login
3 disciplines but not equal (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2015-04-02 12:42 PM in reply to: 0 |
 1300  |  Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equalOriginally posted by axteraa Originally posted by GMAN 19030 Originally posted by sactowntriathlete Just wondering why out of the three disciplines in triathlon, the bike is so heavily weighted. It seems that the bike takes up over 50% of the race time and the swim takes up less than 20%. I know about the history of the start of the Ironman, but does anyone know why the three disciplines aren't more equally accounted for in a triathlon? Is there a reason the three haven't been balanced out a little over the years? There have been attempts at having balanced triathlons. They have failed miserably. There's next to zero interest in it. The race would so heavily skew in favor of elite level swimmers. Plus the swim tends to be a deal breaker for many. For me a balanced race, if I were to assume one hour per event at what I would call a decent race effort for each event, would be about 4000y/3650m swim, 24 mile bike, and 8.5 mile run. The issue would be that FOP swimmers, who are also good cyclists and runners, would always win. I could easily be down 10-15 minutes to a really good swimmer. That's a lot of time to makeup in 24 miles of cycling and 8.5 miles of running if we were to use my example. And I'm a pretty decent swimmer by triathlete standards. The olympic is the most balanced of the tri distances because the swim is almost as long as a HIM but with about 45% of the bike and run. My IM and HIM split percentages for S/B/R have pretty much been about 10/50/40. For an oly it's more like 20/46/34. Not seeing the issue with the bolded line. Of course the flip side of that is that with current typical distances, a FOP swimmer who has a weakness either on the bike or run will almost never win. I whole heartedly agree with you but we are going to have to start our own thread I think ! Edited by Goggles Pizzano 2015-04-02 12:43 PM |
| 2015-04-02 12:48 PM in reply to: sactowntriathlete |
1502  Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Well this is interesting...I went back to my last race (a sprint) and looked at my results compared to the rest of the field hoping to make a case for my point but in this one, the numbers are saying the opposite. By the way, I thought I was 3rd out of the water and may have stated that before but when I put the results in excel and sorted, I was actually 5th...just a note. Anyway, here is how it panned out: Swim: 5th place Bike: 20th place Run: 13th place So, if all three were even, then I should have ended up 13th (since that's the average) but if it was skewed more toward the bike and/or the run, then is should have been higher than 13. If you were to take a weighted average, it would probably be closer to 14th or 15th (I'm too lazy to do the math). Where did I end up? I was 10th overall. What the??? The worst part is, in this particular race, the swim was short and the bike was long so it even goes further against my point...I'm confused. |
| 2015-04-02 12:50 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Pro 15655  | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by 3mar Well this is interesting...I went back to my last race (a sprint) and looked at my results compared to the rest of the field hoping to make a case for my point but in this one, the numbers are saying the opposite. By the way, I thought I was 3rd out of the water and may have stated that before but when I put the results in excel and sorted, I was actually 5th...just a note. Anyway, here is how it panned out: Swim: 5th place Bike: 20th place Run: 13th place So, if all three were even, then I should have ended up 13th (since that's the average) but if it was skewed more toward the bike and/or the run, then is should have been higher than 13. If you were to take a weighted average, it would probably be closer to 14th or 15th (I'm too lazy to do the math). Where did I end up? I was 10th overall. What the??? The worst part is, in this particular race, the swim was short and the bike was long so it even goes further against my point...I'm confused. Yep. But it's a fun discussion on a rainy day. |
