Good read, but somehow the transcription got that last part mixed up. What Tim REALLY said was that "we need more CANADIANS to win Kona."
I think he is correct.

---

http://www.fitspeek.com the Fraser Valley's fitness, wellness, and endurance sports podcast

one quibble - they were talking about how the field is so much deeper and faster these days, and that got me thinking. we take for granted that it's true, but is it?

if i was a male pro racing to win (or place), would i rather be lining up in the mid-late 90s against de boom, zack, van lierde, hellriegel, welch, reid, leder, etc?

or would i race line up today against frodo, keinle, van lierde 2, mackenzie, etc?

-mike

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I agree with most of what Tim said, but I think that he overvalues racing in Europe.
Sure, you'll be racing against Frodo/Kienle etc. But is that in itself the best Kona prep?

Potts hit on a good point when he talked about it not being a good cost/benefit analysis. The disruption of somebody flying from California to Germany and back in the space of a week or two will really mess with a person's body clock, and therefore their training rhythm.
I think that the athlete is running the risk of illness and poor quality training.

Better that they race somewhere hot/humid in the US or South America, and maintain their training momentum due to less jet lag and flying time.

That or move to Europe and race those guys all year...

Agree. Also what if you take all that time, travel to Europe, and have a bad day. What would that do mentally?

I think his points on racing a 70.3 close to an Ironman are right on. Also, he sacrificed all to win and that's the needed mindset. I remember even Welchy gave up drinking for a long time to win. That's quite a sacrifice for an Aussie! ;-)

Here is how to win Kona. Be better than everyone else.

Worked for every winner so far.

"we need more CANADIANS to win Kona."

I don't know exactly when the next Canadian win is going to come - perhaps in the next few years. Our stock has risen fast for the men in the last year. We may have 3 men finish in the top-10, which would be un-unprecedented as a country.


We have to very consistent and steady women who could go top-10 maybe top-5 if they have great days.


Could be a collective best-year-ever for Canadian Pro men/women at Ironman Hawaii

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Absolutely agree.

Enjoyable read. I was impressed by how Potts, Hoffman and Lyles responded to DeBoom's questions. DeBoom was 30 & 31 when we won Kona. Hoffman is 32, Lyles is 37 and Potts is 38. Both Lyles and Potts are parents. If any of those three is capable of putting all their eggs in one basket as DeBoom emphasizes, it is Hoffman. Loved Hoffman's near perfect race in Kona last year, but does he have the talent that DeBoom had to move up one spot?

DeBoom also mixed non-drafting Oly races in with longer stuff during his peak years. American pros are obviously doing much less of that these days. Are there still non-drafting Oly distance races in Europe that some of the top European long course pros do during the summer that don't get any coverage in the U.S.?

The only Non drafting oly distance races that I know of here in the UK are mass participation type things. Nothing with the depth of field that a Kona contender would find useful

I think some Americans, like Potts, want to have a family and a somewhat balanced/normal life while they are actually competing as a pro. I would want the same, frankly. TD waited until after he was done. TD has a very young child now, but not when he was racing. Two different approaches to life. I can't say one is better than the other.

I'm impressed with AP's answer. Very thoughtful.

TD: Why? Why wouldn’t you do that? Last year, you had kind of a breakthrough in Kona, getting fourth by changing your plan a little bit, by not racing as much leading up to Kona. I’m just wondering if putting yourself in a different position, changing some options throughout the season, would help lead you to a different result in Kona?


AP: As an athlete you don’t want to fall into the trap of doing the same thing and expecting a different result. You do want to continue to evolve, and I think my job as a professional athlete is to stay ahead of the curve in terms of my competition, and treat it like a business. I mean, this is something I take very seriously and something I’m passionate about. But I’ve had great seasons where I haven’t performed well in Hawaii. I think going over to Europe—there’s not a cost benefit in that analysis for me, it’s not worth it. A lot of my goals in life are structured around my family, and I like to call my own shots, and I think just because you perform well in Europe once or twice it doesn’t mean that you’re going to perform well in Hawaii. So it’s tough, I certainly don’t have the answers. But I’m willing to look for them. Maybe I would go over, but the benefit would have to be substantial for me to do it. I’ve raced Sebastian a couple of times, Frederik Van Lierde a couple of times, and I think I actually have a winning record against both of them. They just have happened to beat me in Hawaii.

Often times sacrifices have to be made to win it all. Some don't make that choice. Most I know who have won did make the tough choice and give up all but that quest. Dave and Mark's solo training trips, Reid's suffering, Welchy, all the germans, they paid the price and won or gave it their best shot. Some never pay the price and wonder what if?

I agree totally. But I don't see that as being a "better" choice than, say, just being a elite working professional but still maintaining a life. If you chose to sacrifice family for winning you could be in the same position looking back with regret at having given up precious moments with your family. Again, it just depends on what is most important to each individual.

I don't think he "punched" at all. It was just an honest and frank discussion. No ill will intended.

he (TD) does seem to take this "my way was better, i don't get what's going on these days" approach here (and in other articles; the one i recall off the top of my head is him railing against tri becoming a yearround sport these days). i mean, i guess someone has to do it, and i appreciate it, the press is generally too whitewashed for my taste, but it's definitely pretty acerbic.

I guess my point was a that it wasn't the usual BS softball interview that we have gotten accustomed to in the tri media. He asked some pointed and telling questions.

Good interview. TD trying to light the fire.

Have the people that have won Kona, say last 4 or 5 years sacrificed it "all" to win?

---

"one eye doubles my eyesight, so things don't look half bad" John Hiatt

presumably
my take on what TD is saying is that it has to be more than a job, it has to become an obsession
fueled by fury and second fiddle to nothing else

Prob better just to wait on kids until after you retire in your early/mid 40s so you can focus all your energy on your sport. Still plenty of time for kids from age 45 on, at least for guys; girls might need to retire at 35 to have their kids.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I think thats pretty much rubbish - most sports with world tours require athletes to rock up having travelled internationally and deliver - look no further than the ITU

ITU, WES, swimming, tennis, golf the last two of which can and will often require events on different continents back to back - travelling internationally is manageable if theirs a will. all they needed to say was we don't want to do it - which he did basically and in the end the european IM's which are frequently national championships are super competitive

of course the other good reason not to go, is if you don't think you could win, it would be a good call not to show up, get your arse handed to you and then have to face the same people in Kona - thats sound decision making - if it ain't a sure bet, don't do it

What you're saying is true, but nonw of the examples you gave involve pushing hard for 8+ hours.
It's much easier to pull something out of the bag when you're racing for a few minutes, or even a couple of hours. All day is a different ball game IMO

One other reason to travel for racing is that you have to travel to Kona.
Get the logistics dialed in, food and everything.

