Stud Bunnies

[Atticus]

the pack has to learn how to race

Ha! They wouldn't even be there if they didn't know how to race. It's time-trialing they need some help with, and in that regard, they know a too hot early pace when presented with it. To run a 50 they need a 13-12-12-13, which is why the rabbit needs to be in Lane 8, in case someone else goes out too fast, a faux-bunny as it were, and show the others what the real pace should be.

[26mi235]

Ha! They wouldn't even be there if they didn't know how to race. It's time-trialing they need some help with, and in that regard, they know a too hot early pace when presented with it. To run a 50 they need a 13-12-12-13, which is why the rabbit needs to be in Lane 8, in case someone else goes out too fast, a faux-bunny as it were, and show the others what the real pace should be.

Sorry, I see no reason that they would be there if they didn't know how to race. Often, people get in based on time, not only on racing success (especially championship racing success).

And, I doubt most 50-second first laps are 13-12-12-13. Typically, the first 200 is easily faster than the second; 12-12-13-13 would be closer to the typical splits on the way to 50.

[gh]

Bram Som's 100s when he rabbited Korir's 1:42.05 in London:

12.5, 11.8, 12.5, 13.2 (50.0)
(24.3/25.7)

[Atticus]

And, I doubt most 50-second first laps are 13-12-12-13. Typically, the first 200 is easily faster than the second; 12-12-13-13 would be closer to the typical splits on the way to 50.

?!
No one but an over-anxious rabbit would hit 100 in 12. Remember this is from a standing (not even blocks) start.
Running 13-12-12 is actually even pace, the last 13 (of the first lap) is just easing off enough so lactic acid doesn't kick in too soon.

[26mi235]

?!
No one but an over-anxious rabbit would hit 100 in 12. Remember this is from a standing (not even blocks) start.
Running 13-12-12 is actually even pace, the last 13 (of the first lap) is just easing off enough so lactic acid doesn't kick in too soon.

How about getting some data. In general the first 200 is fastest and sometimes it is all downhill from there, although there can be some speed up

Here are some data from the last three indoors, where they have the 200s recorded - note that you should take 0.25 off the first split because of reaction time, which is irrelevant to the question of speeding up etc (and really the acceleration phase takes even more off of the first 100 when addressing the speeding/slowing issue)

Barowski	2:06.81 [	29.49 [29.49]	1:02.34 [32.86]	1:35.60 [33.27]	2:06.81 [31.21]
Rodgers	2:04.68 [	29.53 [29.53]	1:02.04 [32.52]	1:35.28 [33.25]	2:04.68 [29.41]
Walker	1:47.50 [	25.76 [25.76]	53.30 [27.54]	1:20.65 [27.35]	1:47.50 [26.85]
Murphy	1:46.68 [	26.19 [26.19]	53.19 [27.00]	1:20.18 [27.00]	1:46.68 [26.51]
Harris	1:47.94 [	26.01 [26.01]	52.67 [26.66]	1:20.63 [27.96]	1:47.94 [27.31]
Saruni dq	1:48.02 [	25.83 [25.83]	52.50 [26.68]	1:20.71 [28.21]	1:48.02 [27.32]
Rodgers	2:01.09 [	28.01 [28.01]	1:00.04 [32.03]	1:31.20 [31.17]	2:01.09 [29.89]
Fray	2:03.00 [	28.06 [28.06]	59.94 [31.89]	1:31.17 [31.23]	2:03.00 [31.83]
Devor	1:47.69 [	25.78 [25.78]	52.66 [26.88]	1:19.75 [27.10]	1:47.69 [27.94]
SARUNI	1:45.15 [	26.00 [26.00]	53.11 [27.11]	1:18.98 [25.88]	1:45.15 [26.17]
Fray	2:03.88 [	27.25 [27.25]	58.21 [30.97]	1:30.39 [32.18]	2:03.88 [33.50]
Southerland	2:01.55 [	27.89 [27.89]	58.73 [30.85]	1:30.92 [32.20]	2:01.55 [30.64]

The fraction of those running the second 200 even close to the same pace as the first is zero, and for the women not remotely close is almost an understatement as the smallest difference is 3 seconds and the typical amount is over 3.5, and that is before taking off the 0.25 for the start reaction. In terms of effort, the first 100 has a very large effort to get up to speed, which probably is worth another half second.

