I agree 1 km spilts could be a bit too frequent. So, why not give splits
every 2 km?
David Dallman
On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Bettwy, Bob wrote:
Allow me to explain why we used mile splits for the announcing at the NCAA
XC meet.
Remember, we are
Bob,
Would a more sensible option be to give 2 k splits??
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bettwy, Bob
Sent: 22 November 2000 14:59
To: Track List (E-mail)
Subject: Re: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
Allow me to explain
Fortunately quite a lot about the life of Emil Zatopek has been
documented for posteriority. I don't need to repeat any of this here.
However one small personal anecdote came to mind when I read Randall's
autograph posting. I first became a track and field enthusiast in the
early 1950s when I
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/gam/Sports/20001123/STRAK.html
Athlete wants office purged.url
In a message dated 11/23/0 5:18:25 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob,
Would a more sensible option be to give 2 k splits??
Mike
It wouldn't matter if you gave 1k or 2k splits...the vast majority of people
in attendance at an American x-country race wouldn't be able to relate to the
Michael Casey wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said
"who cares what the final
time is in most x-country races"
If thats the case who cares what the split times are? Also I think you
underestimate the ability of the people in attendance at an American cross
country race to relate to km
Hi Walt,
The points still remain. I have great faith in the american fans ability to
relate km times to pace.
And I agree with you that final times in crosscountry races are relatively
meaningless, but if this is true, so are the split times.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
It seems to me that cross-country split times have two important functions:
(1) during the race, they help runners to gauge their effort and strategize,
and (2) after the race, they enable fans/statisticians/coaches to
reconstruct the progress of a race, to see who had the most effective pacing
You die-hard mile split people out there (you know who you are) must
really have got bent out of shape when tracks went to 400 m and you
couldn't get mile splits in track races anymore. Of course, some of you
still take 1600 m splits. (1600 doesn't divide into integer kilometer
distances very
Adam G Beaver said
"splits every
1609 rather than 2000 mean that runners' strategies are more frequently
monitored for later analysis."
Hi Adam
Yes and 1000m is less than 1609 giving even more useful information.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL
Everyone has the right to tell someone what they should or shouldn't do!
They call them opinions.
As for "... I know more American fans who relate to km splits than those who
don't." Don't try to get one past me, Sonny. That's simply untrue.
Keep on runnin' brother.
malmo
-Original
Speaking as an American, Mike, and as one who is fluent in metric as well as
imperial, I will say EMPHATICALLY: American fans do not, need not, and
should not relate to kilometer splits. Mile splits work just fine.
You're over-estimating the intelligence of Americans. The "land of Jerry
Hi Malmo,
A couple of points.
1. Lets keep this civil.
2. Again I point out that of my aquaintances, I know more American fans who
relate to km splits. Believe me it is not all that difficult. (It is
possible to relate to both). Most of our cross country races and road races
had km splits.
Thank you Justin.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: Justin Clouder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 November 2000 17:46
To: Michael Casey; 'malmo'
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: t-and-f: NCAA XC Splits and Leader Info
If I may interject in a private debate...
...one of the
If I may interject in a private debate...
...one of the things about this metric vs imperial thing which confuses me
is why people seem to think that it has to be one or the other.
Here in the UK I buy my petrol by the litre yet car makers discuss miles per
gallon; I buy milk and beer by the
Hi Malmo,
I beg to disagree with your "emphatic" statement. Having competed in the US
for 4 years I know more American fans who relate to km splits than those who
don't. Admitting that I know only a miniscule minority of American fans it
still negates your statement that American fans do not
Malmo wrote:
Speaking as an American, Mike, and as one who is fluent in metric
as well as
imperial, I will say EMPHATICALLY: American fans do not, need not, and
should not relate to kilometer splits. Mile splits work just fine.
You're over-estimating the intelligence of Americans.
Okay, okay, okay...I give...
After a court demanded re-count, here are the kilo splits from the Men's
NCAA race. These are taken from mile split extrapolations:
1Km: 3:05
2Km: 6:13 (3:08)
3Km: 9:29 (3:16)
4Km: 12:34 (3:05)
5Km: 15:35 (3:01)
6Km: 18:33 (2:58)
7Km: 21:31 (2:58)
8Km: 24:31 (3:00)
Netters
Wayne writes:
Of course, some of you still take 1600 m splits. (1600 doesn't divide into integer
kilometer distances very well either).
Being one of those who uses the 1600 split in training, I will try to
explain the irrational.:)
I came into track just after the transition to the
Go out on a one hour run at 3:35 pace. Anyone relate to that? I rest my
case.
malmo
Come on, [malmo]. The idea that Americans can't relate to metric splits
is
absurd. Who doesn't relate to the total time in a metric race?
If you know
that 30:00 is a good time for a 10k cross country
very well put malmo!! very well put.
Y ask Y:
For a little Sunday piece I'm writing on Zatopek, I'm interested in knowing
who is credited with "inventing" interval training for distance runners -- a
la 100x400 that EZ used to run.
(Fred Wilt's "How They Train" in 1973 sez: "According to virtually all
sources, it was Emil Zatopek
Here is the basic premise it all boils down to in Track Field gentlemen:
THE MILE IS STILL KING.
ps All you folks that get upset when Malmo chides you should go down to
the store and purchase a
Sense of Humor 2000 TM.
Keith Whitman
Head Cross Country Coach
Assistant Track Field Coach
Much of this depends on how you define "interval training." People were
using short, repetitive runs in training in the 1800s. The early Fins
trained using what many would today call intervals.
The real credit though probably has to go to Gerschler who trained Harbig
to a 1:46 800m in the
On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igloi's system developed concurrently with Zatopek's? Did Gosta Olander in
Sweden pioneer this form of training (as Wilt also hints)?
Gosta Holmer was the father of fartlek training, not interval training.
Paul
***
Paul
25 matches
Mail list logo
