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
If you subtract out the start (at least 0.50 to 0.75, maybe as much as
1.20 based on the 50m splits), then the second half arguably *was* run
faster. In any sprint event, the start becomes a major factor when
determining average speed. Not nearly as significant in events not run
out of blocks.
If you subtract out the start (at least 0.50 to 0.75, maybe as much as 1.20 based on
the 50m splits), then the second half arguably *was* run faster.
Are you sure you didn't mean to say something else?
No matter how you slice it, after the first 50m each subsequent 50m split is slower
than
Perhaps I am slightly less busy than you are today, but wouldn't 20.47
sec be 'faster' than 21.96 sec?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne T. Armbrust
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 4:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f:
Ok, that obviously made zero sense. Message to self: Double check logic
and math, then double check again, after being bed ridden for a week and a
half... The numbers looked so purty, though.
Dan
--- edndana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan -
I don't follow. If you subtract the start,
I like using 1.0 sec to account for acceleration out of the blocks, which
would make his splits:
1.0, 10.10, 10.12, 10.44, 11.52 = 43.18
In his 200m, his splits were 10.12 + 9.20, or:
1.0, 9.12, 9.20 = 19.32
... which shows he barely decelerated! Unheard of in most 200m
sprinters
JL
Yep, that 200m was Beamonesque. That was MJ with nothing to save it for and
positively at the top of his game
- Ed Parrot
- Original Message -
From: Jimson Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18
