login
Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-06-22 11:52 AM in reply to: #2936620 |
Champion  8540      the colony texas |  Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IMEqually represented means many things. Mostly that there are enough lobbist for the FOP/MOP/BOP swimmers as well as being allowed to wear the a wetsuit on the bike'/run Edited by Gaarryy 2010-06-22 11:53 AM |
| 2010-06-22 12:12 PM in reply to: #2936568 |
Regular 57 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM mademille - 2010-06-22 11:23 AM I know I'm in the minority here, as most people hate the swim, but I believe that swimming is not fairly represented in long course triathlons. I'll agree with you there, I certainly wish the swim was more "equally" represented and that the bike was "less" represented. The swim is by far my strength, the bike my worst and the run I am just average. All that equals almost DFL, just because of the bike. So yeah, I'd love to see the swim distance upped and the bike decreased, but as you said, we are in the minority. Its led me to really rethinking the tri thing. When I first thought of doing one, I don't know why, but I just assumed the 3 sports were equally represented. Learning what I have in the last 6 months, I feel like maybe if the bike is so heavily weighted, then this just isn't the sport for me. Maybe I should stick to runs and join a master's swim team and leave it at that. I can somewhat sympathize with this sentiment. But we can quit tri's and just swim/run or get better on the bike and beat them at their own game. |
| 2010-06-22 12:14 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Lessons to be learned: 1. Make your thread title and OP as clear as possible. 2. Request clarification when responding. The answers are all over the board, and for good reason. As I read the OP, I believe the comment to be that swimming is not proportionally represented and that most gains are to be had in the bike and run. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I have cut out some of the 4500 yd swims, popped in a 3000 yd swim and upped the time spend on the bike in prep for my scheduled HIM. Title wasn't that great but c'mon people, don't let it get to you. |
| 2010-06-22 12:23 PM in reply to: #2936693 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Pector55 - 2010-06-22 1:14 PM Lessons to be learned: 1. Make your thread title and OP as clear as possible. 2. Request clarification when responding. The answers are all over the board, and for good reason. As I read the OP, I believe the comment to be that swimming is not proportionally represented and that most gains are to be had in the bike and run. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I have cut out some of the 4500 yd swims, popped in a 3000 yd swim and upped the time spend on the bike in prep for my scheduled HIM. Title wasn't that great but c'mon people, don't let it get to you. I don't know, Mike. That sounds about right to me. Then maybe I could sneak my way onto that elusive podium. ETA: I guess instead I'll just have to keep focusing on biking and running while only swimming a minimal amount. Edited by TriMyBest 2010-06-22 12:24 PM |
| 2010-06-22 12:29 PM in reply to: #2936502 |
| Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM I suppose transitions are very irrelevant... |
| 2010-06-22 12:29 PM in reply to: #2936633 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Gaarryy - 2010-06-22 1:52 PM @ shane ... I think I understand the graph but could you explain it just so I'm sure.. Please Sure - I will also include the line of best fit equations and r-squared values in case they are hard to read. Swim vs Overall - y = .929x r^2=.485 Bike vs Overall - y = .974x r^2=.793 Run vs Overall - y = .983x r^2=.868 So what you have is that the finishing position in each of the disciplines all have a similar trend and that is close to a direct relationship (as the slope of the line of best fit for all three is close to 1). However, the r-squared value is less for the swim which means that although the line of best fit is indicated by the data, the relationship is less strong than for the bike and run. So, while trying to predict the finishing position based on swim position is less reliable than using the bike position or run position, there is still a relationship. Or, the swim is not irrelevant  Shane |
| 2010-06-22 12:32 PM in reply to: #2936693 |
Extreme Veteran 378 Acton, Ontario | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Pector55 - 2010-06-22 1:14 PM What does proportionally represented mean? 30 min in the water, 3-4 hours on a bike, and around 2.5 hours on the run. Should they all be the same time? I would definitely say no because if the average time was say 2 / 2 / 2, people would complain that a 2 hour swim will kill you before a 2 hour bike ride will. Agreed, for the majority of people who are new to the sport, a 2 hour swim would be terrifying. In order to maintain the sports popularity (in fact continue to make it grow), it must appeal to the average athlete who has never completed a triathlon. The bottom line is that most people know how to ride a bike, and know how to run. Swimming on the other hand, is a random mix. Some people took swimming lessons and became lifeguards or instructors (me), others were in competitive swimming their whole life (not me), and others still only occasionally get into the water and splash around without actually swimming. Its not surprising that there is significantly more scatter in the plot shown for swimming than there is for biking and running. It is evidence of the fact that there is more scatter with swimming abilities. Now where I compete in triathlons, there are all kinds of different events (I call them the bizzaro distances). For example, (1000m - 30k - 7k) or (800m - 32k - 8k). I have never seen an event where the swim was a larger chunk of time than either the bike or the run and this is for good reason: Less new athletes would attempt such events |
