login
Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-06-22 1:14 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Extreme Veteran  821  |  Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IMSwimming will be important to me until I see somebody come out the water last and win the race... ouch |
| 2010-06-22 1:16 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Master 2356   Westlake Village , Ca. | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Most recent article on BT.... 5 Tips to a Strong Swim in Your Next Triathlon LOL....I guess some will say, meh, irrelevant! |
| 2010-06-22 1:17 PM in reply to: #2936870 |
Master 3127 Sunny Southern Cal | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Pector55 - 2010-06-22 11:13 AM 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.  I thought dolphins were natural cyclists and runners. |
| 2010-06-22 1:53 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM lengthcroft - 2010-06-22 9:44 AM A group of friends and I were discussing long distance triathlons at the weekend, and we came to the conclusion that swimming is not that important. Three of the people we know who have won their age groups at 70.3 events are pretty poor swimmers, but are very strong cyclists/runners. Obviously they're not going to succeed at the pro/elite level with a poor swim, but at the age group level they do very well. Conversely, another guy was the fastest swimmer in his age group by over 5 minutes (which is a long way in a 1.9mile swim) at a recent 70.3, but he ended up finishing MOP as the others were such good cyclists/runners. 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. You've only provided some anecdotal evidence. The people who win at the AG level can be all over the map. I personally know some guys who win because of their swim, others who win because of their bike, and others who win because of their run. Mostly these people do their "weaker" events at around the same time as their competition, while gaining an advantage with their strength. I also know some people who are not the top person in any of the events, but good enough overall to grab the win. Other factors as to who wins their AG include course profiles, weather conditions, and the strength of who shows up to compete in any given race. I also know some people who are really decent on the bike and run, but are such poor swimmers they will never come close to AG awards. The thing that stands out is that there is no standard rule that applies to everyone. |
 2010-06-22 2:03 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-06-22 2:06 PM in reply to: #2937027 |
Champion 5376 PA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM PennState - 2010-06-22 3:03 PM Shane's (geeky  ) graph does show correlation between swim times and overall finish times. Yes the curve is 'tighter' with biking and even more so with running. HOWEVER, Correlation does NOT prove cause and effect. I would suggest that the ORDER of the 3 events could be just as responsible for the 'tightness of the corelation'. What I mean is that people who are running well in an ironman are not only good runners. They are also very fit overall to be able to run at that point in the race. They have mastered nutrition, pacing and likely have very good swim and bike pacing/fitness. ie; people finishing an ironman strongly are likely the fittest, fastest people in the race, so the run times will correlate moreso. There are many people who over-pace the bike (me, many times) and then fall apart on the run. Biking and running are the majority of the race as far as time with biking more by a couple of hours or so for many, thus they are very important. I do believe that swim speed is probably less-well correlated to final finish time just based on the fact that it represents the smallest part of the ironman race. If the order was SWIM, RUN, then BIKE, my suspicion is that cycling would best correlate to overall finish time. Thoughts?That's what I assumed but (1) I'm a newb and (2) you know what folks say about assumptions. ha |
| 2010-06-22 2:16 PM in reply to: #2936791 |
| Champion 7233 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM norcal_SAHD - 2010-06-22 11:48 AM 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. can you keep spreading this philosophy to all my competitors? |
| 2010-06-22 2:21 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Expert 2852 Pfafftown, NC | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM I'm also wondering which 70.3 has a 1.9mi. swim.....so I can stay VERY far away from it! |
| 2010-06-22 2:35 PM in reply to: #2937027 |
| Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM PennState - 2010-06-22 4:03 PM I would suggest that the ORDER of the 3 events could be just as responsible for the 'tightness of the corelation'. <snip> If the order was SWIM, RUN, then BIKE, my suspicion is that cycling would best correlate to overall finish time. Thoughts? I agree 100% - I've said this several times (especially when talking about ITU elite racing) when people point out the the race is won on the run. Of course it is, it comes last. You can't have a great swim, great bike and win the race, you need to back it up with a great run. Even when Normann "won" IMH on the bike, he still backed up a great ride with a 2:58 (I think) marathon split so it's not like he walked it in. Shane |
| 2010-06-22 2:49 PM in reply to: #2937139 |
| Veteran 197 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Even when Normann "won" IMH on the bike, he still backed up a great ride with a 2:58 (I think) marathon split so it's not like he walked it in. Shane Yup - and if you look at the overall results (assuming you're talking about 2006), he finished 1st overall on the bike, 14th overall on the run, and 31st overall during the swim. Clearly he's not a slow swimmer, but he was not among the top 30 that day and he still managed to smoke the competition on the bike and run - good enough for an overall victory. |
| 2010-06-22 2:50 PM in reply to: #2936824 |
| Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM mademille - 2010-06-22 11:59 AM 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. . Sure, so it does beg the question as to how to make it more "fair" in that regards. So how can that be accomplished. Honest question and there's no right answer, just thoughts and opinions. Don't get frustrated, what would you think would make a race like a Sprint more equitable? |
| 2010-06-22 2:56 PM in reply to: #2937179 |
| Veteran 197 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM bryancd - 2010-06-22 3:50 PM Sure, so it does beg the question as to how to make it more "fair" in that regards. So how can that be accomplished. Honest question and there's no right answer, just thoughts and opinions. Don't get frustrated, what would you think would make a race like a Sprint more equitable? Tricky question! I'm doing the Philly sprint this weekend. I like that it has a longer swim at 900m vs other sprints I've done - I feel like it makes the swim a little more "represented" (or whatever term we're using). However - I know it also scares off some first timers from even entering the race. |
| 2010-06-22 2:59 PM in reply to: #2937179 |
