SYMMONDS 1:43.56 FTW in Zurich, out in 50.52.

donuts wrote:

His new race tactic is working, 1st 400 off the pacer's should in 50.52.

This isn't a "new tactic." He's splitting the same as he always has - 2 second positive split. It just so happened that in London that put him in last place.

It is a new tactic to run up front. In the past he would let 6 other guys do that. Of course London was different, because it involved a WR.

Hardloper wrote:

donuts wrote:

His new race tactic is working, 1st 400 off the pacer's should in 50.52.

This isn't a "new tactic." He's splitting the same as he always has - 2 second positive split. It just so happened that in London that put him in last place.

It's a new tactic for him in non-WC/OG finals you idiot. Wow, somebody give this guy a cookie for being a moron imbecile.

Hardloper wrote:

donuts wrote:

His new race tactic is working, 1st 400 off the pacer's should in 50.52.

This isn't a "new tactic." He's splitting the same as he always has - 2 second positive split. It just so happened that in London that put him in last place.

3 seconds, genius.

Bad Wigins wrote:

3 seconds, genius.

Was it 3 seconds? I didn't see the race, the pacer hit 50.52 not symmonds, how close was he behind?

Bad Wigins wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

This isn't a "new tactic." He's splitting the same as he always has - 2 second positive split. It just so happened that in London that put him in last place.

3 seconds, genius.

2.5 seconds, genius

He looked incredibly strong. I like the way he is grabbing the race by the nuts.

Glenn Rupp wrote:

2.5 seconds, genius

Exactly, 2.5, and I guarantee he WANTED to run faster.

Not a new tactic at all for Symmonds. If his races are going out slower than in the past, he'll be closer to the front.

swag dome chicks n sht wrote:

It's a new tactic for him in non-WC/OG finals you idiot. Wow, somebody give this guy a cookie for being a moron imbecile.

No it isn't. Many times he has gone out in 50.5 or even less in past years. In many races a 50.5 put you right behind the pacer. RARELY does a 50.5 split give you your own spot, on the rail, right behind the leader, at least in recent years. I still see nothing new about his tactics.

Personally, what I'm glad about is that Nick seems to be running like he deserves to win. That is to say, in the past, I've always felt like Nick undersold himself, and sort of expected to sneak by and grab a medal or solid finish. Now, it seems like Nick has been getting out there and running like he thinks he's a top contender, which he absolutely is. I don't know to what extent this "change" is something I've invented in my head, but it's definitely nice to see Symmonds win regardless.

Just because everyone now thinks you need to positive split races doesn't mean it is the best way to run an 800. Check out all the guys who negative split or came close to negative split(1.0 second or under)to break 145

Ryun negative split sub 145 almost 50 years ago.53 51.8

Juantorena in the 70's 144.03. 52.5 51.5

Coe in the 70's

Cruz in the 80's 1:43 51 & change, sub 52

all this technology and these guys would be competitive decades later.

killarney wrote:

Exactly, 2.5, and I guarantee he WANTED to run faster.

Sure, if he was exactly 4 meters behind the pacemaker, which is how far a .50 second gap would be at 50 second pace.

But by all means, continue your stupidity, don't let me stand in your way.

oldhalfmileguy wrote:

Just because everyone now thinks you need to positive split races doesn't mean it is the best way to run an 800. Check out all the guys who negative split or came close to negative split(1.0 second or under)to break 145

Ryun negative split sub 145 almost 50 years ago.53 51.8

Juantorena in the 70's 144.03. 52.5 51.5

Coe in the 70's

Cruz in the 80's 1:43 51 & change, sub 52

all this technology and these guys would be competitive decades later.

i hope your kidding...you come up with a few counterexamples and expect everybody to agree that a method used years ago rarely to run 1:44 is good enough? 1:44 doesn't mean crap anymore. ever seen somebody run 1:42/1:41 on even splits? didnt think so

Bad Wigins wrote:

Sure, if he was exactly 4 meters behind the pacemaker, which is how far a .50 second gap would be at 50 second pace.

But by all means, continue your stupidity, don't let me stand in your way.

Bad wiggins you're wrong. It was 2 second positive split. 50.75ish/52.80ish...That's 2 seconds.

Bad Wigins wrote:

killarney wrote:

Exactly, 2.5, and I guarantee he WANTED to run faster.

Sure, if he was exactly 4 meters behind the pacemaker, which is how far a .50 second gap would be at 50 second pace.

But by all means, continue your stupidity, don't let me stand in your way.

----------------------------------------------

Wow, along with being a gigantic a**hole, you're also unable to perform a subtraction.

You're some impressive guy, BW.

Stupid site shows the yoplait yogurt commercial 20 times but cant see the 800M race. Stupid.

donuts wrote:

His new race tactic is working, 1st 400 off the pacer's should in 50.52.

You can't really compare tactics from an 800 that Rudisha is in to one that he's not.

asdefjh wrote:

You can't really compare tactics from an 800 that Rudisha is in to one that he's not.

This - Symmonds was right near the lead in every global final except the 2012 Olympics.

No way! Was that Nick Symmonds? I thought it was a wrestler. As I recall Symmonds has a silky smooth stride, buttery soft and whispy light. Not that choppy arms out body builder strut of a wrestler..surely this must be some mistake?