[Atticus]

How about getting some data.

??!!
None of any of that data contradicts what I said. If you want to run a 50 for the first lap, you can't go out in 12 and expect to finish well (Rudisha excepted!).
My hypothetical 13-12-12-13 would probably lead (in a perfect +2 second positive split world) to something like 13-12-13-14 for a 1:42. The 12 represents the typical move on the back straight.
Obviously 100 splits in real life vary widely.

[26mi235]

??!!
None of any of that data contradicts what I said. If you want to run a 50 for the first lap, you can't go out in 12 and expect to finish well

Don't be confused by the 50 number, that only applies to a few, and if it does not apply to very good athletes several seconds slower (there are several would-class athletes above), and the numbers that you put up imply a difference of 0, while for the women it is 3+ and for the men it is about a second for the world record holder? Of course, indoors you have a race for the pole, but I do not see where I can readily get data and you offer none whatsoever.

[Atticus]

Don't be confused by the 50 number, that only applies to a few, and if it does not apply to very good athletes several seconds slower (there are several would-class athletes above), and the numbers that you put up imply a difference of 0, while for the women it is 3+ and for the men it is about a second for the world record holder? Of course, indoors you have a race for the pole, but I do not see where I can readily get data and you offer none whatsoever.

I still don't see your point.
There a putative +2 from first to second lap. The first 100 has the built-in 1-sec delay to get to speed (hence my 13). Then one holds tries to hold that pace for the remainder (with obvious variances due to human imperfection), but is inevitably slowed by fatigue. The people who look like they are speeding up at the end are almost always just slowing down the least (e.g., Wottle). That's all I'm saying. You disagree? Where? Give me your best guess at 100 splits on a 50/52. If you say 12 (actually an 11 with a running start) again for the first 100 we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[26mi235]

Absolutely none of those splits could possibly hit the 13-12-12-13 pattern. The men might hit 12-13-13-14, the women 14-15-16-17, as the womens split is not that close to 100m times and doing a 14 would not be that hard. none of them conform to a X-(X-1)-(X-1)-X pattern.

For a 50, it is likely a 24.0/26.0, with something like a 11.8/12.2 (although the curve and the start might yield a 12.0/12.0/12.7/13.3 and those do not look like your pattern. Of course, if you are not in front, you might be running the curve slower so that the 12.7 might be a 12.9...

By the way, most 50s look something like 24/26/27.5/28.5 for a 50/56, since a 50 is too fast for almost all athletes almost all of the time.

[Halfmiler2]

I recall when Michael Johnson could not get the match ups he wanted in Europe and said maybe the meet directors would let him rabbit an 800. :-)

[Atticus]

Absolutely none of those splits . . . .

We disagree.

[LopenUupunut]

Looking at Rudisha in his Oly WR race, I get him somewhere around 12.3/11.2/12.6/13.2/12.7/12.3/12.9/13.7. Those could be off by a tenth or so (the start could be 12.2/11.3, for instance) but not more than that. Certainly the second 100 was by far his fastest 100; he was making sure he got the lead.

gh quoted Som's splits earlier in this thread as 12.5/11.8/12.5/13.2.

[Trickstat]

I still don't see your point.
There a putative +2 from first to second lap. The first 100 has the built-in 1-sec delay to get to speed (hence my 13). Then one holds tries to hold that pace for the remainder (with obvious variances due to human imperfection), but is inevitably slowed by fatigue. The people who look like they are speeding up at the end are almost always just slowing down the least (e.g., Wottle). That's all I'm saying. You disagree? Where? Give me your best guess at 100 splits on a 50/52. If you say 12 (actually an 11 with a running start) again for the first 100 we'll just have to agree to disagree.

12.6-12.0-12.6-12.8-12.8-12.6-12.9-13.7

[26mi235]

Why don't you produce some splits that have 1-2 equal to 3-4; if not, give up the ghost because there are a lot of splits here and none of them are in alignment with your contention that the first 200 is equal to the second one (that is the problem I have with your splits, not the 1/2 distribution).

[Atticus]

12.6-12.0-12.6-12.8-12.8-12.6-12.9-13.7

I like that sequence!