Why don't more elites try to negative split the 800?

pr100 wrote:

A bit of googling reveals:

http://www.runnerspace.com/news.php?news_id=12316

All 800m WR runs going way back have come from positive splits.

What percentage of the runs (non-WR setting runs)of world record holders have been negative splits? Assuming that the answer is close to zero then what you have demonstrated is a cultural tradition of running positive splits NOT a causative relationship between positive splitting and positive results.

Even Nick Symmonds, whose case folks are always getting on for starting out too far back, positive splits. The truth is that you have essentially zero data points for even splitting/slight negative splitting and thousands of data points for positive splitting. Even the most elementary mind must surely realize that this is pretty much a vacuous data set off of which to try to answer the question, "Is it better to positive split, even split or negative split in the 800?"

So, you agree with him.

Sammy plays with yo Mammy wrote:

So, you agree with him.

So, you are stupid.

Statistics Man wrote:

What percentage of the runs (non-WR setting runs)of world record holders have been negative splits? Assuming that the answer is close to zero then what you have demonstrated is a cultural tradition of running positive splits NOT a causative relationship between positive splitting and positive results.

Even Nick Symmonds, whose case folks are always getting on for starting out too far back, positive splits. The truth is that you have essentially zero data points for even splitting/slight negative splitting and thousands of data points for positive splitting. Even the most elementary mind must surely realize that this is pretty much a vacuous data set off of which to try to answer the question, "Is it better to positive split, even split or negative split in the 800?"

In what percentage of non-WR runs did WR holders run on their hands and knees instead of on their feet? Assuming that the answer is close to zero, then what you have demonstrated is a cultural tradition of running on your feet NOT a causative relationship between running on your feet and positive results.

I don't see why it has to be a matter of positive vs negative splits.

If you insist on calling all positive splits as equal, you equate what Symmonds does with what Jock does. Both run the 2nd lap slower than the first.

I wish more elites ran "less" positive splits- 51.0/53.x for 1:44 seems entirely reasonable, yet I see a lot of guys going 50.lo and 55.x to 1:45.hi-1:46.0. My impression is that 2-3 seconds is plenty of positive splitting and that more than that is costing you time. I think Jock would murder 1:44.0 if he would only chill out and run an even 50.5-51.0 first lap, instead of charging out to a 24.5 and be slowing even by 500m.

This is true. Unfortunately you are not bright enough to recognize the irrelevance of your post. Perhaps I should spell it out for you using small words so that you might be able to follow.

1) A statistical argument was made to try to substantiate the notion that it is better to positive split the 800.

2) It was clearly demonstrated that the statistical argument did not hold any water.

3) You posed the same counter-argument positing an alternative method of approaching the 800.

4) Once again it is true that the statistical argument favoring positive splitting and traditional running over crawling does not hold any water. Note, my simple minded little friend, that this does not say that running is not a better method of approaching the 800 than crawling, only that this particular statistical method does not in any way support such claim without adequate data.

5) You then made the leap (that you considered to be oh so clever) that because an argument can be used in two different situations you have somehow demonstrated the equivalence of the two situations.

6) The completely vacuous nature of your "logic", that surely is not worthy of the average 10 year old, is only now beginning to dawn upon you.

Yes, it is possible that positive splitting is the optimal way of running an 800. Yes, there may be ways to demonstrate this. But no, the statistical argument offered is completely invalid and should, at best, be considered a classic example of fuzzy thinking.

Your thinking, on the other hand, is just plain rock stupid.

Statistics Man wrote:

Your thinking, on the other hand, is just plain rock stupid.

harsh judgement from a guy who is too dumb to know when someone is intentionally posting nonsense just to rile you up.

Funny to Hear wrote:

casual commentary wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LHid-nC45k

the closest you'll get at the top ranks.

Interesting to listen to the commentary on that video. "He's got one Kenyan..." as if these are not individuals but rather the Kenyan robots. Similar to many Americans' attitudes today in looking at marathon runners. There are a bunch of individuals and there are the Kenyans.

i noticed the same thing. not only is it F'd up, but also bad commentating. why would you not know all of the guys in the race?

pretty harsh wrote:

Statistics Man wrote:

Your thinking, on the other hand, is just plain rock stupid.

harsh judgement from a guy who is too dumb to know when someone is intentionally posting nonsense just to rile you up.

Since nobody on these boards could ever have any hope of riling me up yours seems a dubious proposition, no?