Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440)
Don't mean to misread here--but I always thought the meaning of negative split is that the second half of a race is faster, not slower, than the first (as for example with Jim Ryun's WR 880 yards where he went out in 53+ and finished in 51+)--so MJ's splits in his WR 400 are not--by that definition--negative. His splits support my earlier note that the faster the 400 WR gets over time, the more even the splits are likely (likely!) to be. Mitch Further to Seville splits, here's what the video-analysis shows for Michael Johnson's World Record in the 400: 50m100m200m 6.14 4.96 (11.10)11.10 5.00 (16.10) 5.12 (21.22)10.1221.22 5.20 (26.42) 5.24 (31.66)10.44 5.52 (37.18) 6.00 (43.18)11.5221.96 * don't forget to consider the time out of the blocks! Jimson - Original Message - From: Jared Fletcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 9:00 PM Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: Negative splits in 4400? If you break up MJ's 400m into 200m splits, you will find his first 200m contributed 49% of his total time, whereas his last 200m contributed 51% to his total time of 43.18. I don't remember his 100m splits off hand.
Re: t-and-f: Negative splits in 4400?
The faster the 400, the more even the two halves have to be. To run a WR 400, the first 200 has to be speedy, and to run a WR 400, the deceleration in the second half has to be slower/controlled, or else no WR. The wall for a first 200 is obviously 19.32 seconds today--no one could run it faster. As that wall is approached in the first half of the 400m race, the physical cost increases--so the first 200 has to fast (doh...) but not so fast that the runner can't almost sustain it (while inevitably decelerating). The result will have to be closer to even splits as the first 200 is balanced between an all-out 200m and loafing (both strategies being ridiculous), while the second half depends on highly controllable, minimized deceleration. Mitch
Re: t-and-f: Negative splits in 4400?
To me, who was a mediocre (49 relay leg) but totally enthusiastic and committed 400m runner 30 years ago (and a student of training), there is no way the negative-split approach would pay off for most 400m runners. If Michael Johnson were to have gone out in 22 flat, he would never, not even on his best day, have come home in 21.1. It seems that energy conservation over the first 200 is a flawed strategy given that the 400 is not an aerobic event. If you look at differentials between the first and second 200s in the fastest races of all time, you'd no doubt find that the first half is 1.5 - 2.5+ seconds faster than the second. The differential, however, has to be diminishing as the 19.32 wall (current WR) for the first 200 is approached. But diminishing the delta could not carry through to negative splitting. I can't believe it ever would, though a difference that gets increasingly closer to even-pace splitting has to be what we'll see in the future. When the world record is 41.0, the first 200 will probably be 19.8 to 20 flat and the second 21 flat. The race will probably always be run with deceleration marking the last 300 meters. Minimizing tyhe deceleration is where the great performances will come from. But a slower first 200 won't achieve that goal. I don't think... Hey, what do I know? Would be curious to hear other opinions. Mitch Orfuss Hi I know there is a well known recomendation to aim to run the first 200 meters 1s-3s faster than the sencond ones in a 400 meters sprint. Im sure you all are familiar with the negative splits tactic that is widely used in longer distances, which is based in delaying the the fatigue in the first half to produce faster golbal times in a raceis there any chance that this could be transalated to distances like the 400 m? Rubén
Re: t-and-f: Lazy Marathoners Before 2002
I could as easily believe there's widespread drug use by marathoners as the next guy, but does it not seem to you that some of today's really fast 10K runners have moved up to try 42K--and that could explain the fast times? Marathoners of the past were not typically competitive at 10K. (Zatopek was, Shorter was, and others you could name.) Maybe enduring speed, the way Coe did in the 800 meters, is an idea that's moving up to marathon running. Plodders (relatively speaking--no slur intended) may be uncompetitive at this point. Mitch
Re: t-and-f: major philosphy difference for the sport
There's no way to know if robbing banks is any worse for society than performance-enhancing drugs, which may be far worse. (Or they may be incomparable.) There is probably no turning back from p-e drugs now that they're here. Perhaps the problem is no longer a problem (meaning something that can possibly be solved or fixed) buthas become a fact that can at best be coped with. This is not to condone recreational use of drugs in elite sport. I know my personal reaction is rejection--I wouldn't have used them when I was competing, even if I could have improved (it wouldn't have been an improvement worth having) my admittedly mediocre performance, and I wish everyone else felt the same way. But that's an awfully naive expression. When I think about where the line is crossed, it gets very confusing to me... meaning, for example, that my eating a very legitimate carbohydrate before a race may help me run faster than eating a steak before that race because each changes my body differently--and both are legitimate--but which other kinds of changes are legitimate, which ones aren't, and under what conditions does the legitimate set of conditions cross over to become illegitimate? Maybe it's not a continuum. I'm not sure that the question can be answered when phrased that way, but I'd sure like it to be answerable that way! How do others who care passionately see it? I would love the benefit of more sophisticated thinking than my own. Thanks. Mitch
Re: t-and-f: Get rid of the IAAF
I don't know about getting rid of the IAAF but I've been saying for a long time that the artifical 0.1 for starts is absurd at worst, arbitrary at best. Whjat other event has this kind of arbitrary provision? Why not also subtract the length of a discuss thrower's arm from the distance of the toss? Some people have longer arms than others. Some people have faster reaction times to the gun than others. (Armin Hary did, and he wasn't that kind of cheater.) Reaction time is part of sprinting. There are big penalties for guessing wrong--for those who choose to take the chance. It's part of what makes some sprinters great. What is the equivalent to the 0.1 delay in any other track or field event? Ridiculous. Mitch
Re: t-and-f: Edwin Moses Comeback?!!
Seeing Moses in the blocks again is a wonderful thought, and he could be in terrific shape; but anyone who's ever sprinted knows that, with age, speed is the first thing a runner loses--and loses fast--even if he or she never stopped training for speed.
Re: t-and-f: Slow 100m
Why shouldn't there be variances in 100 meter sprinting, just as there is in longer races--though I realize there's (probably) no such thing as a tactical hundred meters. 400 meter quality, for example, has been (temporarily) down since Michael Johnson retired. (Do you think fans would be disappointed by a high-43 today as they were in the Johnson era?) The 100 may be experiencing an off year for a host of reasons. Or maybe the track is a very slight incline that hasn't been noticed or measured. Wouldn't be the first time.
Re: t-and-f: IAAF.org: IAAF Statement re: Jon Drummond
0.10 is an arbitrary line of false-start demarcation. Why 0.10 and not some other arbitrary number? Starting is part of what makes a sprinter. Why try to level the playing field? If anticipating the gun had no downside in terms of expulsion from the race, maybe you'd need something artificial. But seems to me it's a worse crime to be arbitrary than to anticipate the gun. Surely not every sprinter has the same reaction time. Those who react faster than others should benefit, or at least not . I wonder what Armin Hary's reaction time was in 1960 when he beat Dave Sime in Rome. All phases of a sprinter's race should count toward his or her success--the start, the pick-up, the ability to hold speed (like Tommie Smith), and more. The fastest possible start is part of the equation. I'd argue to kill the 0.10 rule. Then it's totally fair. Mitch