| Extreme Veteran 1942 In front of computer when typing this. | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM bryancd - 2010-06-22 3:50 PM mademille - 2010-06-22 11:59 AM 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. . Sure, so it does beg the question as to how to make it more "fair" in that regards. So how can that be accomplished. Honest question and there's no right answer, just thoughts and opinions. Don't get frustrated, what would you think would make a race like a Sprint more equitable?While the original ironman was not designed to equally divide the time spent on each sport, it would be pretty nice to have a few races that do that. For instance, you could take the distance covered for the world record (or some other standard) in X time and use that. So, for instance, you would have a 1500m swim (WR is ~15 ish mins), a Xmile bike (how far do the fastest guys go in 15 mins- 8 miles? 10 miles?) and a 5K-ish run (OK, WR is 12-something, but close enough). And then you could double all of that for an "OLY" and so forth. |
| 2010-06-22 3:01 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Master 2404 Redlands, CA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM I think there are a ton of intangibles people don't pay attention to in the swim, I'll concede its the lesser of the 3 but looking at it in a time sense is not the way to look at it. You take a bad swimmer and a good swimmer, and one is going to expend a lot more energy which will make a difference in the other 2 sports. |
| 2010-06-22 3:03 PM in reply to: #2936737 |
| Expert 1121 Chicago | 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 Great graphs. Thanks for sharing the data. |
| 2010-06-22 3:05 PM in reply to: #2937179 |
| Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM bryancd - 2010-06-22 12:50 PM mademille - 2010-06-22 11:59 AM 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. . Sure, so it does beg the question as to how to make it more "fair" in that regards. So how can that be accomplished. Honest question and there's no right answer, just thoughts and opinions. Don't get frustrated, what would you think would make a race like a Sprint more equitable?tcovert posted it above. Local sprint here in Redondo was designed after certain benchmark times for swim/bike/run that were intended to be more or less equivalent. So you end up with funky distances - .5/6/2. To make the swim equivalent to longer distances simply makes the swim too long for many people.... Although a 1/12/4 would be a pretty cool distance I think. ITU long course also comes a little closer at
|
| 2010-06-22 3:11 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Member 291 Hugo, MN | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Interesting thread. I am personally glad that swimming is "under represented" seeing that I am not a strong swimmer. |
| 2010-06-22 3:18 PM in reply to: #2936838 |
| Champion 5781 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Whizzzzz - 2010-06-22 11:04 AM 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! Howsa 'bout...7.5K/75K/25K? |
| 2010-06-22 3:19 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Master 2356 Westlake Village , Ca. | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Have a reverse Tri with a long swim....then you'll really kill some folks! |
| 2010-06-22 3:20 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Expert 1121 Chicago | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM A second is a second (or 1/60th of a minute, if you prefer), regardless of what part of the race it comes from. At the several races I've done so far, I've been a FOP swimmer. Certainly not the fastest out there, but fast enough to come out of the water with a time advantage over most of the other racers. Ask the four people who finished right behind me whether they think the swim was irrelevant. I finished 35th overall (small race): |
| 2010-06-22 3:20 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Expert 617 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Olympic distance ones seem to weight the swim most equitably and since sprint distance triathlons don't seem to use specific distances (other than a 5k run), you can shop for tris with longer swims but swimming just doesn't play much of a role in 70.3s and IMs I've heard this sentiment over an over again. You just need to put enough swim training in that you aren't tired by the end of the swim, swim speed is inconsequential since that time is negligible in comparison to the other disciplines. Now, that being said, since I'm better at swimming than other disciplines, I want to do well in it so I still put forth the time and effort into the training but it isn't going to pay off for anything other than personal satisfaction that I placed X out of X in the swim. |
| 2010-06-22 3:21 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
| Master 2355 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM The good guys don't care what the ratio of swim to bike to run are. unless I'm racing Ritter, then longer the swim the better! |
| 2010-06-22 3:22 PM in reply to: #2937275 |
Champion 5495 Whizzzzzlandia Silver member | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM tcovert - 2010-06-22 3:18 PM Whizzzzz - 2010-06-22 11:04 AM 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! Howsa 'bout...7.5K/75K/25K? How about 7.5K/200K/5k? I could totally get behind that. |
| 2010-06-22 3:25 PM in reply to: #2937278 |
| Champion 5868 Urbandale, IA | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Ershk - 2010-06-22 3:20 PM A second is a second (or 1/60th of a minute, if you prefer), regardless of what part of the race it comes from. At the several races I've done so far, I've been a FOP swimmer. Certainly not the fastest out there, but fast enough to come out of the water with a time advantage over most of the other racers. Ask the four people who finished right behind me whether they think the swim was irrelevant. I finished 35th overall (small race): I agree with you when we speak about Sprint and Oly distances. Bump to 70.3 and 140.6 and it kinda goes out the window, given that both swimmers swim with the same effort and one comes out 6 minutes ahead (or whatever). |
| 2010-06-22 3:25 PM in reply to: #2937279 |
| Veteran 197 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM crazyalaskian - 2010-06-22 4:20 PM Olympic distance ones seem to weight the swim most equitably and since sprint distance triathlons don't seem to use specific distances (other than a 5k run), you can shop for tris with longer swims but swimming just doesn't play much of a role in 70.3s and IMs I've heard this sentiment over an over again. You just need to put enough swim training in that you aren't tired by the end of the swim, swim speed is inconsequential since that time is negligible in comparison to the other disciplines. Now, that being said, since I'm better at swimming than other disciplines, I want to do well in it so I still put forth the time and effort into the training but it isn't going to pay off for anything other than personal satisfaction that I placed X out of X in the swim. x2 |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK