Interval Junkie --Nobby
Could anyone explain to me why the Tri is organized like it is: I mean, why the three sports are in their current ratio.
I would have thought that each would be given equal amounts of time for the ideal-triathlete. Meaning, if I were to invent the triathlon, I'd want the ideal-triathlete to spend equal amounts of time in each of the different events then work out the distances from there.
Off the top of my head, with no training (and wild approximations): if I were to base the triathlon on me, I'd do something like:
Swim 20min - 1,000meters
Bike 20mins - 5miles (16mph)
Run 20mins - 3miles
But the Sprint Tri looks more like (for me):
Swim 14min - 700m
Bike 46min - 12.4mi
Run 21min - 3.1miles
What is the underlying logic to this? Or did the Ironman come first, and they just kept sub-dividing the events until they hit "Sprint"? Where the original Ironman was based on already established endurance events like the Marathon?
2021 Goals: 50mpw 'cause there's nothing else to do
Or did the Ironman come first, and they just kept sub-dividing the events until they hit "Sprint"? Where the original Ironman was based on already established endurance events like the Marathon?
Or did the Ironman come first, and they just kept sub-dividing the events until they hit "Sprint"?
Where the original Ironman was based on already established endurance events like the Marathon?
Yes, I think that might be true. The Olympic distance event is in metric (1500 meter, 40km, 10km). Sprint is whatever is available to make a course with the winner doing it in about 1 hour.
If you choose, read a book titled "Iron Wars". Great book describing the pioneers of the sport and also provides some of the history of Ironman. As I understand it, there was a swim race every year in Hawaii that brought out the best swimmers and lifeguards from Hawaii and the US mainland ("rough water swim"???). The group of guys were stud athletes who had type A personalities. They began arguing (debating) whether this or that was a harder competition (with 'this' maybe being the swim event they were at and 'that' being a marathon or a long bike ride they also hosted in Hawaii). They decided to host a race that combined all 3 events in 1 day.
So, the following year (1979???), right after the swim race that they all attended, they all (12 of them) got on their bikes and rode the bike course route (happened to be about 110+ miles) and also ran the marathon. Now, we have the Ironman.
I happen to swim with a couple of the old 1970s Hawaiin rough water swim people. One of the guys came in 9th place in Ironman Kona one of the original races from the early 80s. The other guy is 75 years old and swims faster than me. When I catch my breath between sets, they tell me stories from the Hawaiin swimming and the origins of "the Iron Man."
Life Goals:
#1: Do what I can do
#2: Enjoy life
Could anyone explain to me why the Tri is organized like it is: I mean, why the three sports are in their current ratio. I would have thought that each would be given equal amounts of time for the ideal-triathlete. Meaning, if I were to invent the triathlon, I'd want the ideal-triathlete to spend equal amounts of time in each of the different events then work out the distances from there. Off the top of my head, with no training (and wild approximations): if I were to base the triathlon on me, I'd do something like: Swim 20min - 1,000meters Bike 20mins - 5miles (16mph) Run 20mins - 3miles But the Sprint Tri looks more like (for me): Swim 14min - 700m Bike 46min - 12.4mi Run 21min - 3.1miles What is the underlying logic to this? Or did the Ironman come first, and they just kept sub-dividing the events until they hit "Sprint"? Where the original Ironman was based on already established endurance events like the Marathon?
Let Wiki be your friend..... triathlon
The pain that hurts the worse is the imagined pain. One of the most difficult arts of racing is learning to ignore the imagined pain and just live with the present pain (which is always bearable.) - Jeff
2014 Goals:
Stay healthy
Enjoy life
Ah, okay. So originally derived from events in Hawaii. Though that doesn't really explain the distance choice of the smaller events.
I did like this: "No one present had ever done the bike race so they did not realize it was a two-day, not one-day, event."
Okay, part 2 of my question was this:
If you have three athletes who are equal in all the events, except each is better at one specific event, which would be the order of advantageousness ? Assuming the "strength" in that event is comparatively equal?
I know that's confusing, so let me restate: if you and your buddy were exactly equal at all these events, and a genie gave you each a wish be better than him/her at one event, which would you choose -- knowing that he/she gets the next wish.
Okay, part 2 of my question was this: If you have three athletes who are equal in all the events, except each is better at one specific event, which would be the order of advantageousness ? Assuming the "strength" in that event is comparatively equal? I know that's confusing, so let me restate: if you and your buddy were exactly equal at all these events, and a genie gave you each a wish be better than him/her at one event, which would you choose -- knowing that he/she gets the next wish.
Biking.
But the 4th component to Ironman would be the biggest differentiator (I think). The mental strength is probably the biggest separator between what would otherwise be 2 equal athletes.
rectumdamnnearkilledem
I really don't swim...just have no interest in it. My dad is/was a super strong swimmer, so I will assume that the genetics would work in my favor for that if I ever cared enough to do anything with it.
I'd choose running. I can hold my own on the bike, but I'm a craptacular runner.
