Are Triathletes worth the dues they pay toward Masters Swimming?
I say we force all Triathletes to spend one day a week in the sprint lane, one day a week doing stroke (i.e. IM) work, and then make them focus on their starts and turns.
This invasion needs to be controlled.... :-)
John Smith
:)
I know original Ironman distances were set by the geography, But the swim run legs are close (800M swim and a 5K run) for most athletes. IMHO, on a flat road, you'd have to bike 20+ miles to expend the same energy as a hard swim or run.
The bike is my worst event, I just don't have time to bike enough milage to really improve. For me: If I can get a good swim, I can run the "Gearheads" down. :D
So for me the swim is key which is why I am trying to improve all aspects of swimming.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that in the early days of the triathlon (the 70's) the sequence was not set and various triathlons used different orders. The reason that swimming was eventually selected as the opening event was for health reasons - not to go flying into the water all hot and suddenly have a quick cooldown.
Also, I have a triathlon co-worker who says that in the past the best triathletes came from swimming backgrounds because running and biking are easier to pick up later in life than is swimming which is much more a skill sport. In recent years this has not been the case. He is not sure why this is so.
One last thought about the impotance of swimming in the triathlon.The 4:1 ratio is usually accepted for measuring running:swimming. So a 10km. run= a 2.5km. swim. Since the Olympic tri is a 1.5km. swim we can see that swimming is not as important . Another way of measuring, of course, is simply the time spent on each leg. Here again swimming comes up short.
I always thought swimming was first to prevent drowning tired athletes. I watched the Ford Arizona Ironman, all Pro platform winners were the firsts out of the water. Not much place changing in a 112 mile bike and 26.2 run so Swimming is more important than y'all are giving credit.
IMHO: Back and middle of the packers just "get through" the swim with no effort in trying to improve--because swimming is harder than the other two. I know, I've been there. I didn't start getting to the podium until my swim starting improving.
Granted I have a long way to go, but I'm hooked on swimming and spend at least as much time on the swim as either of the other disciplines.
I'm beginning to think -- based on other posts elsewhere -- that the attitude toward triathletes shown in this thread has very little to do with their behavior in the pool and a whole lot more to do with the fact that they ride bicycles, and are all -- as cyclists -- ipso facto, evil.
I always thought swimming was first to prevent drowning tired athletes. I watched the Ford Arizona Ironman, all Pro platform winners were the firsts out of the water. Not much place changing in a 112 mile bike and 26.2 run so Swimming is more important than y'all are giving credit.
It would be interesting to map the winners of triathlons and see how they did on the swim leg.
I am not a triathlete but have seen a few races on tv. If I remember correctly, there was never an overall winner in the races I saw who also won the swim leg. They did however, put in a respectfull performance. Probably the really bad swimmers eventually find their way to duathlons.
It would be interesting to map the winners of triathlons and see how they did on the swim leg.
I am not a triathlete but have seen a few races on tv. If I remember correctly, there was never an overall winner in the races I saw who also won the swim leg. They did however, put in a respectfull performance. Probably the really bad swimmers eventually find their way to duathlons.
Off-hand, I can only recall how our local performed in Sydney. He was in 28th place out of 52, I think, after the swim, but got the gold anyway. I'm not sure whether placing in the bottom half of the swim would be considered "respectful" but if you can really run, I guess it doesn't matter.
en.wikipedia.org/.../Triathlon_at_the_2000_Summer_Olympics
As someone flirting with "the dark side" myself (I did USMS SCY nationals and two sprint triathlons this summer) I find myself on shaky ground here.
But, I ask, why does USMS have 2 meets a year in the whole country with anywhere near 1000 participants, but the city of Seattle alone has probably over a dozen triathlons with over 1000 participants? I really don't understand it myself. It costs way more than swimming, it can really hurt, and the shortest event is an hour long.
And, go figure, I want to do more of them...I might actually be able to improve my times next year, and I actually lose weight training for them. And there is something about racing 1000+ people that my competitive nature likes, and I don't have to travel to do it.
Funny, I swim, but y'all wouldn't call me a swimmer; I bike, but they wouldn't call me a cyclist; but the last person to finish a 5K in 30+ minutes is refered to as a runner.
There is definitely some elitism going on here.:duel:
Sorry, I don't quite get what you mean...
I was referring to the almost palpable and completely universal impatience motorists have with "those who dare to ride bicycles on roads," and that category includes cyclists of the Armstrong calibre, a lot of triathletes, as well as lowly commuters like me. But I wasn't aware that that particular label might be so inflammatory!
they ride bicycles, and are all -- as cyclists -- ipso facto, evil.
Funny, I swim, but y'all wouldn't call me a swimmer; I bike, but they wouldn't call me a cyclist; but the last person to finish a 5K in 30+ minutes is refered to as a runner.
There is definitely some elitism going on here.:duel:
