jabouko wrote:
who are the many others?
typical... a bold claim, then only a single data point to back it.
Another moron chimes in.
jabouko wrote:
who are the many others?
typical... a bold claim, then only a single data point to back it.
Another moron chimes in.
The main point of the thread is NOT to assert that negative splits are faster in an 800m than positive splits. The point is that they are not generally as detrimental as most of you think. So for instance, when Nils Schumann won gold in Sydney in 2000m, the first lap leader was like 53.43 and Schumann was slower than that and yet he won in 1:45.08 so like a 2 second negative split got him gold. Of course there are other examples.
gernu wrote:
The main point of the thread is NOT to assert that negative splits are faster in an 800m than positive splits. The point is that they are not generally as detrimental as most of you think. So for instance, when Nils Schumann won gold in Sydney in 2000m, the first lap leader was like 53.43 and Schumann was slower than that and yet he won in 1:45.08 so like a 2 second negative split got him gold. Of course there are other examples.
I don't think there is really a controversy here, as you also acknowledge that a positive split is the fastest way to run a 800m. For most people a positive split would be 1-2 second faster than a negative split, which means it is not a disaster if a race has a negative split. Nils Shumann was in the shape of his life in that race and still he run a second slower than his PR.
The beauty of the 800m is that you can be conservative and run a negative split which will guarantee a decent race, or you can be aggressive and try to run your best possible time, with the risk that if you go too fast you will crash badly and run a terrible race. It is a decision to be made at the start, once the 200m are hit there is no coming back...
I ran a few half mile races. I'm old as f&ck, so yes they were half miles.
The biggest mistakes were:
-Running the first lap too fast.
-Trying to break away at the 400 mark with a burst (leads to a GIANT BEAR coming out of the woods and jumping on your back in the last 100.)
A good strategy for an 800 man who is maybe not the best over 400 (that's me,) start your kick with 300 to go and gradually squeeze down on the trigger.
So keep it real over the first lap, I don't know about negative splits, but don't use it all up in the first 400.
yessirskiii wrote:
Would be interesting to look at the top 20~30 800 times run and see the average split difference. Might have time to compile that later today.
This idea is good for 800 specialists, but not for everyone.
Obviously the top 20 800 times are all by 800 specialists, optimized through genetic ability and training for a ~100-second event. For those runners, a 1.0-2.5s positive split is best.
For distance runners who want to race their fastest 800, it does not automatically follow that the same split patterns are best. For many of these runners, a more even or perhaps negative split might be best.
Similarly, many 400 runners doing 800 will get their best time "the hard way", with a 3.0s+ positive split. Distance runners see this and think they should run more evenly, but the fact is a 48s 400 guy might run the 800 as 53/56-->1:49... most of these guys if they went out in 55 would then close in 55+, that's just their physiology.
This is why the 800 is interesting. Everyone is different and unlike the 10,000 there is not a universal "right" way to pace it.
gernu wrote:
So Wilson Kipketer ran something like 52.3 and 50.5 for a 1:42.8 in 1997. Jim Ryun ran like 53.3 and 51.6 for a 1:44.9 at 880 yards. There are many others. Did those negative splits make their final time slower? Maybe yes but not by that much, certainly not even close to a full second.
And Athing Mu's recent 60/57! Even more extreme.
That means she is capable of 1:56 with better splits.
No way Jose wrote:
That means she is capable of 1:56 with better splits.
I have schooled you on this but to no avail. She is possibly capable of 1:56 now but simply evening out her splits does not quite get her there.
I am genuinely puzzled why almost everyone takes it for granted that positive splits are best in the 800. And certainly that seems to be the accepted tactic since, as others have pointed out, almost all Olympic 800 winners have run positive splits. Yet negative splits predominate in the 1500 and mile. Not just in unrabbited Olympic races but in world record races. And, I suspect, in most people's P.R.s. at those distances..
It also surprises me that no one has mentioned the most famous negative split 800 race of all time: Dave Wottle's win in Munich in 1972. Track and Field News reported his splits were 26.4/26.9/26.4/26.2; thus 53.3/52.6. The leader of a tight pack hit the 200 in 24.5, according to T&FN. Wottle was dead last. By a lot.
Because there is data of thousands of people who have run the 800 and 99%of them set their PR with positive splits.
No way Jose wrote:
Because there is data of thousands of people who have run the 800 and 99%of them set their PR with positive splits.
Could you provide me a link that substantiates that 99% figure?
Assuming it is correct - or nearly so - isn't it because they never ran negative splits. So their P.R. has to be from positive splits.
I would rate negative splits at least a 7/10, or 3.5 stars out of 5, in terms of damage. Even if you can hold the pace another lap, you have to deal with traffic and probably run wide on both turns. Not a good strategy.
The only thing I'd rate higher is going out 1 second too fast. Like whoever goes out in 49 in their fastest races, go out in 48 flat. That is very entertaining, at least a 9/10 most of the time. 10/10 when Alfred Kipketer did it and won anyway despite a +12 split.
Bad Wigins wrote:
I would rate negative splits at least a 7/10, or 3.5 stars out of 5, in terms of damage. Even if you can hold the pace another lap, you have to deal with traffic and probably run wide on both turns. Not a good strategy.
The only thing I'd rate higher is going out 1 second too fast. Like whoever goes out in 49 in their fastest races, go out in 48 flat. That is very entertaining, at least a 9/10 most of the time. 10/10 when Alfred Kipketer did it and won anyway despite a +12 split.
As I recall, Wottle was still last at the 600 so he only ran wide around one turn, and it was just one lane wide because the field was stringing out. I agree that dealing with traffic can be a real problem - and can involve luck. I think Wottle was in lane three when he finished but ran pretty much a straight line as he came off the turn.
Actually, here is the race. The other 7 guys had to deal with traffic, and running wide at times, for much of the race. Wottle only did so for the last part. And never went wider than lane 2.
gernu wrote:
gernu wrote:
So Wilson Kipketer ran something like 52.3 and 50.5 for a 1:42.8 in 1997. Jim Ryun ran like 53.3 and 51.6 for a 1:44.9 at 880 yards. There are many others. Did those negative splits make their final time slower? Maybe yes but not by that much, certainly not even close to a full second.
I think that possibility exists but typically then the difference between the 1st and 2nd lap will be less than one second. So for instance a 2:00 800m might be run well with a 60.4 followed by a 59.6. It does appear that most athletes would do better to run the 59.6 opener and then the 60.4, however.
How the heck is one 2:00 800m better than another 2:00 800m???
Real Obvi wrote:
gernu wrote:
I think that possibility exists but typically then the difference between the 1st and 2nd lap will be less than one second. So for instance a 2:00 800m might be run well with a 60.4 followed by a 59.6. It does appear that most athletes would do better to run the 59.6 opener and then the 60.4, however.
How the heck is one 2:00 800m better than another 2:00 800m???
Again. Intelligence matters. It is not the time that is better. It is the athlete “doing better” by a slightly more efficient allocation of his resources. Please work on your reading comprehension.