Doc Brown wrote:
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.
Hi Doc,
So you are saying that if I jog the first 200 of an 800 race, I no longer have "access to cp" ??
Exactly.
You're welcome.
Hysterical Anecdote wrote:
You are not an 800 runner or coach, clearly.
bgh wrote:You are mistaken. Amazing and unusual are two different words. They do not mean the same thing. The fastest way to run is even or slightly negative splits.
You are not a critical thinker, clearly.
If you wasted the first 200m not using the fast twitch fibers that allow you to run fast, then you might have it in those fibers. Of course you are 100m behind the race at that pointr
Tyrone ReXXXing wrote:
Doc Brown wrote: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.
Hi Doc,
So you are saying that if I jog the first 200 of an 800 race, I no longer have "access to cp" ??
Exactly.
You're welcome.
webby wrote:
bgh wrote:Do you have an actual argument besides "because everyone else does it that way"?
"Overwhelming empirical evidence" is considered a good argument.
What "overwhelming empirical evidence"? I suspect that you have none. I will be impressed if you can cite anything that does not boil down to "everyone does it that way" and therefore it must be ideal.
HardLoper wrote:
ergerg wrote:insane - the master at work
the 800m is His distance, all should fear Him
Rudisha should fear Alfred Kipketer who's beaten him and everybody else multiple times this year
Lol he has only had 2 really good races. He killed it at the Kenyan trials, but BARELY beat Kszczot in Monaco where I think Kszczot would have won had he not been boxed in the entire race until the last few meters. I think that if Rudisha were to actually go out with the pacemaker instead of giving him a second gap we'd be seeing 1:42s or even dipping under. I feel like Rudisha is afraid of going out that hard nowadays.
800m fan wrote:
bgh wrote: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?
Not really. If everyone is running negative splits where do you expect low times to come from?
Sorry, but this is no evidence at all. Nothing more than "everybody does it this way, therefore it must be right."
Apulia Station wrote:
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.
No, it is confusing cause and effect. If everyone runs negative splits (which they do) then all of the best times will come from negative splits (as will all terrible results). This is indicative of nothing at all, let alone science.
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?
Yeah, but none of them had an anonymous guy on the Internet explain his negative split theory to them.
MJohn wrote:
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
Is that what passes for an argument in your universe?
Rudisha is undoubtedly the GOAT. He was barely breathing at the end of that race. Usually running from the front (minus a pacemaker) too! His form, the relaxation and flow, is one of the most beautiful things in all of Nature that I've ever seen.
I'm glad he's showing his fitness and will peak at the Olympic final. I was dubious after his recent races at the Kenyan trials and the Diamond Leagues. Maybe he was training through them. Certainly looks a lot better now.
ijenns318 wrote:
HardLoper wrote:Rudisha should fear Alfred Kipketer who's beaten him and everybody else multiple times this year
Lol he has only had 2 really good races. He killed it at the Kenyan trials, but BARELY beat Kszczot in Monaco where I think Kszczot would have won had he not been boxed in the entire race until the last few meters. I think that if Rudisha were to actually go out with the pacemaker instead of giving him a second gap we'd be seeing 1:42s or even dipping under. I feel like Rudisha is afraid of going out that hard nowadays.
Probably just timing his peak for when it matters most.
dialetheist wrote:
Rudisha is undoubtedly the GOAT. He was barely breathing at the end of that race. Usually running from the front (minus a pacemaker) too! His form, the relaxation and flow, is one of the most beautiful things in all of Nature that I've ever seen.
I'm glad he's showing his fitness and will peak at the Olympic final. I was dubious after his recent races at the Kenyan trials and the Diamond Leagues. Maybe he was training through them. Certainly looks a lot better now.
Thank you for getting this thread back on topic! Yes, Rudisha looks to be approaching peak fitness. Maybe not 1:40 ever again, but perhaps 1:41 in Rio?! If he can do this and/or win Gold again, he must be considered the GOAT.
To those discussing + vs - splits, please take your butt hurt/whining elsewhere. You are ridiculous and have completely hijacked this thread.
Said88, thank you!
dialetheist wrote:
bgh wrote:Yes, read my posts.
Your hypothesis is negative splits are best for all distances. Your posts offer no support, just claims.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(1) What percentage of elite 800s were run on a negative split during that time period? If it is greater than 92.3% (which I strongly suspect) then your percentage-based argument works against you rather than for you. If you do not have any reliable number for this at all then your percentage-based argument is vacuous - totally devoid of any substance.
