Getting your splits just right

Stachewicz and Virtanen have almost identical times yet Virtanen goes out a whole second faster and loses to Stachewicz by 0.02 of a second. Is one way better than the other? About the only thing I'm certain of is that it's better to finish before the other person does.

I beg to differ with the conventional thinking. Firstly, the 500 is my best race, but I (surprisingly) won the 100 at last years Nationals. I split 27.12 and 27.19. I intentionally held back on the first 50. Everyone told me to go out fast!!!! But I tend to be a better back half swimmer, therefore I tried to even split the race with good results. I think it depends on how you swim. For some, going out hard and hanging on may work. It doesn't work for me.

In terms of physiology splitting even(2 sec slower given the start)is the better idea,but physiology isn't as important as psychology.Some people have to go out fast to establish their rhythm,Some people like to feel they are accelerating.Some people race better from the front,some people race better playing catch-up.You have to find what works for you.

but I kind of admire what Stachewicz did and am wondering if this isn't the wiser way to do it. No, it's not. He would have been faster if he took it out faster. Negative splitting a 100 is not the way to do it. When you think about how much the start contributes he really swam faster on the second 50. If he can swim that fast, why not swim that fast at the start of the race?

I addressed splitting in SFF www.usms.org/.../showpost.php 100 Free split range 0.0 - 1.0 could mean you should have gone out faster, you have no speed or you're a distance swimmer 1.0 - 2.0 is ideal, provided your 1st 50 is with in 1.0 - 1.5 of your 50 time. 2.0 - 2.5 is OK 2.5 - 3.0 is acceptable 3.0 and up means you went out too hard and died Effort: you want to swim fast and relaxed with a strong kick 98% effort typical 100 freestylers take out their 100 frees about a second slower than their 50 time at the same meet, then they tend to come home around 1.5 slower so if you go 20.0 in the 50 you should be out in 21.00 on the first 50 of your 100 free 21.0 22.5 Longcourse is tougher, Michael Phelps tends to split his 100 free's with in 1.0 - 1.5 Several of the masters swimmers poorly split their 100's at Worlds. here's how swimmers split their races in the european championships 1 4 Alain Bernard FRA 47.50 WR 22.53 24.97 2.44 2 3 Stefan Nystrand SWE 48.40 23.11 25.29 2.18 3 2 Filippo Magnini ITA 48.53 23.61 24.92 1.31 4 5 Fabien Gilot FRA 48.83 22.98 25.85 2.87 5 8 Andrey Grechin RUS 48.86 23.51 25.35 1.84 6 6 Duje Draganja CRO 48.94 22.99 25.95 2.96 7 1 Christian Galenda ITA 49.11 23.53 25.58 2.05 8 7 Yoris Grandjean BEL 49.34 23.87 25.47 1.60 Correct splitting is the result of great conditioning, good training habits, tapering, and choosing the right effort for your race. That's why in any meet you have a performance range of times you could do. Ande Which is better: go out fast and manage the pain on the way back (probably going to translate into a bigger difference in your split times) or go out in a time that is reasonable and then come close to or even negative split on the way back? Just looking at the mens 40-44 (my agegroup) results from the world masters it seems like a mixed bag. We have everything from a 0.01 negative split to a 4.11 difference in split times in the top ten for the 100m free. That's a range of over 4 seconds, yet there is only a three second difference between the first and the tenth time. 100m Free 1 Rundgren, Tommy 40 Kaleva Lahti-FIN 53.92 25.80 53.92 2.32 split difference 2 Massimiliano 40 A S D Bergamo Nuoto-ITA 54.25 25.21 54.25 3.83 split difference 3 Weldon, Mark 41 Roskill-NZL 54.71 25.84 54.71 3.03 split difference 4 Chalendar, Lionel 41 Ile de France-FRA 55.13 26.43 55.13 2.27 split difference 5 Baldini, Cristiano 40 Aquatic Team Ravenna-ITA 55.37 26.46 55.37 2.45 split difference 6 Stachewicz, Tom 43 Claremont Aussi-AUS 56.27 28.14 56.27 0.01 negative split 7 Virtanen, Janne 44 Kaleva Lahti-FIN 56.29 27.06 56.29 2.17 split difference 8 Krasavin, Vitaliy 43 Sibmasters-RUS 56.65 27.45 56.65 1.75 split difference 9 Laudouar, Jerome 44 Tokyo Swimming Centre-JPN 56.91 26.40 56.91 4.11 split difference 10 Conti, Marco Mattia 44 Sat Finy Taormind-ITA 56.93 27.57 56.93 1.79 split difference Average split difference = 2.37 Stachewicz and Virtanen have almost identical times yet Virtanen goes out a whole second faster and loses to Stachewicz by 0.02 of a second. Is one way better than the other? I have always had one of those go out 'hell for leather and suffer the consequences on the way back' kind of approaches to swimming but I kind of admire what Stachewicz did and am wondering if this isn't the wiser way to do it. Stachewicz did a 24.66 in the 50m free so he is clearly capable of going out a lot faster. Did he perhaps underestimate himself or did he know that he didn't have the legs and held back on the first 50? Clearly Laudouar's split difference of 4.11 is not ideal. In fact, neither is Gialdi's. Gialdi has a 3.83 split difference but he does come in second. It seems that there are many ways to get the same result. What is your approach to splitting?

3.0 and up means you went out too hard and died Does this mean you are lacking in aerobic fitness? Strange thing, when I do go out harder than I should, I invariably get a better time even though it maybe only marginally better. But I know it is not ideal. It is going to be less painful to do a (27.50/29) 56.50 than a ((26.50/30) 56.50. If the dive makes the first 50 faster by about 2 seconds, then wouldn't anyone who has a 2 second split difference be even splitting anyway? Ande, great advice about practicing your split times in practice. It is really the only way to go. I don't have someone to do it for me but I just use the stopwatch on my wristwatch. It is not ideal but it is better than nothing.

So many things determine your split times, it is not just the dive. The breakout can be good or bad after the dive or even after the turn. I would not even give credence to say the split should be this or that. The only way we could say anything about any of these swimmers if we had complete videos of each swimmers swim. Why did some take 3 or 4 seconds and one had a negative split. We would have to know what they did for warm up. We would also need to know what he had for lunch and breakfast.

No, it's not. He would have been faster if he took it out faster. Negative splitting a 100 is not the way to do it. When you think about how much the start contributes he really swam faster on the second 50. If he can swim that fast, why not swim that fast at the start of the race? Is it possible for someone to have so little endurance that they need to swim relatively easy on the first 50 or totally die and slow down even more on the second? Or is that physiologically impossible?

I am with you knelson 100s have to be taken out fast and finish fast. Pacing should not be given a thought. No, it's not. He would have been faster if he took it out faster. Negative splitting a 100 is not the way to do it. When you think about how much the start contributes he really swam faster on the second 50. If he can swim that fast, why not swim that fast at the start of the race?

If the dive makes the first 50 faster by about 2 seconds, then wouldn't anyone who has a 2 second split difference be even splitting anyway? I'd say the dive is closer to one second faster than two. For one thing, there's the reaction time to consider. Even the fastest reactors take about 0.7 seconds to leave the block. Add in the fact the 50 split is to your feet and I don't think it's worth two seconds.