For those interested in Kona>

This user's post has been ignored.

I think one of the biggest things is that, as information is more readily available (via the webz) People who genuinely have a *shot* at qualifying know "I need to go 10:xx, or 9:xx" to beat the people who qualified last year.
Some of it is mental... having that carrot in front will push serious athletes to go "just a bit harder" and show up "just a little more prepared" because they know they have to perform to a certain spec.

more information on training, plus the little things like bike fit, what equiptment works, nutrition,  
training methods have had a enough time to see what works and what doesn't so less time is wasted
more tri exposure getting better athletes from other areas ???  even though it might take a couple of years to be in range


I know Bryan has had a few threads that you need to swim 1hr, bike 5-ish and run 3:30 to have a shot these days.  and even then it's up to fate/luck as to what happens race day,  ie weather, equiptment issue's etc

The pros keep getting faster too.  Last year several records fell.  I have always wondered how much faster we as a species can get. 

And I mean we as the normal humans.  Chrissie, Macca, Crowie etc.. are some other species entirely.

$90, $50 for passport club and $40 for lottery application

How much has the allocation changed? 

A few years ago, some of the 70.3 races had Kona spots (I thought...not like I was anywhere close to landing one...).  Now, they're spreading the slots out among more M-dot races worldwide.  North America added Kentucky and St. George (and is adding Texas in 2011).  China and I'm not sure what other races have been added outside NA. 

But yea...you pretty much have to throw down a 10:00 to get a slot these days...

Who knows?  That's the deal with triathlons in general... it depends on who shows up, how hard they've been working, natural athletic ability, etc.   

I think that the sport has become more popular recently. I can’t really put my finger on it as to where or why but I have been in triathlon for a long time (1992) and I have never seen it this popular. Advertising? People looking for a challenge away from their “real life”?  I’d be interested to know as well.

 

I really think that these times will continue to dive for the next 5-10 years easily before they start to level off. Fingers crossed I will get my Kona spot in the 70-75 age group.

 

 

Edited by jhouse4 2010-08-09 10:54 AM

This user's post has been ignored.

I don't know if I buy that theory, I think the sport is still in the process of maturing in the age group ranks.  It continues to grow at a fast rate.  With more participants, you have a greater potential for landing more folks that have attributes like a background in endurance sports, time, money, and desire to be the best.

I don't think the professional times have gone down at all though.  The big names from the late 80s and 90s were throwing down times in Kona that would still win today - without the advances in technology.  Really good athletes - drawing from former collegiate runners and swimmers that perhaps didn't get their fill of competition in their early 20s seem to have kept that end of the field going very fast for quite some time already.  Plus pros very quickly learned about the physical and physiological limits to training - a lesson that unfortunately seems to be relearned often.

Edited by dck4shrt 2010-08-09 11:18 AM

This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by PennState 2010-08-09 11:23 AM

It's the cool thing to do (I mean, I'm cool and I do triathlons. ).  I think it's sort of an extension/out-growth of the marathon boom, and the growth of endurance sports in general.  Despite the obesity epidemic, there is a significant percentage of the population that wants to be fit and healthy.  Triathlon may be able to provide that - at least its sold that way.  I think the selling points of the sport are that it's 'complicated', 'balanced', and rewards those that persevere, are dedicated, overcome adversity, and have a strong-will to succeed.  Those attributes should be enough to pique the curiousity of at least a few of the people that fall into the demographic that it attracts - highly successful people. 

Although we know what the socioeconomic demographics of the sport are (especially IM), it would be interesting to see if more recent newcomers fall along the same demographics or if the growth in the sport has attracted a different socioeconomic group, as I think entering the sport has become less of a hurdle than it once was with the proliferation of small races, tri clubs, clinics, etc, etc.


Edited by dck4shrt 2010-08-09 11:45 AM

CFE?

Question: Is the improvement skewed more towards one leg than the others? For example, better bike times with little or no change in the swim/run?

- Is it growing at a rate higher than population expansion?
- Do you think that more people are attempting to fight obesity whereas just being moderately overweight in the past didn't call for such drastic measures?
- Perhaps there is more information sharing available via websites and social networking?

 I dont' think it's a goofy theory at all.  In fact (just had to throw a fact in from the other thread) I think it's spot on.

Some people are moving up the corporate ladder quicker so they now have the time to tackle something else at a younger age.   Instead of an IM, I think Kona Qualifying is a bucket list item in itself.

Then there is the whole movement of not climbing someone else corporate ladder and making your own, cashing out early and going after the next challenge.

btw -- you've started a couple of great threads lately

Is it possible that better supplements and "beyond" are at play?

Triathlon IS a dirty sport if that's what you are suggesting.

Note: the following is purely my musing and I have NO evidence of it whatsoever

You bring up a good point.  I would venture to say that if you drug tested all the top Age Groupers at Kona or any major race that about 40% of them would pop for something banned.  NOW...here is the caveat.  I would also say that probably only like 5-10% of them would know that they are taking something banned.

I think with the growth of supplements that are being made on the same 'lines' of some other banned ones, there is a high probablility of cross contamination.  And look at Creatin, wasn't it banned like 10 years ago?  Now you can buy it at the Kroger.

ETA:  I still get a bit nervous when I get a "golden flow" test at work and wonder if I will come up with something.  And I am cautious about the few supplements I take.

Edited by Marvarnett 2010-08-09 12:06 PM

It's precisely what I'm suggesting.  It's (according to Bicycling magazine) rampant (doping) in the AG ranks of cycling (amateur CAT. racing).  Why would we think it wasn't in Triathlon?

I'm ignorant as to the WTC's testing policies for AG athletes, though.  Conceded. 

I do remember vaguely getting an email from USAT talking about stepping up testing for Pro's and Elites, all the way down to AG'ers...

...never seen anything come of it, but I remember reading about it thinking "that's going to be a pain for them to enforce"

Not only a "pain"....it's expensive.  And, if you're them, why in the world would you do it?  Do you REALLY want that publicity -- if someone tested positive?

The article I referenced earlier had a similar revelation (increased testing announced in cycling for pros and AG'ers).  They cited why the RD's would favor indifference (reasons listed, above) and one MTB pro from NC said he'd never been tested.  Never.

I played some pretty competitive softball after my college baseball days.  I can tell you......PED's are rampant in even THAT sport.  Triathlon-ing offers a "little" more glory than hitting a slow-pitch softball 330'.  Just trying to not be in the naive crowd.  Il-informed?  I could be.  I've admitted my ignorance to the WTC's testing policy for AG'ers.

I have no idea about using PEDs in tris.  I don't want to assume that people have become better because they cheat more.  On the bright side, I believe that training methodologies changed (just from what I read here from folks like Shane and Jorge.)  I also believe nutrition may be better understood.  Also, there must be some additional advances in wetsuits and bikes which contribute to small time benefits???