Rudisha 1:43.35 (Negative Split!) in Hungary

Gunior wrote:

His splits were not amazing. They were fine.

bgh wrote:

Coach wrote:

Sorry bgh but negative splits is not the way to run an 800. Distance races yes in theory but not an 800.

Do you have an actual argument besides "because everyone else does it that way"?

"Overwhelming empirical evidence" is considered a good argument.

While I agree with your sentiment (I'm amazed by Rudisha's performance), there's no place for names, especially when you're standing on very unstable ground.2012 Kenyan trials at ~6k ft according to Canova and verified by others via video:800m 51.2/50.9Rudisha : 24"8 - 51"2 (26"4) - 1'16"8 (25"6) - 1'42"1 (25"3). The first lap in 52" is not true, in any case this is a negative split, also if for 0.1 only [slightly bad math by Canova here].Also, someone (Deanouk) mentioned that Kipketer ran a 52.0/50.7 in Monaco in '97, but I can't substantiate that.

come on guy wrote:

You are an idiot.

Those splits are highly unusual. 51.9 / 51.4.

Find me a faster second lap in a race that fast. I won't hold my breath.

Moron.

No but I remember reading in t&f news' track coach magazine that distance races are best run using a 51%/49% negative split while the 800 is best run with a slightly positive split, possibly because of its anaerobic nature.

I never stated everyone else does it that way, did I?

bgh wrote:

Coach wrote:

Sorry bgh but negative splits is not the way to run an 800. Distance races yes in theory but not an 800.

Do you have an actual argument besides "because everyone else does it that way"?

Maybe every world record performance since 1972 as well as the splits in every single sub-1:43 performance ever run are indicators that positive splits result in faster performances in the 800?

asdfasdf wrote:

There are different energy systems at work in the different stages of an 800m.

This is not true. Energy systems are not black and white. They are simultaneously active throughout the race.

bgh wrote:

Coach wrote:

Sorry bgh but negative splits is not the way to run an 800. Distance races yes in theory but not an 800.

Do you have an actual argument besides "because everyone else does it that way"?

Do you have any support for YOUR claim?

Coach wrote:

No but I remember reading in t&f news' track coach magazine that distance races are best run using a 51%/49% negative split while the 800 is best run with a slightly positive split, possibly because of its anaerobic nature.

I never stated everyone else does it that way, did I?

No, you didn't state that. That is why I asked because everyone else in this thread is using "everyone else does it that way" as an argument. Your argument isn't any better. You are essentially saying the same thing: "they said to do it this way so I'm going to do it this way".

800m fan wrote:

Maybe every world record performance since 1972 as well as the splits in every single sub-1:43 performance ever run are indicators that positive splits result in faster performances in the 800?

No, that is not true at all. Do you really not understand the difference between correlation and causation? The only thing that that indicates is that if you break an 800m record or run faster than 1:43 then you will likely run a positive split. You have the logic backwards.

In order to have a POSSIBLE indication based on performances, then you would actually need to be scientific about it. Have the SAME runner run even, positive, and negative splits. You cannot reach a true conclusion by the way you are suggesting. Has no one here taken a stats or science class?

mbur wrote:

Do you have any support for YOUR claim?

Yes, read my posts.

Even effort would be a terrible way to run any race. You would be jogging at the end.Even pace maybeAt least the first law of physics would suggest getting up to a faster speed initially would be better than trying to run faster when you have no energy.The energy pathways which you seem to disregard also play a real role. You will not have access to cp after the initial stages of an 800 race because you aren't able to replenish them during that time. So you need to get the most out of them. What physics laws are you taking about?

bgh wrote:

Hysterical Anecdote wrote:

You are not an 800 runner or coach, clearly.

I don't need to be. There is nothing special about the 800m. It does not defy the laws of physics. The best way to run your fastest at any event is even effort. If you are tying up at the end then you went out too fast. 800m runners don't know the difference between correlation and causation.

asdfasdf wrote:

said88, I will be in Germany soon. Can you give me some details about the film that you got and the organization where you got it?

Thanks.

Duesseldorf 67? It's from WDR. But you can order this from any place I'm pretty sure.

google for wdr mitschnittservice and write them exactly what you are looking for.

Nth, I recommend you read track journals since you obviously don't coach anyone.

Bgh

You're misunderstanding correlation vs. causation and how it relates to empirical data in the pursuit of science. It is of course possible that running negative splits could lead to faster times, but since there is no widespread evidence of this actually happening, it is not a valid conclusion. Saying that the empirical data is a good reason to support positive splits is not circular logic or confusing correlation with causation, it is just how science works.

bgh wrote:

mbur wrote:

Do you have any support for YOUR claim?

Yes, read my posts.

I've read all of your posts. You've offered no scientific support.

How about the 400m WR splits? I'm guessing he would have broken 43 if he'd only gone out in 21.45?

100m: 11.10s (11.10s)

200m: 21.22s (10.12s)

300m: 31.66s (10.44s)

400m: 43.18s (11.52s)

200m Splits:

21.22s/21.96s

Rudisha looks like he did in 2012- fit and thin and strong.

He was bulky for a few years for the injuries but looks like a machine again. Gold in Rio, GOAT.

bgh wrote:

mbur wrote:

Do you have any support for YOUR claim?

Yes, read my posts.

Your hypothesis is negative splits are best for all distances. Your posts offer no support, just claims.

Out of all the 26 world records in the 800, only two had a negative split as the Science of Sport article documents. That is, 92.3% of all the 800m world records positive split.

If negative splits in the 800 were most effective, elites and especially those who set world records over the last 100 years would use negative splits to their advantage. But negative splits account for only 7.7% of the world record performances.

Assuming 100 years of elite competition is stuck in avoiding negative splits due to psychological effects is incredibly naive and oversimplified. Competitive elites look for and try every possible advantage they can use, including negative splits. They do not run negative splits in the 800 because it does not work in general.