Getting the wind knocked out of you is the only way to
remind your lungs how much they like the taste of air.
~ Sarah Kay
For me that would depend on how much better at running the Genie would make me then my buddy and if that also meant you would run better after the bike. Armstrong was the best cyclist at Texas (I think that was the race) but got ran down on the run.
Trying not to beg the question here: but let's say it would transform you from an "advanced competitor" to a "local champion" in that event. It would do the same for your buddy.
What I'm trying to get at here is my suspicion that even if you come out of the water 10mins faster on your swim, the duration of the bike gives you plenty of time to gain that back. The run, gives you comparatively little time compared to the bike. So I would imagine, being good at the bike, but average at the rest would be the most beneficial.
That bias seems at odds with what I had imagined the idea behind the tri was intended to be.
What I'm trying to get at here is my suspicion that even if you come out of the water 10mins faster on your swim, the duration of the bike gives you plenty of time to gain that back. The run, gives you comparatively little time compared to the bike. So I would imagine, being good at the bike, but average at the rest would be the most beneficial. That bias seems at odds with what I had imagined the idea behind the tri was intended to be.
I think you're on to something. I have a friend who is a MONSTER on the bike. She REALLY sucks at running, though. I mean, she makes ME look fast. The first time we went head-to-head in a duathlon I beat her by only 17 seconds. The 2nd time she beat me by about a minute (that time I had calf cramping issues, including one that hit during transition and forced my right foot stuck with my toes pointed...I couldn't get my running shoe on my foot and had to stand and try to stretch to get the cramp to stop, which lost me at least 30 seconds).
In that 2nd race I think she took 3rd for our AG (out of 6), even though she was dead last in our AG for the run legs. I was 3rd and 4th for the run legs and 3rd for the bike and took 4th.
Transitions are key, though, at least in sprint races. It took me a few du races before I got my transitions <1 minute. I lost places in races from dinkin' around in transition. Having a separate Garmin on my wrist and 1 on my bike really helped.
Puttin' on the foil
Interesting question. It plays out almost every year. There are Ironman athletes (amateur and pro) who throw down monster bike splits and then try to hold on to their position on the run. It works sometimes, but that approach usually fails. Ask Chris Lieto. I'm not saying that a crappy biker who is a good runner will beat a well balanced athlete; however, I have found that being a mid-pack swimmer, a mid-pack biker and (usually) a top 5% runner is a pretty good way to do things. In an Ironman, I get beat by 10 minutes on the bike by guys I out run by 20 minutes. I understand that percentage-wise the bike leg is the biggest part of the day, but at the pointy end of the field the race starts about half-way through the run. Those who have the running legs to maintain pace and form at the end of the Ironman marathon are the ones who usually end up on top.
It's also fun to pass people on the run as opposed to getting passed.
Don't be obsessed with your desires Danny. The Zen philosopher Basha once wrote, 'A flute with no holes, is not a flute. A donut with no hole, is a Danish.'
I guess that if the disparity in bike-skills(equating to time) is smaller than the disparity between runners, it would make sense. So, say there is a 10second per mile advantage the best biker has to the average biker in that caliber, but the equivalent runner has a 1min / mile advantage over runners in his pack, then the runner works out.
hairshirt knitter
Yes the 'order of advantageousness' is generally accepted to be: run, bike, swim despite the unequal distance weighting.
It's easier to lose a bucket of time on the run. T-Bone's example of Chris Lieto is the absolute case in point, or Andy Potts even, who is an uber-swimmer then tries to stay out in front for the rest of the day - works ocassionally but not often.
That's at the pointy end of the sport though. For mere mortals, I think the situation is less clear cut. I wish I was a naturally talented swimmer, because I don't have much opportunity to train and when I do, I'm rubbish. Having the genie grant me fins would make a huge difference to my triathlon ability.
I'm a novice tri guy.... Reading my bible daily (Going Long! by Friel & Gordo). I wonder whether what you're answering (run > bike > swim) relates to elite level advantages.
As I thought I understood it, one of the key limiters to Ironman is muscular endurance, and that's most present in the bike portion. I thought that time and effort should be trying to make the 5:30 - 6:00 bike ride (or whatever time it takes) as powerful and comfortable as possible so that you can continue "fresh" with a marathon.
Friel & Gordo describe 4 phases of running, and the 4th phase of running development within the Ironman is reserved for people at a higher endurance / performance level than me. Phase I is learning how to run efficiently, Phase II is building miles at proper HR??, and Phase III is learning how to best use fat stores while building speed.
For me, I'm either at Phase II or Phase III in running.
I wonder whether there's a training risk (or performance risk) by focusing on running with Ironman training if that focus is too early in the development of an endurance athlete.
In other words, is the answer to Stadjak's question dependent on the development of the athlete?
(Yes, for Lieto, Potts, Armstrong, etc, a 6:00 pace vs. other 5x pace makes a difference and the run, therefore is critical to success).