I try to be understanding of people who come from a non-swimming background and want to challenge themselves and do their "first triathlon", but this is idiocy. (This is not a joke)
"Ive been running and biking on and off for years so decided to sign up for sprint with some coworkers. I didnt have much time to train for the swim since this race was coming up but I thought, hey its only 400m, how hard could that be. The only time Im in the water I usually have a beer! We went to the lake a couple times before work and I found out just how hard swimming is. It will definately be an effort for me to make the 400m. I plan on doing alot of sidestroke and *** stroke. Im not very good at either one of them but they should get me out of the water. Next week im signing up for swim classes to teach me the crawl. Just figured Id write on here to help with my nerves"
And after the race he posts:
"Folks I did make it though I won't disagree with the people that said maybe I shouldn't do it. I was in the water forever but did fine on the bike and run. Saw 3 people wave for the boat to pick them up in the first 100m. I definitely thought about it halfway but just keep at it, resting for a bit on the buoys. Was a great time but I won't do another one until I can actually swim. Thanks."
And people wonder why there are deaths during the swim leg of a triathlon but rarely during the bike or run.
The swim leg of most triathlons tends to be considerably shorter than the other two disciplines. What people not familiar with swimming don't fully realize is that 400 meters of swimming is a longer haul than, say, 400 meters of running. And the typical sprint and Olympic distance tri's have swims of 750 or 1500m--again, seems easy enough just from considering the distance covered: except... oops! in water, it's a whole different story.
So I think often people get a false sense of security that--"oh, it's only 400 (or whatever) meters," and compared to the bike or the run, "no big deal."
For my first open water swim, I looked the previous year's results and compared them with my mile time. I wasn't looking to be competitive, just finish, but I did want to make sure that the officials would still be there when I came in. ;) So my goal in training was to do better in the pool than the last place time (I know, I know pretty unambitious, but I was just starting out). Once I reached that goal, I knew it could still be a challenge in open water, but what helped was that I'd learned to swim in similar conditions--bay, salt water--so I at least had the body memory of what it was like to swim in water that didn't hold still for me.
And what also helped was that because of that "body memory," I wasn't given to the kind of panic people often experience in their first o.w. swim. So I was able simply to keep swimming, stay relaxed, not worry about place or speed.
Also, because it was a stand-alone swim, not a triathlon, I wasn't thinking about the next two events, just concentrating on the swim. Seems to me, though I'm not a triathlete, that it would be a good idea for people to try stand-alone open water events first, not rush into a tri, which makes it too tempting to discount the swim. Or if not that, at least take more time to get used to swimming the distance of the event, in a pool at the very least, but if a person has NEVER been in o.w. prior to the swim, definitely have some practice time in o.w. if at all possible.
Swimming doesn't have the margin for error that bikes or running offer.
But how to ensure more safety for first-time triathletes? NYCSwim requires proof of ability in the form of race results or pool certifications for their o.w. swims and aquathlon (in the aquathlon, there' no such certification for running, but there, again, it's always possible to walk or to step off the course without serious problems). Maybe something along those lines should be instituted for triathlons?
Of course, I'm thinking too that in NYC, the risk to swimmers probably is increased b/c swimmers are dealing with more crowded water ways. So they're wise to err on the side of safety. In no other o.w. swim did I need to present any results or certification, including an ocean swim and a five mile event. I had no problem in any of the swims I did (well, aside from the aforementioned lack of speed). Maybe the organizers of most stand-alone OW events can more readily assume participants are able to handle the conditions than would be true of triathlons, where, as with the guy Bob quotes, the assumption about the swim is that it's just something you get past and there's nothing to it.
The swim leg of most triathlons tends to be considerably shorter than the other two disciplines. What people not familiar with swimming don't fully realize is that 400 meters of swimming is a longer haul than, say, 400 meters of running. And the typical sprint and Olympic distance tri's have swims of 750 or 1500m--again, seems easy enough just from considering the distance covered: except... oops! in water, it's a whole different story.
So I think often people get a false sense of security that--"oh, it's only 400 (or whatever) meters," and compared to the bike or the run, "no big deal."
For my first open water swim, I looked the previous year's results and compared them with my mile time. I wasn't looking to be competitive, just finish, but I did want to make sure that the officials would still be there when I came in. ;) So my goal in training was to do better in the pool than the last place time (I know, I know pretty unambitious, but I was just starting out). Once I reached that goal, I knew it could still be a challenge in open water, but what helped was that I'd learned to swim in similar conditions--bay, salt water--so I at least had the body memory of what it was like to swim in water that didn't hold still for me.
And what also helped was that because of that "body memory," I wasn't given to the kind of panic people often experience in their first o.w. swim. So I was able simply to keep swimming, stay relaxed, not worry about place or speed.
Also, because it was a stand-alone swim, not a triathlon, I wasn't thinking about the next two events, just concentrating on the swim. Seems to me, though I'm not a triathlete, that it would be a good idea for people to try stand-alone open water events first, not rush into a tri, which makes it too tempting to discount the swim. Or if not that, at least take more time to get used to swimming the distance of the event, in a pool at the very least, but if a person has NEVER been in o.w. prior to the swim, definitely have some practice time in o.w. if at all possible.
Swimming doesn't have the margin for error that bikes or running offer.
But how to ensure more safety for first-time triathletes? NYCSwim requires proof of ability in the form of race results or pool certifications for their o.w. swims and aquathlon (in the aquathlon, there' no such certification for running, but there, again, it's always possible to walk or to step off the course without serious problems). Maybe something along those lines should be instituted for triathlons?
Of course, I'm thinking too that in NYC, the risk to swimmers probably is increased b/c swimmers are dealing with more crowded water ways. So they're wise to err on the side of safety. In no other o.w. swim did I need to present any results or certification, including an ocean swim and a five mile event. I had no problem in any of the swims I did (well, aside from the aforementioned lack of speed). Maybe the organizers of most stand-alone OW events can more readily assume participants are able to handle the conditions than would be true of triathlons, where, as with the guy Bob quotes, the assumption about the swim is that it's just something you get past and there's nothing to it.