I am sure that DeBoom would include racing in Australia as overseas.

Now the dollar is strong so it is almost affordable to travel :-)

I get that Tim was the last American winner but honestly I don't get why he is so hard on for Americans to race in Europe. It makes no sense and I'm glad Andy articulated it well. To win Kona you have to race in Kona, not Europe. Racing guys better than you on any other course doesn't matter. These guys are professionals at the pointy end of the sport, they know how to dig deep and put it all on the line during an event. Racing Kona against these guys is how you beat them.

Andy has shown that over the course of his career he's gotten better and better and better IN KONA. Now do I think he has what it takes to win, not sure. He's certainly got the potential but I don't think it's a matter of geography that determines these things so much as Tim wants to believe. It's a matter of getting a few races under your belt in Kona and then working backwards from there.

---

------
"Train so you have no regrets @ the finish line"

If you're read Iron War, Dave Scott is depicted as a roaring, raving maniac obsessed with winning during much of his races...your quote made me think of that.

It is very hard to get to that point and still have a family left...

exactly.
which may be the TD angle on racing in Europe.
go get beat, get upset, get angry, become enraged and then lay down hell fury when the race comes to home soil.

I don't think he did articulate it well. All he said was he needs to evolve and the cost benefit does not make it worthwhile to go

One could equally say he needs to evolve and putting himself in a hostile environment may well aid that process irrespective of cost

His reason is no more sound than the alternative

It's easier to accept he just doesn't want to go - of any number of reasons - than to think his explanation was solid

On the other hand, the Belgium's, Germans, French, Spanish and Swiss willrace across Europe, the ME and Oz and we'll see whether the insular approach is more effective than theirs.

Not long ago there was common wisdom that you can't win a hard summer Iron(y)man in August and win Kona. Kienle last year was kind of an anomaly (like Tim DeBoom would put it).
Even great Mark Allen preferred not to shoot his ammunition during summer to be fresh in October. So I can't understand why Tim would like them to destroy themselves in Germany.

But I think the rest of this article is pretty interesting. Particularly the point of modern pros doing too much too soon. I mean Allens offseason lastet for three (!) months.

---

10k - 30:48 / half - 1:06:40

Exactly this: winning must be the sole reason for your being, you must be obsessed with it. No time for a family, and maybe not even a GF. AFAIK, Phelps had no GF during the 4 yrs between winning 6 in Athens in '04 and then winning 8 golds in Beijing in '08. The man did not take one single day off during the entire 4 years. As tjfry said in another thread, Phelps' gift was/is the gift of focus and passion, not being double jointed.

Also, regarding Dave Scott, it is said that The Man did a full iron race all on his own there in Davis, CA, way back in 1980 before he ever raced at Hawaii, just to be sure he could do the distance. Everyone on ST seems to agree now that there is no point in doing long race simulations but big Dave might choose to differ. Dave Scott had/has tremendous reserves of passion and drive. He was indeed The Man.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I think this gist of his comments meant more to go for good competition. Realistically when one looks at much of the pro fields many race in, the field in general is extremely weak. I got his point to be that you need to race GOOD competition to get tougher, as Erk said.

an interesting article about a similar things....

http://swimswam.com/...bits-elite-swimmers/

For sure. That made for a very interesting read.

I don't agree. You can't say it's "better". It depends on your objectives. Maybe someone is totally happy with being a working pro and having a somewhat normal life with kids while he's doing it, thereby maybe sacrificing a shot at the absolutely #1 spot in the sport. It's not wrong or right. It's a personal preference.

That sums it all up perfectly.

OK, well, you're right, it is in theory a personal choice but, IMO, you either have the humongous fury and passion deep down in the "depths of your being" or you don't. You can't really manufacture it but rather it comes from some unknown place in your mind. Once the passion/fury person's competitive days are over, he/she may well feel at loose ends, and maybe then get married, have kids, etc, but the again, maybe not.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Hoff already matched everything DeBoom ever did in Hawaii in all his appearances except the ones that Tim was first. I would say "talent" is not a question, as it took Hoff less appearances to do as well as Tim.

hmmmm, I think not. 1st place is the goal.

Some people have the passion and fury for other things too, e.g. curing cancer, being a teacher, raising a child, etc. Just because their passion and fury isn't for winning the pinnacle of the sport doesn't mean they are somehow less passionate or have somewhow made incorrect choices. In fact, I would argue the opposite.

Hmmm, well, I understand your words and intent but, having done research and having taught a bit, I can't really agree that the passionate cancer researchers and teachers have to go through the same level of suffering as the athletes who aspire to be the very best in the world in their sport. Research and teaching are relatively relaxed endeavors, e.g. lots of time spent reading research done by others while drinking coffee. This just does not compare IMO to training 30-40 hr/wk, being just exhausted for weeks on end, but then trying to hit your taper just right to be at your absolute peak on race day(s). This is all just IMO though, and we can perhaps just agree to disagree. To me, the level of punishment that top athletes endure is just beyond comparison with anything in the non-athletic world, excepting possibly some very small but grueling parts of the military.

I certainly would not say that anyone who is passionate about their work has made an "incorrect choice", and i don't think any of my posts above imply that at all. Each person has a diff modus operandi and what excites one person bores another. Also, quite possibly the teacher and cancer researcher are doing "more important" work than a pro athlete, although the role model aspects of the top athletes, and even top local athletes, should not be overlooked, espec given the ever-increasing number of overweight and obese people:)

Cheers,

Eric

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

You know what is really funny about this is that Potts probably made more money in one year than Tim did his entire career. If not one year, his two best for sure. Tim may have won ironman a few times, but he would also get the distinction of the worst guy ever to make bank on those wins. I think Andy has been one of the most brilliant pros ever to race the sport. He just makes good decisions at virtually every crossroad, and for a guy with a family who actually is a dad and husband( just having a family does not mean you are family man), he has done remarkably well in the money making side of being a professional athlete.

