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?
Parents
Former Member
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.
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.
