Triathletes Hate Swimmers!

Former Member
Former Member
"I hate swimmers!" This was a comment I overheard at a triathlon that I competed in today. There was a group of triathletes discussing thier dislike of those of us that can swim. I just found it a interesting comment and wanted to see what others had to say about it.
Parents
  • Former Member
    Former Member
    I dabbled with triathlons, but I'm basically someone who swims to avoid running. My beef is with how triathlons generally are laid out. How can you claim a race is based on three equal parts when in reality the swim is mostly a warm-up for the other two parts of the race that will actually decide things? The official international distance is a case in point. I'm on a 3-man relay team for one this Sunday. I should be done with the swim portion in 20-25 minutes. I was trolling around for a biker, and I mentioned my my email that if the person could complete the bike in 1:05, we would be competitive in the relay team division. Then the actual bikers informed me a 1:05 is Lance Armstrongish in the biking community. HELLO! Why does the bike take three times as long as the swim? The run is no better. The worst part is that the official international distance actually makes an attempt to have a reasonable swim. I have actually seen "triathletes" the runners organized with distances like 400 meter swim, 20 mile bike, 10 mile run. There ought to be standards for this sort of thing. We need a new sport--the wet biathlon. This would be a bike-run event with a 5 minute swimming warm-up for all participants. That is effectively equivalent to what some runners are actually calling a triathlon. Now before the pencil-whippers start in with the explanation machine, yes I realize some key facts. The swim is by far the most hazardous portion of the race (especially if you organize it so lame-oh runners can finish it and kid themselves they have actual swimming ability, but I digress...) and the one that requires the highest density of lifeguards/safety personnel. Equalizing the portions of the race by time would only drive up the hazard and/or the cost of a safe race. Also, there are lots more runners than swimmers, and the sport prospers by making it possible for more of those folks to participate. I understand all the practical reasons for things as they are. I simply chaps me the races are organized to let a good runner who can barely swim blow me away overall. Yet one more reason to stick to swimming. Matt
Reply
  • Former Member
    Former Member
    I dabbled with triathlons, but I'm basically someone who swims to avoid running. My beef is with how triathlons generally are laid out. How can you claim a race is based on three equal parts when in reality the swim is mostly a warm-up for the other two parts of the race that will actually decide things? The official international distance is a case in point. I'm on a 3-man relay team for one this Sunday. I should be done with the swim portion in 20-25 minutes. I was trolling around for a biker, and I mentioned my my email that if the person could complete the bike in 1:05, we would be competitive in the relay team division. Then the actual bikers informed me a 1:05 is Lance Armstrongish in the biking community. HELLO! Why does the bike take three times as long as the swim? The run is no better. The worst part is that the official international distance actually makes an attempt to have a reasonable swim. I have actually seen "triathletes" the runners organized with distances like 400 meter swim, 20 mile bike, 10 mile run. There ought to be standards for this sort of thing. We need a new sport--the wet biathlon. This would be a bike-run event with a 5 minute swimming warm-up for all participants. That is effectively equivalent to what some runners are actually calling a triathlon. Now before the pencil-whippers start in with the explanation machine, yes I realize some key facts. The swim is by far the most hazardous portion of the race (especially if you organize it so lame-oh runners can finish it and kid themselves they have actual swimming ability, but I digress...) and the one that requires the highest density of lifeguards/safety personnel. Equalizing the portions of the race by time would only drive up the hazard and/or the cost of a safe race. Also, there are lots more runners than swimmers, and the sport prospers by making it possible for more of those folks to participate. I understand all the practical reasons for things as they are. I simply chaps me the races are organized to let a good runner who can barely swim blow me away overall. Yet one more reason to stick to swimming. Matt
Children
No Data