I don't have much of a guess as to what the others make, perhaps they are doing well, and will continue to do so. But Andy has made a real career out of triathlon, and a very long and lucrative one at that. I would not be surprised if he was the all time money maker in the sport up to this point
in our sports infancy. And it appears he still has a few years left to keep padding those earnings.

I would have loved if one of them had thrown that back at TD, something like, what good were those wins if you could not really capitalize on them? Sacrifice everything for a trophy and title? No thanks...

Interesting points...

All I can add is: Unless you were there in the oven called CDA '15 and saw the big guy "AP" do what he did, and hear his speech at awards - I'm not easily impressed. But, I was beyond impressed.

How does anyone run sub 3 hours in 105+ heat? And a big guy at that. Ya, had to be there to appreciate the accomplishment.

---

I saw this on a white board in a window box at my daughters middle school...
List of what life owes you:
1. __________
2. __________
3. __________

I always liked tim deboom but the way this interview started it became clear he had an agenda of aggression, then tried to hide behind the vail of hard journalism. I lost some resepct for him here even if some of his points were valid. I can see him getting this right and being a classy "someone".

I love the idea of an athlete with total focus on one goal. Not like some overpaid soccer Players, partying in a club all night during season. I link endurance sport with passion, dedication, sacrifice. Living like a monk has something very intriguing.

But, I think that this works, you need experience and know yourself very well. I mean you have to know exactly what it takes and how much you can handle. You walk on a very sharp knife all the time and overtraining is never far away. Especially for young athletes. You can tinker with your diet as well, but then there is the risk of missing out on something or of getting too light and lose power.
I mean look at the Raelerts for example. They seem to have dedicated a whole lot to their dream and still something was always missing.

---

10k - 30:48 / half - 1:06:40

i m not sure what un-unprecedent mean?? is that english?

but germany as had top 3 men in top 10 a few times...they did 3 guy in top 5 i believe...

australia as also


Reading this interview seems to me like Potts is more concern about his buisness than about winning kona. That is fair. The difference is Tim was all in....none of those other guys come with that mentality. it s a different focus/career orientation.

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

^^^All of this! AP has had one of the most successful, thought out careers the sport has ever seen. Some people forget he has won a 70.3 WC too.

---

Formerly DrD

Great point, and what was meant IMO. Making the most money, or winning? Which road you want to take. I love Potts, and he is a sponsor's dream, as he "gets it". He gives sponsors every bit of value they pay for, and hopefully he can win someday. But I still feel that one has to be completely dedicated to winning this one race to accomplish that task.

It's einstein's definition of insanity, right? Repeating a process and expecting a different result? Probably a lot of insane triathletes out here ....

---

_____________________________________
What are you people, on dope?

—Mr. Hand

 Agreed… I feel that the whole point of being a top tier pro triathlete is to make as much money as possible doing something that you love. I always got the impression that Tim basically put himself through hell, but got two Kona titles, and for some reason sounds a little bitter. Whereas Andy seems to truly enjoy his life and career, while making what I assume is a whole lot more money. No offense to either but I'd take Andy's results/life/earnings over Tim's any day

Sounds like Tim won Kona but at the cost of everything else in his life, which doesn't sound like a good trade off to me

I think the whole issue is how poor triathletes are at marketing themselves. Potts is exceptional from a marketing standpoint; TD not so hot. There are a few who know the game, or have good advisors. (Rinny, Potts, Crowie, and perhaps a few others). Just winning races does not bring money......that is done through promotion. I think things are also quite a bit different in Europe where companies drop money on their athletes. Not so in the US where only the big money pro sports garner such paydays.

That said, I am not one to feel pay over winning is the marker. Similar to Olympic athletes, I think most would sacrifice any monetary gains for that gold medal.....and an Ironman Kona title is in the same league.

Agree 100%, espec with the bolded part, very easy to over-train if you're highly motivated.

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

so ... a multiple Kona winner gives advice to losers on how to maybe win it and everyone pushes back ? Sure, the losers have it all figured out ... slowtwitch FTW.

there is no specific point in been a pro... it s a personal opinion and reason for each.

i personally could not care for the money. And i consider Tim accomplishment bigger than Andy as he won the hardest race in the sport....twice. He took a very risky approach and he was driven by one single element...kona. So while you would take Andys results over Tim...i would do exactly the opposite without thinking twice. it s a simple matter of preference, passion, personal interest/challenge.

Peter Reid was the same...he could not care about anything but one day in the year. It s a simply matter of what drives you. money isn't the goal for everyone.

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

There is also another way to look at the Europeans....how many times have the European's put down some insanely fast times in the season in Europe and many people were talking about how they would shake it up in Kona and then an Canadian, Australian or American wins. The fact is, there are fast people everywhere. I like Andy's reply.

I would also add that I don't think Tim would necessarily be able to hang with the boys right now. His winning times were 8:30 and 8:31. Dave Scott mentioned in an interview last year that had Chrissie not been injured from her crash right before her last Kona, she could have gone 8:30. Tim's times are a far cry from the times now and the pro races now have far more energy draining surges (tactical) as Craig Alexander and Macca have mentioned in interviews.

The fact is...there are far more people capable of winning on race day than 10 years ago. Just look at the predictions thread. 10 years ago, the guesses were much safer.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

^^^ This...the article wasn't about "how to monetize a pro career or how to a have one time 2nd place and be a know it all"

Tim won back to back Kona Championships and was on his way to winning a third when he collapsed on the marathon from kidney stones but yeah...Potts and Hoffman have it all figured out. And was someone questioning him being a Just a husband and not a true family man? seriously? I happen to know Tim and his life literally revolves around his wife and his daughter. Period. Also the all so wonderful nice guy and mr. smiles AP isn't always that way. Ask the folks in Galveston in the med tent post race what their thoughts are on him when he threw a temper tantrum because the doctors wouldn't give him an IV because they had a shortage. Give me a break. I would take Tim DeBoom everyday and on Sunday over Potts and Hoffman. typical slowtwitch, questioning a two time back to back world champion. this place is ridiculous

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

I have not done an Ironman, so I can only imagine the exhaustion and burnout someone would feel. Why wouldn't a person be straight pissed if the med tent ran out of IV. That is ridiculous!!!!

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

Exactly, every one should be pissed when they aren't allowed to break the anti-doping rules! "In accordance with the WADA Prohibited List (Category M2 Chemical and Physical Manipulation), all IV infusions and/or injections of more than 50mL (~3.4 tablespoons) per 6-hour period are prohibited, except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions, surgical procedures or clinical investigations. IV infusions and/or injections of more than 50mL per 6-hour period are prohibited at all times, both in- and out-of-competition unless the athlete has applied for and been granted a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) under the applicable anti-doping rules."

Ooops....my error.

---

________________
Adrian in Vancouver

We've had this discussion in another thread. Most people receiving IVs after a race are probably in violation, but it is doubtful if anyone would question it if a Doctor felt it was medically necessary. That, however, is a far cry from dropping into the med tent and requesting one.

You are only allowed to get one if the medical staff determines you are in serious dire straits. I had an athlete after Ironman Texas this year who had the shivers, was seeing double and had stopped sweating who was REFUSED ONE. There is a national shortage of IV's which has been discussed at length on here before. Potts was in NO WAY in need of one as determined by the head doctor there. After he was refused one and continued to throw a fit about it went to the RD and the head Sponsor rep for Memorial Hermann to pressure the doctor into letting him get one. She relented and gave him one. Tell me how that is fair? It's bullshit. He stood there and handed out medals to finishers. Just as a side note the doctor who made the call doesn't follow triathlon, doesn't know who any pro is, doesn't know anything other than it's three disciplines.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

Do we really have to talk the ironcowboy and his deciphles again?

---

blog

Never before done by Canada.

I don't think we have ever had 3 men in the top-10. Throw in two women possibilities in the top 10 and that's 5 Canadians in the top 10 in Kona!

That's unprecedented = never been done before! :)

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Steve, I suggest we wait till next Sunday before counting anything. When we had Lori, Peter, Heather, Lisa in the field at Kona, those were some pretty good overall days for Canada. Before we count anything, this crew will need to beat the late 90's group. So far the current crew has done nothing in Kona. As we know, results elsewhere don't always translate that well. For example, hopefully Lionel sorted out his nutrition in the heat. Texas and Tremblant were works in progress both on hot humid days.

Agreed and indeed! 4 of the 5 are rookies in Kona.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Hahaha. NO!!! Sorry. Just the mere mention of that guy gave me the shakes!

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

[/quote]You are only allowed to get one if the medical staff determines you are in serious dire straits.[/quote]



That's absolutely not the case in reality, I've seen athletes and especially pros getting IVs all the time. In fact the last Ironman I did I was totally fine afterwards, the med staff just casually asked me if I wanted an IV to help recover, and I said sure. The med tent was full of fellow pros getting IVs as well as plenty of amateurs. I would call that the norm rather than the exception, based on what I've seen in the past. Perhaps they've tightened up on that just recently, but that certainly has not been my experience in the past. So it would make sense that Andy was pissed, because they typically give out IVs like candy

When you already have a family, making money to support your family is a huge factor.

---

Formerly DrD

If andy had won Kona at some time in the last ten years especially as an American good chance his earnings would have been much more than they have been to date.

He then could have still run around in 70.3 and other races while coming back every other year or so for a Kona focus

You are only allowed to get one if the medical staff determines you are in serious dire straits.[/quote]



That's absolutely not the case in reality, I've seen athletes and especially pros getting IVs all the time. In fact the last Ironman I did I was totally fine afterwards, the med staff just casually asked me if I wanted an IV to help recover, and I said sure. The med tent was full of fellow pros getting IVs as well as plenty of amateurs. I would call that the norm rather than the exception, based on what I've seen in the past. Perhaps they've tightened up on that just recently, but that certainly has not been my experience in the past. So it would make sense that Andy was pissed, because they typically give out IVs like candy[/quote]
You are right, I should have said it differently. My point was you shouldn't be able to walk in and say hey I need an IV. It certainly has changed in the past year or two with the fact they are super low on IV's nationally. I was just trying to point out that it was pretty sad that he threw a fit and tried to use the "do you know who I am" card. Regardless of it being the norm or what he may or may not be use to the burden of proof has been tightened. So much so that people I thought for certain would receive one post Ironmans are NOT getting them. crazy.

As for the family man comments and stuff. I don't think anyone is suggesting he shouldn't do what's best for his family as I know that should be the case. I feel like Tim was trying to challenge them and say "you have adjusted other things in your racing schedule to get to the positions that you have achieved, do you think you should try and rethink what you are doing to get to the next level?" The European analogy I think was not so much to say go to europe it was, "hey, go find the best competition and race against them". How is it that the Aussies and Euros can successfully race all over the globe but when we challenge our precious US pros we give them every excuse? seriously. Tim Reed travels ALL OVER the world to race the best competition and I know he is a VERY dedicated family man and husband. It's about getting out of your cushy world and making things happen. the way Potts answered the question it makes it sound like he wants to win Kona ONLY if it comes out of the current way he operates and races. that's insane. Hoffman to me ( just my opinion) came off a little too confident for my liking, I thought he seemed to certain he had it all figured out. correct me if I'm wrong but what had Hoffman accomplished of that magnitude before that 2nd? I mean seriously, I know A LOT of people within the industry that were equally as shocked when he nabbed 2nd. Tim was an "all in" for Kona kind of guy. I can respect that. for him and Tony (his brother) it was about being the best in the world. That's all Tim knew, knows. whether or not he monetized off of it is ridiculous. If you know Tim you would know he HAS monetized off of it. He helps A LOT of companies behind the scenes because of his meticulous nature when it comes to scrutinizing equipment and nutrition. Next time you see him ask him about his and Peter Reid's training rides and then swimsets after. holy crap. Tim is tough as nails, his brother was an Army Ranger and I feel certain that Tim would have been one as well. I thought Tim did awesome and did exactly what we need here in the US...shake. things. up. Potts and Hoffman ( or any US male and female pro) would be well served to sit down, zip your lip and listen.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

 Keep in mind too that Andy did not start Ironman until relatively late in his career, and it has never really been his focus distance. Plus it may just be that his body type is not ideally suited for Kona. Kona really seemed like an afterthought for him at a latter point in his career. Tim's entire career was based solely on Kona. So given that I would actually argue that Andy has done far better. Not only that but if you compare their two resumes I would say Andy is by far and away much better career. He has infinitely more wins, at every distance imaginable, and has capitalized on the marketing much better as well. Not only that but he's done it at a modern time that is far more competitive than when Tim did it. Tim did win the biggest race on the planet, but not much else. Andy has won everything else, and still does fairly well at Kona. Tim's fastest Kona time ever would not have won the race in the last 10 years, so that tells you how much more competitive it's getting!