| 2010-06-22 12:35 PM in reply to: #2936585 |
Champion 5781 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM bryancd - 2010-06-22 9:29 AM mademille - 2010-06-22 10:23 AM I know better but I just can't help myself, so......I know I'm in the minority here, as most people hate the swim, but I believe that swimming is not fairly represented in long course triathlons. I'll agree with you there, I certainly wish the swim was more "equally" represented and that the bike was "less" represented. The swim is by far my strength, the bike my worst and the run I am just average. All that equals almost DFL, just because of the bike. So yeah, I'd love to see the swim distance upped and the bike decreased, but as you said, we are in the minority. Its led me to really rethinking the tri thing. When I first thought of doing one, I don't know why, but I just assumed the 3 sports were equally represented. Learning what I have in the last 6 months, I feel like maybe if the bike is so heavily weighted, then this just isn't the sport for me. Maybe I should stick to runs and join a master's swim team and leave it at that.  Just out of curiosity, what does "EQUALLY REPRESENTED" mean? Should we swim 10 miles, bike 10 miles, run 10 miles? Should swims be 1 hour, bikes be 1 hour, run be 1 hour? How in the world do you determine this? What would you like your race distances to be? Ironman wasn't set up the way it is to represent anything beyond the longest swim race/bike race/and run race they had on the island. Was never intended to be some sort of democracy of sport. It was a fitness test.Well, I just did Redondo Beach Tri a couple weekends ago...that race is designed to essentially equalize time spent on each discipline. I went 16 min. swim, 18 min. bike, 14 min. run...you get the picture. Definitely a race where the uber-swimmers did well in their AGs (BT's own duggar1, who is a very strong swimmer, wins his AG there pretty much every year, for instance). Anyhow, IM was--as noted--an arbitrary set of distances that took hold. Any RD who wanted to could certainly stage an equally arbitrary long distance tri built around more or less equal times for the three legs...if they thought it would sell. |
| 2010-06-22 12:37 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM I agree with Michael. This member is kind of getting jumped on because he used a "non-preferred" word. I have seen this a lot lately here - mostly in COJ. He does have a point, as Michael states, that you can easily gain more time improving your run or bike vs improving your swim. I think we would all agree that moving from a 2:00/100 to 1:45/100 is a huge swimming gain. in a 70.3 that would net you about 5.5 minutes. However - improve your run pace by a minute per mile and you save 26+ minutes. Improve your bike pace by 2 mph and you get 18:40 minute gain. 1 mph is almost 9 minutes. So, saying that swimming is less relevant as far as improving your time goes - I think is pretty accurate. There is a reason that the saying "You can't win in the swim but you can lose in the swim" exists. Yes - irrelevant is a poor choice of word. Not everyone is as post savy as others and not everyone is looking to pick a fight. Personally, I believe that strong runners hold an advantage in this sport. Is it unfair? No - I knew the set-up going in. It just means that I have to concentrate on becoming a stronger runner while still making gains on the bike and the swim. |
| 2010-06-22 12:40 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| over a barrier | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM What 70.3 has a 1.9 miles swim? I need to find that one! |
| 2010-06-22 12:40 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Veteran 197 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM I'm surprised people are having a hard time with the thread title - it seems like it got enough people interested that they clicked on the link to read the thread. Then the op makes it clear (I thought) that the message was that the swim is less "represented," not really that it is irrelevant. I also wish the swim distances were longer and the runs were shorter in all my races, but that's based purely on the fact that I am a much better swimmer than I am a runner.  |
| 2010-06-22 12:40 PM in reply to: #2936720 |
Champion 5781 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM TriMyBest - 2010-06-22 10:23 AM Pector55 - 2010-06-22 1:14 PM Lessons to be learned: 1. Make your thread title and OP as clear as possible. 2. Request clarification when responding. The answers are all over the board, and for good reason. As I read the OP, I believe the comment to be that swimming is not proportionally represented and that most gains are to be had in the bike and run. I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I have cut out some of the 4500 yd swims, popped in a 3000 yd swim and upped the time spend on the bike in prep for my scheduled HIM. Title wasn't that great but c'mon people, don't let it get to you. I don't know, Mike. That sounds about right to me. Then maybe I could sneak my way onto that elusive podium. ETA: I guess instead I'll just have to keep focusing on biking and running while only swimming a minimal amount. Took the words right out of my mouth. I'd be so there for a 2/2/2 tri... |
