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

the closest you'll get at the top ranks.

800 Meters Mad Scientist wrote:

It would be so cool to see an elite run a first lap in 52... well behind the leaders... then bust a 49.xx second lap to smoke everyone.

Not sure if it's physiologically possible (or if the way the 800 goes down would prevent it) but it would sure be fun to see some random flying past everyone on the back straightaway of the second lap for the come-from-behind victory.

Rudisha could do it.

That's like saying why don't more marathoners start out in 64... well behind the leaders at 62:00... then bust out a 60:xx to smoke everybody. That's an unnecessarily difficult way to win.

Negative splitting is inefficient.

Here is Kipketer in positive splits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_C5SDNRyDw

48/53 - 1:41

And Kipketer in negative splits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APWABpNlStE

53/52 - 1:45

Sammy plays with yo Mammy wrote:Negative splitting is inefficient.

the main ( only ) argument in favour is the atp-cpk system ( commonly quoted as "use it or lose it" in 1st coupla 100m )

however, atp-cpk regenerates & is only exhausted in a flat out sprint ( 100m race )

no one has offered a paper where it doesn't show that if you don't go flat out 1st coupla 100m ( which you don't in an 800m ), that you don't exhaust it all & in fact may regenerate some as well for final coupla 100m

the answer to the physiology/biochem of +ve/-ve splits will come from someone doing this research

For most runners, it just doesn't work as well as a 2-3 sec positive split. Empirical results have illustrated it quite well.

anyhows, leaving aside biology, looking at physics/math, lets see what that yields if an elite goes chasing a time in tt with slower 1st lap than usual

lets'say 51.0 opener

now, he shoud have wabbit from 150 - 400, offering 1s/lap drafting, or 0.625s advantage

in reality, he has put in 51.625s "effort"

2nd lap is flying ( & i find 0.75s is good number for that compared to open 400 from relay analysis )

51.625 effort for 2nd lap shoud therefore be ~ 51.625 - 0.75 = 50.875

therefore, the end time for even effort from gun -> tape for 51.0 to bell, with wabbit 150 - 400 is

~ 51.0 + 50.875 =

1'41.87

with error involved, i'd just call it running even splits for the 2 laps

look here wrote:

http://www.athleticsweekly.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2242

ryun's splits :

Jim Ryun 880yds 53.30/51.6 Split -1.7 Terra Haute 1966

were by "accident" rather than design

ill & on top that a 1'50 in his legs from just 3 hours before

obviously, healthy & rested ( no prelim ), he wouda gone helluva lot quicker than 1'44.4 ( 1'44.9y )

i've read it was primitive semi-synthetic track made by grasstex

( tyre shavings + some detritus combo, to allow racing in rain ( "all-weather" track ), rather than any conscious effort to make a faster track )

offer him 1s compared to '70s synthetic ( instead of 2s for normal dirt ) + 1s for not being ill/1'50 prelim & you gotta believe that was low-1'42 at worst

he was much stronger/faster in '67 when he smashed his 1500pb by 2.5s ( & that was shit race, jogging for 300m before taking off in 95F )

that's a reason i reckon high/mid-1'40 shape in '67

800 Meters Mad Scientist wrote:

It would be so cool to see an elite run a first lap in 52... well behind the leaders... then bust a 49.xx second lap to smoke everyone.

Almost nobody can run 1:41.xx period. While it certainly would be cool to see someone run sub 1:42 while negative splitting, I'm not really surprised that it never happens.

afasdfasdf wrote:

For most runners, it just doesn't work as well as a 2-3 sec positive split. Empirical results have illustrated it quite well.

Ummm...actually no. Wrong on both counts.

1) An even split works best.

2) You are going to have to show "empirical results" to claim them. And no, a few non-randomly selected data points do not constitute empirical results.

ventolin^3 wrote:

however, atp-cpk regenerates & is only exhausted in a flat out sprint ( 100m race )

no one has offered a paper where it doesn't show that if you don't go flat out 1st coupla 100m ( which you don't in an 800m ), that you don't exhaust it all & in fact may regenerate some as well for final coupla 100m

Are you suggesting that the anaerobic alactic fuel stores replenish DURING an 800? It's hard to tell based on your triple negative sentence there.

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.

would be cool but it is very very very likely not possible physically/physiologically. If it were, people would be doing it. Ask any top 800 guy and they will tell you it cant be done.

Too much wrote:

would be cool but it is very very very likely not possible physically/physiologically. If it were, people would be doing it. Ask any top 800 guy and they will tell you it cant be done.

Apart from the fact that Rudisha just neg split at 52/50 at altitude.

ventolin^3 wrote:

no one has offered a paper where it doesn't show that if you don't go flat out 1st coupla 100m ( which you don't in an 800m ), that you don't exhaust it all & in fact may regenerate some as well for final coupla 100m

This is ridiculously bad writing. I'm not even taking issue with the content of the statement as it's just about impossible to parse.

Indeed, and Wottle ran even splits - 26.x for every 200.

ummmmmmmmm no wrote:

afasdfasdf wrote:

For most runners, it just doesn't work as well as a 2-3 sec positive split. Empirical results have illustrated it quite well.

Ummm...actually no. Wrong on both counts.

1) An even split works best.

2) You are going to have to show "empirical results" to claim them. And no, a few non-randomly selected data points do not constitute empirical results.

In the 800m most (all?) WR runs have come off a positive splits - it's not a few randomly selected data points - it's the way it goes in fast 800m races. All of Rudisha's, Kipter's and Coe's WRs came from positive splits.