Just my random armchair quarterback thoughts, they are both major studs no doubt!

Potts hasn't won Kona and that was the question. Not who had the better career. Tim finished 1st twice and a second and a third there... pretty sure he has a good idea how to race the biggest race in a professional ironman triathletes career. This entire discussion is based on Kona. As for the more competition I would say go back and look at the results and who he was racing against. fairly certain he had some seriously tough competition. Van Lierde, Reid, Hellriegel, Stadler, Cam Brown, etc. That's great that Potts has won a bunch of races at different distances and more wins overall but he is not a Kona champion. Also, Most of, if not all of, Mark Allen's times and Dave Scott's times wouldn't win now a days. Does that make them not as accomplished at Kona as well? the time is only relevant to the day. It's about who crosses first.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

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

[quoteWhy stick to the safety of the States instead of getting yourself out there and getting out of your comfort zone of racing some of these guys who are performing in Kona and winning it?[/quote]
Hoffman got second at the world champs, he IS one of the guys that's performing.

Why give him a grilling as if he doesn't know what he is doing just before kona, when he can't change anything for this year anyway. The only way it can help now us for Hoffman to get fired up to prove Tim wrong.

Ben has had success and should be enjoying the buzz around that instead of being lumped in as a also ran

wow. I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that Tim is more aware of what is going on now than you are giving him credit for. I'm not sure why people are so put off by tough love. Andy did argue that his a better path for him and I am not begrudging him that AT ALL. What I am saying is that it's fair that a past champion can critique it and question his seriousness of trying to win Kona when his current set up isn't producing results. You are right, there is no guarantee that anything would or could happen but the facts in hand are Tim won two. I'm not really sure what you have against TDB but I can assure you he has done waaaaay more for the sport they you are giving him credit for.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

Kirk you sound confused and upset........ I'm talking sports and comparing pro athletes, I don't know either of them. Don't confuse "sports talk" with "personal agenda". Like I said just armchair quarterbacking just like every other sports fan on the planet does. The whole entire article is based on armchair quarterbacking. Both are clearly amazing champions

Winning record on less important competitions than Hawaii dont mean much. If you get beaten time after time in Kona the guys who beat you probably are better triathletes than you are or you dont prepare as good as the guys winning Kona.


Maybe this is the year for Potts to show TD wrong

Ryan, I don't think you can look at Tim's times and say they were slow. He put down those times in the same time frame that a lot of guys were going Sub 8 all over the place. Tim may have not done a sub 8, but he beat Peter Reid, Thomas Hellriegel, Jurgen Zack, Luc Van Lierde all who did put down sub 8's. Yes, you can say those sub 8's were on the same fast courses in Roth and Austria that guys break 8 hours on today, but they were doing it back then. Tim just got a few slow years in Kona. Stadler was only biking 4:35 on those windy years. If he had a fast year like Mark and Dave did in 1989, Tim would have put down an 8:0x. Keep in mind Tim ran 2:45 in Kona and he did not even need go that fast. The only reason the guys are consistently faster today is they have access to better bike technology (and even then the bike times are not that much faster.....Stadler still has the Kona bike record on a Kuota Kalibur, with a flapping race number from 9 years ago). Don't under estimate how hard these guys were training and how fit they were. Look at the progression of track and field 1500-10,000 meter times in the last 20 years. It's not like they have dramatically improved.....since 1984, the 10,000m record in a controlled track environment has improved by 53 seconds. Since 1998 it has changed by only 5 seconds. It provides a good benchmark for how much better pro athletes are today vs 2000:

https://en.wikipedia.org/...d_record_progression

Triathlon has not changed that much other than bike technology. Fleck did an analysis of the number of people going sub 9:30 in Kona now vs 1991 (when he was there I believe). The numbers going sub 9:30 are not that different. In 1989, Mark Allen went 51+4:37+2:40 for a 8:09. If we believe today's marketing about bike technology and tire rolling resistance (which we should) Mark goes 7:59. Arguably the run course was also harder with a visit in and out of the pit at T2. That was 26 years ago.

People underestimate how much was already figured out about endurance sports 20-30 years ago. We all know how fast Rominger and Indurain were going at the world hour records back in 1994. Yes, they were probably doped, but that just proves how much the docs understood about endurance physiology.

Hopefully what HAS advanced over the last 5-6 years is the amount of doping control, but I am not entirely sure we are not seeing some aspects of a fairytale. Maybe less so in triathlon than other sports, but no doubt it is in our sport too. It's not like ITU/WTC is running a blood passport.

i agree with you Dev, to compare times in kona...it requires some knowledge of the sport...

Tim deboom first win in kona 2001

Extremely windy condition
-normann stadler rode 4:45.... tim rode 2min slower....

Tim was a front pack swimmer, and close the deal with a 2:45 marathon and win the race by 15minutes. You can rest assure he would still be at the front of the race in 2015 and on the podium with this level of performance.

It just happen to bike aerodynamic is greatly improving...combine with deeper field and some very quiet condition in the last 5-8 years.... it made the race quicker on the bike....

