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: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440)
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. Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Re: Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440)
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 the previous one. 50m 100m 200m 6.14 4.96 (11.10) 11.10 5.00 (16.10) 5.12 (21.22) 10.12 21.22 5.20 (26.42) 5.24 (31.66) 10.44 5.52 (37.18) 6.00 (43.18) 11.52 21.96 Subject: Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440) 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.
RE: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440)
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: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440) Huh! I'm pretty busy today, but not so busy to let this one pass. If you subtract 0.75 sec. from his first 200 split of 21.22 to get the equivalent flying start time for the first 200, you get 20.47, 1.49 sec. slower than his second 200 run in 21.96. Dan Kaplan wrote: 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. Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx (TM) 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated... - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440)
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, then the second half was MUCH slower - Ed Parrot - Original Message - From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:28 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440) 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. Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html = http://AbleDesign.com - Web Design Custom Programming http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy TF @o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] |\/ ^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440)
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 - Original Message - From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:28 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440) 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.
Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440)
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 WR (was Negative splits in 440) 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 - Original Message - From: Dan Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:28 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: MJ's splits in his 43.18 WR (was Negative splits in 440) 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.