| 2015-04-02 12:58 PM in reply to: 3mar |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by 3mar Well this is interesting...I went back to my last race (a sprint) and looked at my results compared to the rest of the field hoping to make a case for my point but in this one, the numbers are saying the opposite. By the way, I thought I was 3rd out of the water and may have stated that before but when I put the results in excel and sorted, I was actually 5th...just a note. Anyway, here is how it panned out: Swim: 5th place Bike: 20th place Run: 13th place So, if all three were even, then I should have ended up 13th (since that's the average) but if it was skewed more toward the bike and/or the run, then is should have been higher than 13. If you were to take a weighted average, it would probably be closer to 14th or 15th (I'm too lazy to do the math). Where did I end up? I was 10th overall. What the??? The worst part is, in this particular race, the swim was short and the bike was long so it even goes further against my point...I'm confused. its not about the length of each event, its about the amount of time you would lose during it. If you are 10 sec/100 slower in an olympic, you lose around 2.5 minutes if you are 1 mph slower, you lose around 2.5 minutes if you run 30 sec/mile slower you lose around 2.5 minutes (i did this math very quickly is someone wants to check it) that is what the current format considers to be approximately equivalent |
| 2015-04-02 12:58 PM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 2842 Austin, Texas | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by 3mar Well this is interesting...I went back to my last race (a sprint) and looked at my results compared to the rest of the field hoping to make a case for my point but in this one, the numbers are saying the opposite. By the way, I thought I was 3rd out of the water and may have stated that before but when I put the results in excel and sorted, I was actually 5th...just a note. Anyway, here is how it panned out: Swim: 5th place Bike: 20th place Run: 13th place So, if all three were even, then I should have ended up 13th (since that's the average) but if it was skewed more toward the bike and/or the run, then is should have been higher than 13. If you were to take a weighted average, it would probably be closer to 14th or 15th (I'm too lazy to do the math). Where did I end up? I was 10th overall. What the??? The worst part is, in this particular race, the swim was short and the bike was long so it even goes further against my point...I'm confused. This is actually one of the reasons I like racing triathlons. It's possible (actually has to be at least true to an extent, given your result) that at least some of the people in front of you in each discipline were different. Imagine the race where there are 5 great runners who can't swim and don't bike much, 5 great cyclists (who... well, you get the idea) and 5 great swimmers that are only swimmers. You might be 6th out of the water, 6th on the bike and 6th on the run, but win (depending on how badly the others did on their weak 2 events - assume reeeeaaaalllly badly for this). So, by just not sucking at each, you win! My continuing goal is to suck less in/across all three disciplines, cuz I'm never going to be great at any - but I can sometimes be OK taking all three into account. Matt ETA - and what Dave said! That's definitely also a driver: not just the relative positions, but the magnitude of gaps... Edited by mcmanusclan5 2015-04-02 1:00 PM |
| 2015-04-02 1:06 PM in reply to: mcmanusclan5 |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by mcmanusclan5 Originally posted by 3mar Well this is interesting...I went back to my last race (a sprint) and looked at my results compared to the rest of the field hoping to make a case for my point but in this one, the numbers are saying the opposite. By the way, I thought I was 3rd out of the water and may have stated that before but when I put the results in excel and sorted, I was actually 5th...just a note. Anyway, here is how it panned out: Swim: 5th place Bike: 20th place Run: 13th place So, if all three were even, then I should have ended up 13th (since that's the average) but if it was skewed more toward the bike and/or the run, then is should have been higher than 13. If you were to take a weighted average, it would probably be closer to 14th or 15th (I'm too lazy to do the math). Where did I end up? I was 10th overall. What the??? The worst part is, in this particular race, the swim was short and the bike was long so it even goes further against my point...I'm confused. This is actually one of the reasons I like racing triathlons. It's possible (actually has to be at least true to an extent, given your result) that at least some of the people in front of you in each discipline were different. Imagine the race where there are 5 great runners who can't swim and don't bike much, 5 great cyclists (who... well, you get the idea) and 5 great swimmers that are only swimmers. You might be 6th out of the water, 6th on the bike and 6th on the run, but win (depending on how badly the others did on their weak 2 events - assume reeeeaaaalllly badly for this). So, by just not sucking at each, you win! My continuing goal is to suck less in/across all three disciplines, cuz I'm never going to be great at any - but I can sometimes be OK taking all three into account. Matt ETA - and what Dave said! That's definitely also a driver: not just the relative positions, but the magnitude of gaps... yeah, the trouble with going by rankings is that it assumes a more even distribution between every position. It's not. It's the actual time difference in there that matters. Rankings don't necessarily reflect that very well. There are a lot of times it doesn't. |