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

 Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to snub what Tim did, mainly trying to point out that it's not directly applicable to today's generation. The market, depth of competition, number of races etc. is vastly different. It's apples and oranges. The racing strategy from 2000 would not win you in 2015

It sounds like what Tim is saying is "you have to do what I did in order to be a champion". And what Andy/Hoff are saying is that's probably not his best bet in today's market ( The putting all your eggs in one basket approach)

If you analyze the times in big chunks of years (5-10yr span) there is no doubt though that the fields are getting faster and deeper on the top tier pro scene though. Obviously due to weather there are outlier years. The difference between first place to 10th used to be more like 25-30 minutes avg , whereas now it's down into the teens consistently. With the main difference being that the bike times average are much faster than they were back in Tim's day. Seems like average bike times have become significantly faster while marathon times are slightly slower. Bike technology might have a little bit to do with it, but I think the vast majority is just a change in strategy and depth of the field. Today you really can't wait until the run to be aggressive

One thing I found very odd though is that the span from roughly 1994 to 2004 seemed to average much slower times than those before or after that, any idea why? (eliminating outliers) If someone has spare time and feels like graphing it out I'd love to see that

I think the underlying issue in this discussion is that to many triathletes, IM and Kona in particular is the ONLY thing that matters.

It would be interesting to see how this conversation would go if you replaced Andy Potts with Simon Lessing. Apparently he was doing things wrong too. On his way to 6 world titles but no Kona wins. Chump! (Pink)

---

Formerly DrD

As far as I can see the gap between 1st and 10th has been around 15-25min for a long time. One of the years Tim won the gap was as low as any of the recent years so not seeing the trend you speak of. I think the biggest difference between now and then is that more people swim fast so more people ride together which leads to faster bike times. As others have mentioned Tim was a good swimmer and a great runner so he would have been up there today as well. There were a few years in a row with slow conditions in Kona back then the same way the last few years have been relatively fast so you can't draw any meaningful conclusions comparing those times.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

Average difference 1st place vs 10th place. Not huge but still definitely trending down
1995-2004: 22.5 min avg diff
2005-2014: 17.3 min avg diff

Average winning time also significantly trending downwards
1995-2004: 8:23
2005-2014: 8:13

(this is rough glancing at the minutes without going into specific seconds)


Avg time gap 1st-10th by 5yrs:
1995-1999: 22min
1999-2004: 23
2005-2009: 16
2010-2014: 18

Avg winning time by 5yrs, very significant drop lately:
1995-1999: 8:20
1999-2004: 8:27
2005-2009: 8:15
2010-2014: 8:11

I think it would be interesting to have a statistician look at this, are there any specific explanations for 96 and 2004 - removing those I'm not sure I see what you're seeing

Mainly weather extremes so that's why i looked at 10yr span to help average.... but even if you remove the 2 highest outliers from each time span, it's more like:

1995-2004: 16 min avg diff
2004-2014: 12

so the upper outliers aren't changeing much there. Would love to see someone chart all this out though

As more and more of these ITU studs start racing Ironman it's going to throw all these stats out the window though!

That's a far cry from the 25-30min vs in the teens you talked about earlier. I think the difference is too small with not enough data to say the quality of the athletes are significantly different. Different tactics, bike technology and faster vs slower conditions for a few years in a row might explain some of it as well.

2004 is a good example since the guy who won rode 18-19min slower than his own bike course record that day and only 3-4 people or so got under 5h. I don't think that bike ride was any less impressive than his record. Conditions on the day just plays such a big part that it's really hard to draw any meaningful conclusions based on time alone.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

It's not a far cry, what I said was basically what happened (average time diff 1st-10th in teens vs 20s). My first comment about the difference was off the cuff, but when you average it out it's pretty close to what I first guestimated

That's averaged out over 10 year spans so yes that gives you a pretty good idea of trends. The whole point of the 10yr spans is to reduce the impact of outliers

The numbers don't lie. Obviously we are limited by a relatively small data set that contains outliers, but if you chart it out it will still trend downward

I'd bet if we stretch it out and check the avg time delta between 1st-20th place over those time frames, the downward trend would be even more obvious

I know there's a data nerd out there just dying to chart all this out! (hint hint)

My point is that the fields are not much much deeper and the quality of the athletes are not much better like you claimed first. Sligthly deeper yes, but on several occasions 10-15 years ago the time gaps were similar to today. Winning times are all over the place with some of the fastest in the 90's so it's really hard to judge. Compare Hellriegels 2nd in 96 vs his 1st in 97 for example. I think the conditions are just too variable to make any big conclusions. Having raced some of the athletes from both eras I can say that many from the old guard would be very competitive today still.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

Agree.

I also think that looking at winning margin isn't particularly helpful when looking for data regarding the depth of the field.
A single anomalous athlete can skew the data.

Looking at the delta between 2nd and 10th would be a much more reliable measure as to the relative compactness of the pro field.

feel free to run those numbers but i think it'll show the same trend

avg time delta is roughly 23% tighter from decade to decade, that's a lot IMO. If you go 1st-20th (or 2nd-20th) I think the trend will be even more obvious

winning times are also 10min faster avg from decade to decade, which again IMO is a big difference over two decades

One would assume that as time goes on the fields would get faster and more competitive, and the numbers we have available seem to support it. That said I'll bail out now and let ya'll argue it out. Hopefully somone can chart more accurate data........

Actually I think a better comparison would be to look at 5-25th. That really tells you how competitive the field is. 1-5 is affected by the very top athletes of the day, which arguably are just as good all the way from 1989 till today.

Look at the top 10 from 1989 (Allan, Scott, Welch, Glah, Kiuru, Tinley, Zach, Cordier, Browning, Dietrich) and tell me that if you put them on today's technology the times would not be "just as fast". I THINK what is different is positions 5th through 25th and how tight that is. We could probably conclude that this is tighter (I don't have time to do the stats), but maybe it is not.

To Ryan, it is easy to justify that you have it tougher as a pro today than years ago, and maybe fighting for position 5th to 25th, you might have a point. But 1st-5th has always been really tough.

Not if they enforce no-drafting. Look what happened to Raelert today.

I'll bet the times are down because of the drafting and lack of enforcement. ITU guys were trained to draft. I'm guessing it really hard for them not to even if its illegal.

I think DeBoom's racing strategy could win Kona in 2015. It might be a more risky financial strategy to focus on Kona than Potts and Hoffman wish to choose, but I have little doubt DeBoom could contend for the Kona win if he was in early 30s again and chose to focus on winning Kona. He would likely be coming off at least a decent ITU career, as he seemed to have everything USAT is seeking (swim/run talent, smart, work ethic, willing to travel/sacrifice financially), and as you you wrote yourself, the ITU guys are going to skew the data in the coming years. :)

But back to the DeBoom point.
Would it be good for American pros to race the best?
Or should they stay home and not race the best?

