"Ridiculous? Hardly. The fastest way to get around the track is at an even pace from start to finish. The slower you go, the faster time you will finish in, to a point. You can't go too slow, or you could never make the time up later. It's really common sense, and hardly ridiculous."

I could take this apart, but I'm tired. "The slower you go, the faster time you will finish in..." You may be running faster at the end if you ran slow early, but your FINAL time would be impacted by your slow early effort. "...to a point." While YOU figure out where this point is, I will pursue other things that are actually of use on Earth...

Really, as I read it over again...ridiculous. I think you guys are TRYING to say something that makes some amount of sense, but put together, you're not getting there. If this is the state of pace handicapping, you guys can have it.

"I can also run under 1:00 for 1/4 pretty easily if that's all I'm going to run. However, if I run that 1:00 for the first lap, there is no way I will run a faster than that 12:00 for the 2 miles, and almost certain I will run slower, and quite a bit slower."

Could be true under absolutely static conditions. Now apply this to a 3yo racehorse who is really supposed to be GETTING BETTER every time out. It's meaningless. Just a completely useless example that illustrates absolutely nothing. Really. It may not even be true. If you ran really fast early and got a break after that you might beat the 12:00 for the two miles. It's a definite possibility.

"And guess what, it has nothing to do with whether I'm running in front of the pack or behind the pack, or even in the middle."

We agree. I quit.

HP