| 2010-06-22 12:42 PM in reply to: #2936737 |
Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM gsmacleod - 2010-06-22 12:29 PM Gaarryy - 2010-06-22 1:52 PM @ shane ... I think I understand the graph but could you explain it just so I'm sure.. Please Sure - I will also include the line of best fit equations and r-squared values in case they are hard to read. Swim vs Overall - y = .929x r^2=.485 Bike vs Overall - y = .974x r^2=.793 Run vs Overall - y = .983x r^2=.868 So what you have is that the finishing position in each of the disciplines all have a similar trend and that is close to a direct relationship (as the slope of the line of best fit for all three is close to 1). However, the r-squared value is less for the swim which means that although the line of best fit is indicated by the data, the relationship is less strong than for the bike and run. So, while trying to predict the finishing position based on swim position is less reliable than using the bike position or run position, there is still a relationship. Or, the swim is not irrelevant Shane You're such a math geek, Shane. |
| 2010-06-22 12:46 PM in reply to: #2936772 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM jdwright56 - 2010-06-22 2:42 PM You're such a math geek, Shane. Standard issue with a physics degree Shane |
| 2010-06-22 12:48 PM in reply to: #2936737 |
Expert 829 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM gsmacleod - 2010-06-22 10:29 AM Gaarryy - 2010-06-22 1:52 PM @ shane ... I think I understand the graph but could you explain it just so I'm sure.. Please Sure - I will also include the line of best fit equations and r-squared values in case they are hard to read. Swim vs Overall - y = .929x r^2=.485 Bike vs Overall - y = .974x r^2=.793 Run vs Overall - y = .983x r^2=.868 So what you have is that the finishing position in each of the disciplines all have a similar trend and that is close to a direct relationship (as the slope of the line of best fit for all three is close to 1). However, the r-squared value is less for the swim which means that although the line of best fit is indicated by the data, the relationship is less strong than for the bike and run. So, while trying to predict the finishing position based on swim position is less reliable than using the bike position or run position, there is still a relationship. Or, the swim is not irrelevant Shane I don't know the math, or what an r^2 is, but when I look at the data, it looks to me like the swim is pretty scattered, the bike a lot tighter, and the run even tighter yet. This backs up my seat of the pants impression that one should work on run first, bike second, and swim a distant third, in terms of gaining overall ranking. |
| 2010-06-22 12:54 PM in reply to: #2936791 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM norcal_SAHD - 2010-06-22 1:48 PM gsmacleod - 2010-06-22 10:29 AM Gaarryy - 2010-06-22 1:52 PM @ shane ... I think I understand the graph but could you explain it just so I'm sure.. Please Sure - I will also include the line of best fit equations and r-squared values in case they are hard to read. Swim vs Overall - y = .929x r^2=.485 Bike vs Overall - y = .974x r^2=.793 Run vs Overall - y = .983x r^2=.868 So what you have is that the finishing position in each of the disciplines all have a similar trend and that is close to a direct relationship (as the slope of the line of best fit for all three is close to 1). However, the r-squared value is less for the swim which means that although the line of best fit is indicated by the data, the relationship is less strong than for the bike and run. So, while trying to predict the finishing position based on swim position is less reliable than using the bike position or run position, there is still a relationship. Or, the swim is not irrelevant Shane I don't know the math, or what an r^2 is, but when I look at the data, it looks to me like the swim is pretty scattered, the bike a lot tighter, and the run even tighter yet. This backs up my seat of the pants impression that one should work on run first, bike second, and swim a distant third, in terms of gaining overall ranking. Couldn't it be argued that bike fitness is twofold in that a poor bike not only equates to a slower time, but it may also introduce more fatigue in the run? |
| 2010-06-22 12:56 PM in reply to: #2936805 |
Expert 829 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Pector55 - 2010-06-22 10:54 AM Couldn't it be argued that bike fitness is twofold in that a poor bike not only equates to a slower time, but it may also introduce more fatigue in the run? yes, in another thread.  |
| 2010-06-22 12:58 PM in reply to: #2936811 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM norcal_SAHD - 2010-06-22 1:56 PM Pector55 - 2010-06-22 10:54 AM Couldn't it be argued that bike fitness is twofold in that a poor bike not only equates to a slower time, but it may also introduce more fatigue in the run? yes, in another thread. LOL I wasn't sure how far we could ride this tangent. |
| 2010-06-22 12:59 PM in reply to: #2936768 |