If you believe that, I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'll make you a deal on. Phelps wasn't even the most focused, passionate athlete in his training group during that time period.

Well, perhaps you have more inside info than i have but i've always understood that he was/is very focused, with the exception of some times between the '08 and '12 oly games. After all, he did win World Swimmer of the Year seven (7) times ('03, 04, 06, 07, 08, 09, and 12), three more times than his closest competitor, Ian Thorpe, who won it 4 times ('98, 99, 01, and 02).

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

I certainly do. And I'm not questioning his ability nor his accomplishments. Just don't believe the hype that it was his focus, work ethic, etc.

OK, so can you tell us about the source of your "inside scoop", or do I need to PM you for that info??? Did you swim for NBAC and/or Club Wolverine??? Or did/do you have a close friend, cousin, or whatever who did/does???

---

"Anyone can be who they want to be IF they have the HUNGER and the DRIVE."

Its awesome to have the glory of winning Kona, but you can't show off your wooden bowl to the electric company to keep the power on, or get groceries for his family. I would say I want Potts to win Kona more then any other pro over the past several years, but I don't think its going to happen. He's getting a little old, and it seems like he struggles on the bike there.

I would say that this is his last chance at winning, and its still a long shot.

agree. If anyone thinks Tim or his strategy wouldn't hold up to todays standard is crazy. I went on a run last night with a close friend who will remain nameless. He is a former pro and knows all the players and trained and raced with them. we discussed this thread and I mentioned the comments about Tim's wins not holding up to the racers of today or that his competition wasn't as stiff...He literally cracked up laughing. He said " holy shit, If someone doesn't think Tim DeBoom wouldn't be competitive today at Kona if he was in his early 30's..." "he just shook his head and said that's crazy. Tim has a quality you can't teach and it's how to adapt and get shit done. I'm not confused or upset other than I think it's crazy how people are diminishing what he has accomplished because he didn't win outside Kona as much. yeah, most people may not like his way because it was tough as nails. I don't care what Potts has accomplished. The question was posed why aren't Americans winning Kona? Tim was challenging the way they approached their "way" of doing things. to a certain extent he CAN look down from a perch because ha has won it twice! The comparison can be made to golfers. Guys who won a few majors vs guys who won a ton of times on tour but didn't win a major. I bet those guys would give up those wins for those majors and they would ask those guys their advice. comparing generations is like comparing Tiger vs Jack Nicklaus. one can argue that Jack shot scores that were comparable to Tiger based off of using inferior equipment. Same with Tim and guys of his era. they were able to accomplish a TON and be speedy withOUT the knowledge and equipment guys have today.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

Tim's two wins were both two of the slowest winning times in the last 27 years. Still great that he won, but that sure doesn't point to the idea that he would win in the modern era. Unless you just think that those "happened" to be coincidence. In 27 years only two people won with slower times, and they were only slower by two minutes on extreme weather days.

Again he managed to do it, but winning two of the slowest two Konas ever sure doesn't make you likely capable of beating today's competition. I sure wouldn't put money on that bet!

I read that article last week. I thought it was kinda strange and you could feel the tension just reading it. I wonder what those three think of TD?

That makes absolutely zero sense. Normann Stadler won with an 8:33, time is only relevant to the year it's been done. Look at the field he beat, look at the equipment he used. You clearly don't know much about Tim or what the industry thinks of him if you think his win's were little more than luck because it was on slow years.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

No American will win Kona until Gwen Jorgensen finishes her short course racing and moves up to the 70.3 / 140.6 distance racing. Until that happens, no American winners in Kona sorry.

It makes perfect sense, you keep ignoring the facts in favor of your personal conjecture. And for some reason you seem to think being a nice guy has anything to do with winning Kona

Do you understand how stats work? All sports stats are relative... How many touchdowns you throw depends in part on how good you are, what teams you played, if it was pouring rain etc. Stats are stats. And none of the stats above points to Tim having any hope of winning in a 2015 era

Fact is the winning times are lower than back then. Fact is the 1st-10 gap is much smaller now. Fact is Tim had two of the slowest winning times in history. Not once, but twice, over three decades worth of people well before and well after him. Yup must be a coincidence......

Doesn't make him not a nice guy, doesn't make him not a champion, but certainly doesn't point to someone who would definitely win nowadays

keep not understanding Ironman racing then.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

I just rode with Tim this morning. We're good friends so I'm obviously biased here. The article, as many have already mentioned, was about an American winning Kona...not about how to best monetize your career.

I spoke to Tim about this thread. He's not bitter or disgruntled and will openly admit that he wasn't the best at capitalizing off his Kona victories. But, money is not why he raced, it wasn't what motivated him. He just wanted to win.

He doesn't fault Andy for the way he chooses to go about his career and racing schedule. Andy has won a lot of races, but if he wants to win Kona, he would most likely need to make adjustments to his schedule that he's not willing to do...and that's fine.

Same goes for the other athletes that stay in the US, win their Ironman races from start to finish and then struggle in Kona. Going to Europe or seeking out races with highly competitive fields has more to do with seeing how you stack up, gaining experience, where you need to improve. Waiting until Kona every year to find out isn't the quickest way to discovering this.

It just comes down to what you care about...there is no wrong answer. You just have to setup your year to compliment your goal.

---

Mat Steinmetz

51-SPEEDSHOP.com - instagram - @matsteinmetz - facebook

Well aware of how ironman racing works. I also know that going off of facts makes more sense than your personal love of one athlete

your facts don't make any sense. because his two wins were two of the slower times in the past 27 years you have extrapolated that to he wouldn't be competitive in his prime today? wow. I wouldn't call those "facts" man. I don't have a personal love affair and I was very up front in the beginning when I said I know Tim. I'm just shaking my head at your "facts" and that you think Tim wouldn't be competitive in today's environment.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

You don't seem to understand how much conditions or tactics impact finishing times. He beat people who have gone considerably faster the years he won. Do you think everyone suddenly and collectively became a lot slower those two years and then sped up again?

Comparing times in a sport like triathlon except for on the same course and on the same day is pretty much useless..

