Got a new thought, how do we handle a situation where an athlete runs faster for a split than his/her previous PR for that distance.
Although I know it happens from time to time, I hadn't had it happen to one of my athletes until last night. JH boy, first race of the season, splits a 1 sec. 800M PR & a 14+ sec. 1600M PR on his way to a 61 sec. 2400M PR.
Here are my thoughts, but I'd like input. Do I enter the splits as Relay split times, or do I simply enter him in 3 races, which represent the 3 distances, even though he only ran 1 race. Keep in mind, this was an informal practice meet, so it's not like I'm messing up other results by doing the second option. Also keep in mind, he later came back and raced the 1600M & the 4x400 relay, so if I choose option 2, it's going to look as though he ran a 400M relay split, an 800M, 2 1600M & a 2400M all in one evening.
I'm trying to figure out a way to show the performances, without confusing him, his parents or anyone else who might view those results later.
Here's how I've done it so far.
I don't record such things as results. As confident as I might be in my hand timing, it's still not an official race and should not be recorded as such. I'll make a note in my own record keeping, such as for one of our guys who has broken his 800m open PR several times in longer races and workouts. Until it's done in a race [of that distance], it's just a workout, in my opinion, and workouts don't get recored for the world to see.
Dan
Dan Kaplan: Until it's done in a race [of that distance], it's just a workout, in my opinion, and workouts don't get recored for the world to see.
Until it's done in a race [of that distance], it's just a workout, in my opinion, and workouts don't get recored for the world to see.
What about US National & World records that are established "enroute"? Granted these days they set up multiple camera systems and time the entire thing as FAT, but in the old days, they'd put timers in each location and credit the guy/girl with whatever records were broken. It doesn't happen all that often, but I believe Alan Webb did it last year when he broke the mile record, as I think he was given the 1500M record, too.
The solution I'm going to use, unless the site is adjusted, is to list them as separate races. If we ever have a way to designate something as "enroute" to a longer distance, then I'll adjust it to reflect that.
Fair point. In the case of record attempts with specific timing points set up, I would consider that plenty accurate for recording as a separate race. Talking hand timing, however, with one person getting multiple splits, I don't consider that very meaningful.
Also, other than a 1500m split (from a mile or 1600m) occasionally being listed twice in separate qualifying lists, I can't think of any situation where a split time would be listed on its own as a final time. Doesn't seem like a valid use of the stats.
Dan Kaplan: Fair point. In the case of record attempts with specific timing points set up, I would consider that plenty accurate for recording as a separate race. Talking hand timing, however, with one person getting multiple splits, I don't consider that very meaningful. Also, other than a 1500m split (from a mile or 1600m) occasionally being listed twice in separate qualifying lists, I can't think of any situation where a split time would be listed on its own as a final time. Doesn't seem like a valid use of the stats. Dan
Dan,
Just to continue playing the devil's advocate here and trying to flesh out all sides of the argument, how is this any less or more meaningful than a relay split? Most coaches get their team's relay splits the old-fashioned way and then use that information in meaningful ways. Isn't this a valid use of hand-timed splits, too? In fact, I could argue that because the athlete had to keep running for an additional distance it is in some ways more meaningful than a relay split.
I'm not yet advocating for an "enroute" stat to be added to the site, but I do believe that they are just as valid as any relay split. As the only coach at meets, sometimes, I don't have a choice but to hand-time my athlete's relay splits, so I treat them the same way I would a distance runner's splits.
Andy
If you want to post 1200m times from a DMR, that's one thing, but posting intermediate 400m and 800m splits from it would be nonsense, in my opinion. Same for 400m legs of a 4x400... You wouldn't post 200m splits as a race time, would you?
Dan Kaplan: If you want to post 1200m times from a DMR, that's one thing, but posting intermediate 400m and 800m splits from it would be nonsense, in my opinion. Same for 400m legs of a 4x400... You wouldn't post 200m splits as a race time, would you? Dan
I agree and that isn't what I was referring to. I was trying to compare a 800m time from a 4x800 with the 800m split enroute to a 1600m and an open 800m time. Why would you not want to post the 800m enroute split, if in fact it's faster than the other 2?
Having said that, I do use 200m splits to help coach an athlete in the 800, so they understand race tactics, pacing & such, but no I wouldn't post them as race times. Nor do I think it's fair to compare a 200m split to a distance runner's 5k split enroute to a 10k. Talking with a friend the other day and he mentioned how he ran a 5K PR enroute to a big 10K win early in his college career.
Obviously the shorter the race, the less likely it is to occur and the less sense it makes, but there still has to be a solution for distance runners who are almost religious in their knowledge of race splits.
Why would you not want to post the 800m enroute split, if in fact it's faster than the other 2?
Because that's not the race that was run... If they can do it in an intermediate split, it should only be a matter of time until they do it in a race of that distance. Post it when it's real.
Dan Kaplan: Why would you not want to post the 800m enroute split, if in fact it's faster than the other 2? Because that's not the race that was run... If they can do it in an intermediate split, it should only be a matter of time until they do it in a race of that distance. Post it when it's real. Dan
Okay if what you're trying to say is that this is a race stats website and coaches should only enter actual race stats, then I understand your perspective and I will find a different way to track things.
If you think that because it's hand-timed it shouldn't be included, then I would say that is an argument against 90+% of all race stats, because the vast majority of meets still use hand-timing. I see discussions every year about whether one athlete really ran a time or not, simply becuase it was a hand-timed result and thus not as accurate. Yes, we'd like those times to be more accurate, but when we're talking distance races, we're not going to time them to less than the 10th of a second anyways, so the need for acuracy is less than in sprint races.
But your argument that it's not "real" or is somehow invalid, because they in fact ran further is a poor argument. In fact, I would say the opposite, it's even more impressive, due to the fact that they had to keep going and run even further. Since we talking a valid "normal" race distance then there's no reason it can't be compared to other races of the same distance.
Additionally, a lot of athletes don't get the opportunity to run certain distances, either because they'd run too many races, or meet conditions are different on a different day, or on even the same day, or their team has too many athletes for them to get the chance to even run a certain distance. So, knowing how they compare to their teammates, or on a list of school records is IMHO important to the kids and why I think it should be listed.
As I said earlier, if we have to post it as a separate category, that's fine by me, but there isn't one yet, so I was just trying to figure out the best way to post these times. I've decided that posting them as relay splits isn't valid, because the relay splits category is specifically for relays, and thus somebody else is running the rest of the distance, not the athlete whose time I was timing.
I think you make an excellent argument for why we need a separate category of "enroute" times, or better yet a way to asterisk a time, so that we know it was run "enroute" to a longer distance.
Enroutes are only recorded on statistical sites, like this one, when officially set up in a meet situation. Let your athlete run the open races in another meet. Obviously he is ready to set new race records, just have him do it in a race where it's recorded in race results.
High Schoola nd college coaches do not use enroutes for record purposes, only race readiness and workout adjustment information. I suggest you teach your athlete and parents track protocall when it comes to enroutes since it sounds like he an up and coming distance runner.
Laura Schwartz: Enroutes are only recorded on statistical sites, like this one, when officially set up in a meet situation. Let your athlete run the open races in another meet. Obviously he is ready to set new race records, just have him do it in a race where it's recorded in race results. High Schoola nd college coaches do not use enroutes for record purposes, only race readiness and workout adjustment information. I suggest you teach your athlete and parents track protocall when it comes to enroutes since it sounds like he an up and coming distance runner.
I'm a little confused by your reference to "track protocal". As a distance runner myself, I'm not sure I'm aware of any particular protocal that you might be referring to, unless you're referring to the protocal that meet officials have to use in order to report National & International records. I'm honestly not worried about teaching my athlete that, because it wouldn't have any meaning to him, as he is in no danger of setting any sort of a record other than a personal record for now, so there really wouldn't be any point to that discussion.