Master 1929 Midlothian, VA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM What does proportionally represented mean? 30 min in the water, 3-4 hours on a bike, and around 2.5 hours on the run. Should they all be the same time? I would definitely say no because if the average time was say 2 / 2 / 2, people would complain that a 2 hour swim will kill you before a 2 hour bike ride will. Sign me up. I could just see the waivers and pre-race meeting being like troops going off to war. "Look around you. Look at the guy on your left, and the guy on your right. One of you won't be coming back." I would be nervous to be in the water for hours upon hours, but not scared. I run like a fish, so I would LOVE to see a more balanced race. Bring it on. The fact that so many others would wuss out would make it more enticing, with better odds of prizes for the rest of us. Maybe I'll put one of those together someday.....hmmmm....... |
| 2010-06-22 12:59 PM in reply to: #2936585 |
Veteran 345 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM bryancd - 2010-06-22 11:29 AM mademille - 2010-06-22 10:23 AM I know better but I just can't help myself, so......I know I'm in the minority here, as most people hate the swim, but I believe that swimming is not fairly represented in long course triathlons. I'll agree with you there, I certainly wish the swim was more "equally" represented and that the bike was "less" represented. The swim is by far my strength, the bike my worst and the run I am just average. All that equals almost DFL, just because of the bike. So yeah, I'd love to see the swim distance upped and the bike decreased, but as you said, we are in the minority. Its led me to really rethinking the tri thing. When I first thought of doing one, I don't know why, but I just assumed the 3 sports were equally represented. Learning what I have in the last 6 months, I feel like maybe if the bike is so heavily weighted, then this just isn't the sport for me. Maybe I should stick to runs and join a master's swim team and leave it at that. Just out of curiosity, what does "EQUALLY REPRESENTED" mean? Should we swim 10 miles, bike 10 miles, run 10 miles? Should swims be 1 hour, bikes be 1 hour, run be 1 hour? How in the world do you determine this? What would you like your race distances to be? Ironman wasn't set up the way it is to represent anything beyond the longest swim race/bike race/and run race they had on the island. Was never intended to be some sort of democracy of sport. It was a fitness test.I apologize as a newbie for even posting in a philosophical thread, I am well aware these type of discussions are "over my head" since I am not a pro like you. I guess someone else said it better as "proportionately" represented. I mean for a sprint, I can spend 3 minutes on the swim, 60 minutes on the bike, 30 minutes on the run. 3 min vs. 60 min. That is a HUGE, huge gap. I have also seen many people just fake their way through a sprint swim without even swimming one stroke and still finish above MOP. You couldn't just walk your bike and have the same results, you have to ride it. You don't even HAVE to "swim" in order place decent. Again, I am new to this. I didn't grow up in triathlons. I had never really even heard of the sport until about a year ago. When I head it was a swim, bike, run 3 sport event, I pictured it differently in my head. I pictured each sport having more equal weight. Obviously I have come to learn that is not the reality, which means maybe the sport isn't for me to even do well in as a strong swimmer. But as I said, I understand I am in the minority, and longer swim races probably wouldn't appeal to the masses. That's fine. But I guess I thought this thread was just a place for a good swimmer/bad bike or runners to commiserate together about it. Guess not. |
| 2010-06-22 1:00 PM in reply to: #2936805 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Pector55 - 2010-06-22 2:54 PM Couldn't it be argued that bike fitness is twofold in that a poor bike not only equates to a slower time, but it may also introduce more fatigue in the run? I would say that you could extend that to swim fitness as well; poor swim fitness can lead to issues on the bike and run. So it then appears that to race well, one should spend time building swim, bike and run fitness. Shane |
| 2010-06-22 1:02 PM in reply to: #2936528 |
Champion 5495 Whizzzzzlandia Silver member | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM pschriver - 2010-06-22 11:07 AM It always comes down to a foot race. The swim and bike just decide how far a head start/or delay you get over your compitition. Yes. I agree. |
| 2010-06-22 1:04 PM in reply to: #2936820 |
Champion 5495 Whizzzzzlandia Silver member | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM faded_memories - 2010-06-22 12:59 PM Took the words right out of my mouth. I'd be so there for a 2/2/2 tri... Now THAT I think I could excel at. I'm a decent endurance swimmer. Let's do it! That would have to be like a 7-8K swim! W00t! |
| 2010-06-22 1:07 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Master 3127 Sunny Southern Cal | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Yes, swimming has less of an influence on the position for a typical AGer. So, the takeaway is that if you have a particular weakness in the run or bike, then train it and get better. You'll feel that much more satisfaction when you get better at it and improve your overall race performance. |
| 2010-06-22 1:13 PM in reply to: #2936847 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM SevenZulu - 2010-06-22 2:07 PM Yes, swimming has less of an influence on the position for a typical AGer. So, the takeaway is that if you have a particular weakness in the run or bike, then train it and get better. You'll feel that much more satisfaction when you get better at it and improve your overall race performance. I call BS! It's not like we are going to get unbiased advice from a dolphin.  |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK