look at the results chart and it's very obvious that the fields are not only much much faster, but much much deeper than they used to be. Not only faster overall but much smaller difference between 1st thru 10th place times. To your point, Mark and Dave's latter times were actually very competitive to modern standards. But I digress.....


The whole article is focused on career choices revolving around Kona. Andy is giving his reason for not solely focusing on Kona. Thus it makes sense to compare the two career paths. My argument, and assumedly Andy's argument, is that Andy has chosen a better path ( for him anyway ). Tim won almost 15 years ago, that was lifetimes ago since triathlon has developed so fast. I certainly think Andy has a better take on what's happening in the here and now, rather than focusing on the logic of 15 years ago. Tim's advice might (or might not) be the best path to Kona, but Andy's path is likely better for the big picture of his own career

Regardless there is certainly no guarantee that if Andy focused more on Kona that he would do any better whatsoever. I think Andy is more than qualified to make a solid counter argument against Tim's position. Andy is choosing what's best for Andy