| 2015-04-02 1:24 PM in reply to: sactowntriathlete |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by sactowntriathlete Originally posted by 3mar Look, I get that it is what it is and you can decide whether or not you want to race, but here's the deal; the original question was spurred because if you sat down at a drawing board and said, "let's make a race to see who's the fastest at swimming, biking and running" general logic would dictate that those three would be evaluated evenly. They're not. Not even close, and I think this test is a perfect example. If a 36 year old guy, who hadn't swam for 20 years (and wasn't even that much of a stand out when he did) can hop back in the pool and pass that portion of the test, yet a Div 1 XC runner a couple years out of college would have trouble hitting the run number (using a buddy of mine as an example) that shows how heavily lopsided the sport is away from swimming. Again, this goes against our collective conscience of what a test of three sports should be, so that's why the question comes up. It's certainly not even, not by a long shot. So it is what it is, that's fine, you can play or not, but it is still not an even test of the three sports by any comparison. Maybe it's not intended to be, but that's how it is perceived. Well said! At times I think of triathlon as a glorified bike race. Triathlete A is a strong swimmer. Triathlete B is a strong runner. Triathlete C is a strong swimmer and runner. Triathlete D is a strong cyclist. Triathlete A beats nobody. Triathlete B beats triathlete A. Triathlete C beats A and B. Triathlete D beats all. Who is the best triathlete? Well, because triathlon is mostly a bike race, Triathlete D is the best. In reality, triathlete C is the best. Or should be!! Here's my N = 1 example of why that's absolutely not true: The guy with the fastest bike split is a CAT 1 cyclist that was faster than the rest of the field by a lot, but was 18th overall. Where's the race winner? 9th fastest bike, but crushed everyone in the run and had a strong swim. In most triathlons it almost always comes down to a strong run. |
| 2015-04-02 1:32 PM in reply to: msteiner |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by msteiner I've had some race best bike splits, sometimes several minutes ahead of anyone else, and zero overall wins. I've seen the Type C tend to do rather well so long as their bike isn't terrible. Originally posted by sactowntriathlete Originally posted by 3mar Look, I get that it is what it is and you can decide whether or not you want to race, but here's the deal; the original question was spurred because if you sat down at a drawing board and said, "let's make a race to see who's the fastest at swimming, biking and running" general logic would dictate that those three would be evaluated evenly. They're not. Not even close, and I think this test is a perfect example. If a 36 year old guy, who hadn't swam for 20 years (and wasn't even that much of a stand out when he did) can hop back in the pool and pass that portion of the test, yet a Div 1 XC runner a couple years out of college would have trouble hitting the run number (using a buddy of mine as an example) that shows how heavily lopsided the sport is away from swimming. Again, this goes against our collective conscience of what a test of three sports should be, so that's why the question comes up. It's certainly not even, not by a long shot. So it is what it is, that's fine, you can play or not, but it is still not an even test of the three sports by any comparison. Maybe it's not intended to be, but that's how it is perceived. Well said! At times I think of triathlon as a glorified bike race. Triathlete A is a strong swimmer. Triathlete B is a strong runner. Triathlete C is a strong swimmer and runner. Triathlete D is a strong cyclist. Triathlete A beats nobody. Triathlete B beats triathlete A. Triathlete C beats A and B. Triathlete D beats all. Who is the best triathlete? Well, because triathlon is mostly a bike race, Triathlete D is the best. In reality, triathlete C is the best. Or should be!! Here's my N = 1 example of why that's absolutely not true: The guy with the fastest bike split is a CAT 1 cyclist that was faster than the rest of the field by a lot, but was 18th overall. Where's the race winner? 9th fastest bike, but crushed everyone in the run and had a strong swim. In most triathlons it almost always comes down to a strong run. |
| 2015-04-02 1:39 PM in reply to: brigby1 |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal another n=1 my own race example I tried to win this race on the bike, got out run. 3rd place is a stud runner, lost it on the swim. 9th place is a stud swimmer, lost it on the bike. https://www.vtsmts.com/results/rock-hall-sprint-triathlon-2014-overall/ |
| 2015-04-02 1:56 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by dmiller5 another n=1 my own race example I tried to win this race on the bike, got out run. 3rd place is a stud runner, lost it on the swim. 9th place is a stud swimmer, lost it on the bike. https://www.vtsmts.com/results/rock-hall-sprint-triathlon-2014-overall/ Or you could say got out swum (swam?) and T2'd... |
| 2015-04-02 1:59 PM in reply to: msteiner |
| New user 7 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Sounds like the CAT 1 cyclist needs to understand that this is supposed to be a TRIathlon. Not a bike race. I would advise him to work on his running if he wants to win, but don't worry about his swim because it's essentially insignificant. If he works on and improves his run by 20% he probably wins or nearly wins the race. If he works on and improves his swim by 20% he probably finishes in roughly the same position. THE SWIM IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!! Of course it comes down to a strong run. The separation between the top swimmers and the MOP is next to nothing when you look at the overall time of a triathlon. I mean really on a sprint triathlon why bother getting wet? It has no effect on the race outcome. The bike and run account for 87% of the race. I mean transitions nearly take up more time on a sprint tri than does the swim. |
| 2015-04-02 2:02 PM in reply to: sactowntriathlete |
Elite 7783 PEI, Canada | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by sactowntriathlete Sounds like the CAT 1 cyclist needs to understand that this is supposed to be a TRIathlon. Not a bike race. I would advise him to work on his running if he wants to win, but don't worry about his swim because it's essentially insignificant. If he works on and improves his run by 20% he probably wins or nearly wins the race. If he works on and improves his swim by 20% he probably finishes in roughly the same position. THE SWIM IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!! Of course it comes down to a strong run. The separation between the top swimmers and the MOP is next to nothing when you look at the overall time of a triathlon. I mean really on a sprint triathlon why bother getting wet? It has no effect on the race outcome. The bike and run account for 87% of the race. I mean transitions nearly take up more time on a sprint tri than does the swim. Forgot the pink font? Or maybe meant to post yesterday? |
| 2015-04-02 2:05 PM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran 2261 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Interesting Originally posted by sactowntriathlete At times I think of triathlon as a glorified bike race. Triathlete A is a strong swimmer. Triathlete B is a strong runner. Triathlete C is a strong swimmer and runner. Triathlete D is a strong cyclist. Triathlete A beats nobody. Triathlete B beats triathlete A. Triathlete C beats A and B. Triathlete D beats all. Who is the best triathlete? Well, because triathlon is mostly a bike race, Triathlete D is the best. In reality, triathlete C is the best. Or should be!!
Originally posted by sactowntriathlete Sounds like the CAT 1 cyclist needs to understand that this is supposed to be a TRIathlon. Not a bike race. I would advise him to work on his running if he wants to win, but don't worry about his swim because it's essentially insignificant. If he works on and improves his run by 20% he probably wins or nearly wins the race. If he works on and improves his swim by 20% he probably finishes in roughly the same position. THE SWIM IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!! Of course it comes down to a strong run. The separation between the top swimmers and the MOP is next to nothing when you look at the overall time of a triathlon. I mean really on a sprint triathlon why bother getting wet? It has no effect on the race outcome. The bike and run account for 87% of the race. I mean transitions nearly take up more time on a sprint tri than does the swim. He's cycling focused and only does the random tri for fun. I was just using him as an example of Triathlete D not being an auto win. Take him out of the equation and the guy right under him who outbiked the race winner by a huge margin still lost despite only being 10 seconds/mile slower in the run. Why did that happen? He gave up almost 3 minutes in the water. The swim was significant, and it wasn't even a long swim (800 yds).
