If we're talking about a 10k, a <1s difference over 5000m is meaningless and is physically about the same as an even split. Same for the marathon- these type of splits are even running, not negative splitting.
If we're talking about a 10k, a <1s difference over 5000m is meaningless and is physically about the same as an even split. Same for the marathon- these type of splits are even running, not negative splitting.
Ticktock wrote:
If we're talking about a 10k, a <1s difference over 5000m is meaningless and is physically about the same as an even split. Same for the marathon- these type of splits are even running, not negative splitting.
The negative splits are small for all distance races greater than 1500 m. Mostly it's the effect of "kicking" to the finish after running essentially even splits. For the sprint distances (100/200 m) the acceleration phase dominates the first half more than any late race fade so you'll always see negative splits. For 400 sometimes and the 800 m always the preferred approach seems to include a significant fade at the end and you regularly see positive splits.
whiteguy wrote:
There's no way bolts splits were those!
Splits for Bolt's 9.58:
http://speedendurance.com/2009/08/19/usain-bolt-10-meter-splits-fastest-top-speed-2008-vs-2009/Splits for Bolt's 19.19:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6Q68jlJBARo/So6sr5gS9xI/AAAAAAAAAUE/FhpmROjmh4g/s1600-h/Bolt200msplits.jpgWTF?! wrote:
not a track statistician wrote:3000m WR = Komen, Rieti 1996, 7:20.67
1K splits = 2:25.89, 2:27.29, 2:27.49
Doesn't look like a neg split:
57.5 (57.5) 400
1:56. (58.5) 800
2:25.89 (59.26) 1000
3:23.55 (57.66) 1400
4:23.46 (59.91) 1800
4:53.18 (29.72) 2000
5:21.83 (58.37 - 29.72/28.65) 2200
6:21.58 (59.75) 2600
7:20.67 (59.09) 3000
That's straight up crazy.
Well, that WR is considered by many to be the Mt Everest of track records. Rates even higher than Komen's b2b sub-4's for the 2 mile WR.
