation point, the US has a strong domestic market that is not heavily reliant on exports, which reduces the need for standardisation with other countries.