Edited by msteiner 2015-04-02 2:08 PM |
| 2015-04-02 2:11 PM in reply to: sactowntriathlete |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by sactowntriathlete Sounds like the CAT 1 cyclist needs to understand that this is supposed to be a TRIathlon. Not a bike race. I would advise him to work on his running if he wants to win, but don't worry about his swim because it's essentially insignificant. If he works on and improves his run by 20% he probably wins or nearly wins the race. If he works on and improves his swim by 20% he probably finishes in roughly the same position. THE SWIM IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!! Of course it comes down to a strong run. The separation between the top swimmers and the MOP is next to nothing when you look at the overall time of a triathlon. I mean really on a sprint triathlon why bother getting wet? It has no effect on the race outcome. The bike and run account for 87% of the race. I mean transitions nearly take up more time on a sprint tri than does the swim. LMAO.......this is meant to be sarcastic right? |
| 2015-04-02 2:15 PM in reply to: sactowntriathlete |
| 1502 Katy, Texas | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal I can't stop..... I took the top 20 finishers from that last sprint triathlon, averaged all their times and increased the run and the swim by a factor that would make all the averages of those finishers the same. Swim times had to be multiplied by 3 and run times had to multiplied by 1.6. Once this was done, the average time for each of the 20 top finishers was around 36 minutes for each. Then I used those adjusted times (to make it even Steven based on duration) and resorted. What happened? Overall 1st, 2nd and 3rd stayed in exactly the same order!! Personally, I would have jumped from 10th to 7th. I find this intriguing. |
| 2015-04-02 2:16 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| New user 7 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal To a small degree yes, but do the math and realize actually not so much. Math doesn't do sarcasm. It just deals with straight numbers and facts. |
| 2015-04-02 2:17 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by sactowntriathlete Sounds like the CAT 1 cyclist needs to understand that this is supposed to be a TRIathlon. Not a bike race. I would advise him to work on his running if he wants to win, but don't worry about his swim because it's essentially insignificant. If he works on and improves his run by 20% he probably wins or nearly wins the race. If he works on and improves his swim by 20% he probably finishes in roughly the same position. THE SWIM IS INSIGNIFICANT!!!! Of course it comes down to a strong run. The separation between the top swimmers and the MOP is next to nothing when you look at the overall time of a triathlon. I mean really on a sprint triathlon why bother getting wet? It has no effect on the race outcome. The bike and run account for 87% of the race. I mean transitions nearly take up more time on a sprint tri than does the swim. Go look at last years Sprint national championship race. My kid was 5th overall and won the 16-19 AG. He was out-biked (by 1 second) and outran (by about 30 seconds) by the kid that finished 2nd in the 16-19AG and was 7th overall. The thing is, my son swam over a minute faster and won the race by 39 seconds. So much for your theory, huh? But wait....let's check the "bike race", huh? Top cyclist was 1sty by A LOT......then he was 175th on the swim and 84th on the bike for a 10th place finish. Ooops.....that didn't work so well for you either. Look, if you want to win a sprint race you better damn well be able to swim. The fact of the matter is, there is no other distance in triathlon where the swim is MORE important. Edited by Left Brain 2015-04-02 2:24 PM |
| 2015-04-02 2:24 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| New user 7 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal So you're saying the swim is too long in triathlon?!? We need to shorten the swim?! |
| 2015-04-02 2:25 PM in reply to: sactowntriathlete |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by sactowntriathlete So you're saying the swim is too long in triathlon?!? We need to shorten the swim?! I think triathlon is perfect......it brings out the whiners. |
| 2015-04-02 2:28 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| New user 7 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal I can find thousands of results that show strong finishers not winning. You said nothing. Try some math. |
| 2015-04-02 2:30 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by sactowntriathlete I can find thousands of results that show strong finishers not winning. You said nothing. Try some math. I'm going to show this to my kid........he will be interested in knowing how math helps him win triathlons. Maybe you should try some training. Edited by Left Brain 2015-04-02 2:30 PM |
| 2015-04-02 2:33 PM in reply to: sactowntriathlete |
| 1300 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by sactowntriathlete I mean transitions nearly take up more time on a sprint tri than does the swim. Then you're doing them wrong. |
| 2015-04-02 3:06 PM in reply to: Goggles Pizzano |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal lets stop feeding the first post troll. fact is, i think triathlon is actually pretty balanced. You need to be good in all 3, and likely a stud in at least one discipline to win. Being a stud in 1 isn't enough if you are below average in another. |
| 2015-04-02 3:08 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by dmiller5 lets stop feeding the first post troll. fact is, i think triathlon is actually pretty balanced. You need to be good in all 3, and likely a stud in at least one discipline to win. Being a stud in 1 isn't enough if you are below average in another. #trollslivesmatter |
| 2015-04-02 3:09 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
| Master 10208 Northern IL | Subject: RE: 3 disciplines but not equal Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by sactowntriathlete I can find thousands of results that show strong finishers not winning. You said nothing. Try some math. I'm going to show this to my kid........he will be interested in knowing how math helps him win triathlons. Maybe you should try some training. Math can be limited by the understanding of the person applying it. Keep in mind there are at least several engineers in this thread. Sprints can be funny as there isn't really a standard like with the others, or a nominal value. A number of them may have a swim of 300-500 yds which can mess with things. Also extending the bike out 14-16 miles or so. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK