Trackrunner 2007/31/2023 ![]() In my experience, the myth of the middle lane being the fastest is most commonly associated with fast-paced races that also include corners, so the 200 and 400. If lane assignments do matter, their impact would be most noticeable for events where the runners have to stay in their lanes for all of, or at least a large part of, the race, like 100-meter, 200-meter, 400-meter and 800-meter events. André Zehetbauer/WikimediaCommons, CC BY-SA Myth of the middle lane Tighter turns and staggered starting positions supposedly make inside and outside lanes slower. And in fact, for the 200-meter sprint, the evidence suggests that lanes often perceived as the least desirable are actually the fastest. Using 20 years of track and field data from the International Association of Athletics Federations, I found that the long-held beliefs about lane advantages are not supported by the data. With the Olympics on my mind, I decided to examine the validity of lane assignment folklore from my days as a sprinter. My short-lived track career is long behind me, but in my professional life as an economist, I think a great deal about using statistics to extract meaning from data. In other words, the fastest runners are rewarded with what are, supposedly, better lane assignments. In events with multiple heats – from the college level all the way to the Olympics – the people who run faster times in earlier heats are assigned to middle lanes in later heats. This idea, in a way, is baked into the rules of track and field. It was conventional wisdom that the middle lanes – lanes three through six – were the best. As a short-distance track and field runner in high school and college, I often found myself wondering which of the eight or sometimes nine lanes on the track was the fastest.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |