Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM (Page 5)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2010-06-23 10:36 AM in reply to: #2938580 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
2010-06-23 10:39 AM in reply to: #2937490 |
Expert 608 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM lengthcroft - 2010-06-22 5:09 PM Jeez, I knew my initial post would create a bit of a debate, but I didn't expect as many posts as that! It's good to see all the different points of view. I have to say that ultimately my reasons for wanting a longer swim are entirely selfish, as I'm a very strong swimmer and pretty poor at the other two. That means your a good swimmer and a bad triathlete. My swim coach has swam a 70.3 race in 22 min. If you can beat most of the pros by minutes it an advantage for anybody. |
2010-06-23 10:52 AM in reply to: #2938795 |
Veteran 197 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM xcrunner2010 - 2010-06-23 11:39 AM lengthcroft - 2010-06-22 5:09 PM Jeez, I knew my initial post would create a bit of a debate, but I didn't expect as many posts as that! It's good to see all the different points of view. I have to say that ultimately my reasons for wanting a longer swim are entirely selfish, as I'm a very strong swimmer and pretty poor at the other two. That means your a good swimmer and a bad triathlete. My swim coach has swam a 70.3 race in 22 min. If you can beat most of the pros by minutes it an advantage for anybody. That's me!! Well, I don't want to call anyone a bad triathlete (even a sprint distance MOP guy like me), but I know I am a better swimmer than I am a runner, which (of course) means my overall triathlon times suffer. Of course, I am not a HIM or an IM guy - I'm just a sprint guy planning on doing an Olympic - and I do this for fun and to somewhat keep in shape. Obviously, if I ever wanted to be a "good" triathlete, I would need to run a whole lot faster than I do. Oh well, in the meantime I'll just continue to have fun doin' what I', doin'! |
2010-06-23 11:47 AM in reply to: #2937309 |
Expert 1121 Chicago | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM tealeaf - 2010-06-22 3:31 PM Ershk - 2010-06-22 4:20 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): Yes, I'm sure that 37th place person is saying to himself, "man, if I had only finished the swim 10 seconds faster I would have come in 35th. I dunno... for FOP, I could see this. For 35th through 38th place? Notsomuch. And this is coming from someone who is all too familiar with the MOP. I hear ya. I guess it's a personal reaction to where you finish. I'm improving in tri's and don't expect to be on the podium, but I'm still competitive once I get out to race. I always wind up looking at the times that were within spitting distance ahead of me and can't help but look through my race to find places where I could have shaved seconds here and there. Maybe that's just me. |
2010-06-23 12:32 PM in reply to: #2936469 |
Member 125 San Diego | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM Good topic and an old one =) I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it. I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles). I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish! For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half. Have fun out there! -j |
2010-06-23 1:03 PM in reply to: #2939159 |
Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
|
2010-06-23 2:52 PM in reply to: #2939258 |
Master 2094 | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM PennState - 2010-06-23 2:03 PM jasonmkennedy - 2010-06-23 1:32 PM Good topic and an old one =) I think that would actually be a better overall test of SBR fitness than the existing model, but as has been said WTC won't be doing this soon for multiple reasons I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it. I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles). I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish! For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half. Have fun out there! -j Especially not until they go full metric |
2010-06-23 3:18 PM in reply to: #2939546 |
Expert 608 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM pschriver - 2010-06-23 2:52 PM PennState - 2010-06-23 2:03 PM jasonmkennedy - 2010-06-23 1:32 PM Good topic and an old one =) I think that would actually be a better overall test of SBR fitness than the existing model, but as has been said WTC won't be doing this soon for multiple reasons I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it. I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles). I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish! For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half. Have fun out there! -j Especially not until they go full metric HAHA yes...response to the 2.5k / 80k / 20k Olympic distance is 1.5k/40k/10k THIS is even more swimming(than the other events) than what your ideal "HIM / IM" is so i don't know what your complaining about. |
2010-06-23 3:46 PM in reply to: #2939159 |
Expert 2547 The Woodlands, TX | Subject: RE: Swimming is irrelevant in 70.3 and IM jasonmkennedy - 2010-06-23 12:32 PM Good topic and an old one =) I was a national level collegiate swimmer and kinda bummed out to see the distances of the longer triathlon's so anti-swimming, but you get over it. I would love to see the half ironman swim distance go from 1.2 miles to 2.5k or about (1.55 miles) and the ironman swim go to 5k (3.1 miles). I don't think this would be too large a turn off for existing triathletes and would at least add a bit water for us fish! For me the ideal ironman distance would be 5k/160k/40k and 2.5/80k/20k for the half. Have fun out there! -j I think I would be pretty tough to beat in a 10mile/10mile/10mile race. Of course I would probably be the only one entered... |
|