Revisiting Split Times in the Sprints: Why They Should — and Shouldn’t — Matter to Coaches
In my recent Ascent Track workshop, ‘Topics in Speed’, I challenged participants to rethink how we look at early split times in the sprints. With some real-world examples from past performances, I attempted to shed light on why split times aren’t the be-all-end-all for sprinters, and why coaches should focus more on individualized cues and approaches to race modeling to match the athlete in front of them.
Understanding Split Times in The Sprints: What They Tell Us, and What They Don’t
Split times, particularly at 10 and 30 meters, have become popular metrics for measuring early acceleration in the 100 meters, and it’s been a popular school of thought that these metrics are accurate in forecasting overall performance.
They’re useful for general descriptors of the class of performer – meaning that, yes, there is an important difference between someone who runs 4.30 vs. 4.08 through 30m. But I would argue that over-reliance on these early splits can be not only misleading, but detrimental to long-term performance as well.
As we talked about in the workshop, here’s some historical race data to illustrate this point.
Let’s look at the chart below at the 1997 World Championships, in which Marion Jones won gold in 10.83 and Puntesevich was runner-up in 10.85. While they were separated by only two-hundredths of a second, their 10 and 30-meter split times, and velocity at those distances, told a story of two very different races.
Similarly, if we look at Maurice Green and Donovan Bailey’s 100-meter race at the same championships – which Green won in 9.86 to Bailey’s 9.91 – we can see that Green gets out to a much faster start, but by 30 meters Bailey has a faster velocity:
The Velocity Factor: Why It Matters
While early splits are valuable information, velocity at each of these intervals is far more telling. An athlete's velocity not only provides a clearer picture of acceleration quality, but also better correlates with overall race performance.
For instance, Usain Bolt reached a velocity of 11.4 m/s at 30 meters in his world-record 9.58-second 100-meter run, while Maurice Greene hit 10.9 m/s in his 9.91 race. Both achieved similar 30-meter split times – Greene’s was actually faster at 3.62 while Bolt was at 3.64 – but Bolt’s superior velocity and speed maintenance led to a faster overall time.
What this tells us is that as coaches, we should look beyond split times and consider whether the athlete is still accelerating or beginning to maintain speed. A better way to think about is that we need to be evaluating how the athlete is reaching these markers and split times.
This deeper understanding helps us, as coaches, avoid an overemphasis on hitting certain splits or relying on cues that assume two different athletes will stop accelerating at the same point in the race, as this may not align with their individual strengths and abilities.
Again, a general model is useful. But the actual data reveals that we have to know how to interpret the data.
Why Race Modeling Must Be Individualized
Analysis of several championship races reveals significant variation in when athletes reach maximum velocity. Among elite male sprinters in the below chart, we see that this peak occurs in a range from 43 to 58 meters into the race:
This 15-meter range underscores the need for flexibility in race modeling. The assumption that all athletes should reach top speed at 40-50 meters is simply unrealistic, especially at different skill levels.
Consider the differences between a high school freshman who is new to sprinting, a state-level sprinter with more experience and development, and an NCAA All-American.
These athletes may be as much as 20 meters apart in where they reach top speed. Trying to impose the same acceleration model on both will not only be ineffective, but could also hinder their development. So we need heuristics about acceleration, but not a rigid, fixed model about the “when” and “where” on the track that it ends.
Instead, coaches should use cues that align with where that specific athlete is in their acceleration pattern. I’m against cookie-cutter approaches that push all athletes to reach certain points on the track at the same time.
For example, insisting that every sprinter hit top speed by 50 meters could disrupt the natural rhythm of a more advanced athlete who is still accelerating and has the potential for sustained speed development.
The Problem with Rigid Race Models
Many models that are currently en vogue are built around assumptions about stride length, stride frequency, and where athletes should be at specific distances. While these models can serve as useful frameworks, they often fail to account for individual differences in skill, technique, and body mechanics.
An athlete who accelerates up to 60 meters will require a different training strategy than one who reaches top speed by 40 meters and begins to decelerate earlier. Training should reflect these differences, with training approaches and strategies tailored to maximize the athlete’s natural abilities and unique strengths.
While information about split times and stride dynamics (length frequency, ground time, air time) can be very useful, it’s important to be able to keep this information in the proper perspective. It’s crucial to be able to adapt your race modeling approach.
The idea that certain portions of the race are specifically tied to a very exact percentage of an athlete’s stride length or stride frequency is erroneous. Research data from elite races at the high school, collegiate, and pro level demonstrate this time and again.
It is crucial to look at the norms, but it’s also important to understand these norms are averages and that there is room to play, experiment, and explore what works best for your athlete.
From Split Times to Speed Maintenance
Good, efficient acceleration is the gift that keeps on giving.
When we’re more efficient in acceleration, we hit higher top speeds, we tend to hit those speeds later in the race, and we’re able to maintain top speed or near top speed longer – a nice trifecta. Basically, the entire speed curve of our race ability shifts upward.
So many times when we see athletes who exhibit issues with max velocity and then speed maintenance (i.e., attaining high top speed and then maintaining them) — we need to backtrack and look earlier.
Problems with acceleration – acceleration patterns and rhythms, acceleration execution, and acceleration philosophy – limit athlete performance in ways that often masquerade as endurance problems.
So often, once we get athletes to adopt a reasonable and intelligent acceleration philosophy, many of these so-called endurance problems disappear without any extra time or energy invested into specific endurance capacity.
So in the workshop, I tried to get coaches to think beyond chasing early splits and obsessing about athlete position in the first third of the race to a more sustainable approach.
Christian Coleman, for example, typically reaches faster 30-meter splits than Noah Lyles, but often decelerates more toward the end of the race. Lyles, on the other hand, has developed superior speed maintenance, which allows him to finish stronger.
The difference isn’t about endurance, it’s about race management. Coaches need to help their athletes understand this concept, encouraging them to maintain high velocity rather than obsessing over hitting early splits.
Takeaways for the Modern Sprints Coach
Some key insights from the Topics in Speed workshop.
Focus on velocity, not just split times. While split times provide a baseline, velocity at different stages of the race offers a more complete picture of performance.
Adapt race models to individual athletes. Don’t impose the same model on all athletes. Instead, tailor cues, drills, and race strategies to fit each sprinter’s acceleration profile and strengths.
Emphasize efficient acceleration to help with speed maintenance abilities. Help athletes focus not just on how fast they accelerate but also on how long they can sustain that speed.
Use flexible cues. Recognize that different athletes will reach top speed at different points. Use cues that support the natural progression of each athlete’s acceleration pattern.
Join us at “Shifting into Competition Mode for Speed and Power Athletes”
Ultimately, the key takeaway is this: Don’t coach a rigid model. By considering each athlete’s unique skills and acceleration dynamics, coaches can foster more individualized development, leading to better performance outcomes.
P.S. A note from Ascent Track
A big “thank you” if you were able to join us for the Ascent Track workshop, Topics in Speed! If you’d like to learn more from Tolbert, consider attending his next workshop on November 24: Shifting into Competition Mode for Speed and Power Athletes. In it, he’ll cover how to change gears from specific training to competition preparation, covering crucial concepts in this stage like:
What should should be maintained from previous training sessions and what should be moved on from?
How to handle early meets vs. later meets.
Sacrifices and compromises necessary at this time of year.
How to shift balances and ratios safely and effectively.
Common pitfalls in this phase of training.
How and why to develop a backup plan (or two).
Planned peaking: Looking ahead to late-season races.
And much more!
This session will be 3 hours long with a Q&A at the conclusion. It will be the third installment of our 7-session Mesocycle Workshop Series for Speed and Power Athletes, led by Kebba Tolbert and Boo Schexnayder. If you’re interested in attending all of these workshops, you can purchase the bundle for $150 less than the full price of all 7 workshops. And don’t worry if you’ve missed any, we’ll send you recordings of all previous workshops within 48 hours of signing up.
No matter what you decide, we hope you use these insights to help your athletes improve their performance and understanding of the sport. If you have any questions or suggestions for later workshop topics or articles, never hesitate to contact us here or via email at info@ascenttrackclinics.com.
