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 race....is there any > chance that this could be "transalated" to distances like > the 400 m? > > Rubén