(2) To say that the elites would automatically adopt the optimal race strategy is to give them far more credit than they deserve. Are not the folks on here babbling about the advantages of positive splitting without even a scintilla of evidence that does not boil down to "Well, everybody does it that way so . . " ? What makes you think that the elites are smarter? Or braver (It takes courage to reject the "wisdom" of the masses - and more so when it means trailing by large margins during much of the race - scary as heck).
Indeed, your point (2) amounts to saying that whatever people do must be best - otherwise people would do something else. It should be obvious to anyone that this argument is vacuous.
bgh appears to have taken a stats/science class in which he learned that "correlation does not equal causation" and that actual practice is irrational. Well, many people try to negative split the 800m and few succeed unless they are running well below their capacity. For instance, Brazier in high school was running 1:47 or 1:48 races with major negative splits. It was obvious that he could run a lot faster with a faster first lap. In college, he got precisely that situation right off the bat and at NCAA's and he ran 1:45.93 and 1:43.55(?), both positive-split. You have the ATP system going only for the first maybe 6-10 seconds, so that alone is reason to have a fast first 200m without it costing you too much, and then after 200m, you will in elite races have pacers until about 450-600m, more reason to slow down the second lap or the third or fourth 200m, since you don't have anyone to draft off of. Those in 2nd or 3rd place will have drafting if they are close enough--which helps those who go out slower and wait behind the others for them to die, to run more even splits--they get the drafting advantage for the entire race or close to it, just going wide the last 100m usually.
TrackCoach wrote:
MakwalaFan wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hXA7wHmhJsFastest time in the world this year. What is amazing about this run are his splits. Som hits 400m at 50.9, but it's a decent gap to Rudisha. I timed Som 3 times and averaged 50.65; Rudisha and averaged 51.65 ... so add the .25 and he was 51.9 at the bell.
1:17.84 at 600m, which gives a last 200 of 25.51.
It looks like Rudisha negative split then, 51.9/51.45 !
I am not sure I was actually say negative split, while technically correct, but as a practical matter, I would call the difference of a few tenths even splits. Perhaps Rudisha can run this way in a 1:43 race, but when he decides to run fast as in 1:40/1:41, he certainly want be negative splitting. The fact that he was able to run even splits tells me he in in great shape and is back to his old self.
But he ran negative splits. Haha why are you pretending that he didn't? And why would Rudisha want to be negative splitting in a 1:40/1:41 race? He's not gonna go out in 51 and come back in 49. That's just never gonna happen.
Ewe wrote:
Apulia Station wrote: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.
No, it is confusing cause and effect. If everyone runs negative splits (which they do) then all of the best times will come from negative splits (as will all terrible results). This is indicative of nothing at all, let alone science.
Everyone runs negative splits, eh dumb dumb?
Statsfacts wrote:
Ewe wrote:No, it is confusing cause and effect. If everyone runs negative splits (which they do) then all of the best times will come from negative splits (as will all terrible results). This is indicative of nothing at all, let alone science.
Everyone runs negative splits, eh dumb dumb?
Oops, thanks for catching my error.
You must be very proud!
Ewe wrote:
MJohn wrote: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
Is that what passes for an argument in your universe?
Against someone offering no support, it is sufficient.
jjjjjjj wrote:
bgh appears to have taken a stats/science class in which he learned that "correlation does not equal causation" and that actual practice is irrational. Well, many people try to negative split the 800m and few succeed unless they are running well below their capacity. For instance, Brazier in high school was running 1:47 or 1:48 races with major negative splits. It was obvious that he could run a lot faster with a faster first lap. In college, he got precisely that situation right off the bat and at NCAA's and he ran 1:45.93 and 1:43.55(?), both positive-split. You have the ATP system going only for the first maybe 6-10 seconds, so that alone is reason to have a fast first 200m without it costing you too much, and then after 200m, you will in elite races have pacers until about 450-600m, more reason to slow down the second lap or the third or fourth 200m, since you don't have anyone to draft off of. Those in 2nd or 3rd place will have drafting if they are close enough--which helps those who go out slower and wait behind the others for them to die, to run more even splits--they get the drafting advantage for the entire race or close to it, just going wide the last 100m usually.
Good job taking one data point.
Very convincing.