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

...."competitive" maybe, "likely win" very unlikely. The stats don't lie and certainly don't favor your opinion. Other than the stats/facts we nothing to go on other than him being a nice guy

thank you. at least someone understands.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

Well aware of how the weather and tactics work. It doesn't change any facts. All available results (facts) do not point to him winning today, only personal opinion does

He beat the guys of his day which was the goal. But neither the results nor what you would expect (greater competition from a now much larger sport) would support him winning today's game

or another stats to look at.

Tim's 2001 win was by one of the biggest margin ever in this race. He dominated to a level that no one could match. All this to show those numbers dont mean much unless you have a solid understand of the race.

Tim was a world class swim + bikers and he had a 2:45 in his pocket for the run. That is enough to know what we could do now there days....

---

Jonathan Caron / Professional Coach / ironman champions / age group world champions
Jonnyo Coaching
Instargram

....off of 4:45 and 4:48 bike splits, that would leave him way off pace today. He won that year with a large margin and yet a "slow" overall time, which could also suggest a thinner field. One "slow" win okay, but twice unlikely, over 27 years of faster results. Slowest multiple winner in three decades. Doesn't mean he couldn't win now, but certainly doesn't make it likely

He beat the guys of his day which was the goal. But neither the results nor what you would expect (greater competition from a now much larger sport) would support him winning today's game //

If anything, it was harder to win back in the day, had to beat a lot more pros. Perhaps you do not know, or just ignore that "fact", but at one time any pro could just go to hawaii and race. I seem to recall mens fields in excess of a 150 pros. And another "fact" they did not have to race their brains out to get there either, so could show up fresh for the big show. So if anything, it has gotten a bit easier to win the race, not as much chance of an outside smoker coming in from the shadows.


Luc Van Leirde was such a guy, europeans knew of him, but he slid quietly to the island, then won and set the new course record in his first attempt. Chrissy Wellington was somewhat the same, won a couple races with little competition in them, and then BAMMM!


Over the years the times have bounced between right around 8;30's to the 8; teens for the mens winner. A couple of outliers, but this spread is exactly what you would expect given the wide range of conditions you could get on race day, and the tactics that played out on the day to get that winner. Tim was a good as any winner ever was, showed consistency, smashed each individual course on given days, and did enough to win twice against legendary fields.


If you ask me, the worst time to have been racing was during the Mark/Dave era if your main goal was to win the race. Greats like Welchy were able to sneak in once(of course dave was a master by then and still got 2nd), and that was about it for a decade+. You had guys like Pauuli Kiriu, Wolfgang Dietterich, Christian Bustos, Rob Barel, and several others that would have fared quite well in any other decade, but just had the unfortunate happenstance of being alive and trying to win while those two guys played out long and dominating careers. And I hope you are not going to tell me that their times don't hold up either(or as you like to call them, "facts". Yes times are facts, but why you ignore the other facts that go into ironman racing, well just have to assume you have some agenda to pursue..

Having the same 10 studs plus 140 other "pros" with no chance does not make it a stronger field. Feel free to keep ignoring facts/results in order to push the "back in the day" memories . There is nothing other than personal conjecture to support that fifteen years ago was as tough/tougher than now. The results trends certainly don't support it. The faster results trend and tighter top 10 trends are simple math over decades. And likewise it makes no logistical sense either as the sport has grown massively since then. Frodeno vs the guys from 2000? Please...

Obviously this is all nothing more than a hypothetical situation anyway and really no way to know. But I'd take opinion+stats over just opinion if I were a betting man

It is starting to become comical how you are sticking to your thought process...your math has one fault (which you fail to understand) which is race conditions. how do you NOT understand this? holy crap. for the record, Frodeno hasn't won Kona so be careful using him as your base line athlete. It is pretty sad that you have zero knowledge of people who came before these guys racing now and what they were and would be capable of if they were in their prime. Again, I don't think you understand Ironman racing at Kona.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

Because my opinion is based on results, your opinion is based on a strong personal friend bias. It has been mentioned many many times by myself and others that weather has already been taken into account. The average winning times quoted and the average time differences quoted span over two decades, which factors in weather already by averaging it out. Likewise the slowest times over 27 years quote is also not an opinion. Add those three major factors together and it's certainly more evidence than you're providing

I'm giving you times and averages etc. over 20 to 30 year spans, whileyou give me one year anomaly quotes.You continue to provide nothing other than a personal friend bias with no facts or stats whatsoever

I'm not the only person who is telling you that you are wrong and that you don't understand. It has very little to do with my friendship with Tim. I would argue that Peter Reid would have the same impact today if he was in his prime, Normann Stadler, Luk Van Lierde, Mark Allen, Dave Scott. What you fail to understand is that the numbers are all relative to THAT DAY. You CAN NOT compare year on year like you are. Seriously. It is only showing your lack of understanding how racing at Kona goes. What I am providing is years of racing and depth of understanding how athletes race. your method is flawed and you aren't capable of understanding how.

---

Kirk Noyes

Downtubes are for Dinosaurs

I'm giving you decades worth of factual information and you refuse to accept it, sorry I can't help you out any better than that. Feel free to provide us all with better stats if you have them, since you somehow have an advanced knowledge of the deep knowledge necessary to understand how a swim bike run race works

Can I have what you are smoking?

Thanks for this response. I think it sums things up perfectly. Everyone has their priorities. For some, Kona may be important but not the main focus. Both are perfectly fine. I have tremendous respect for both Tim and Andy.

---

Formerly DrD

You may not have a firm grasp of racing at Kona but you've nailed the art of trolling. You at least you've got that going for you.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

Any other pyrrhic Kona victors? Pete Jacobs?

---

_____________________________________
What are you people, on dope?

—Mr. Hand

The win in Kona did seem to be a kiss of death for PJ sadly. Bizarre how quickly he fell off - but I think he's alluded to seem fatigue issues...

But back to the main argument. I don't think we can deningrate TD for his wins. He was the best person on those days and there was no shortage of world class athletes; almost by definition. With the advancements in skinsuits/wind tunnels/bike designs etc etc it would be strange if his times weren't slower than today.

Speaking of which, weather permitting I think Stadler's bike record may fall this year. C'mon Sebi!

I agree with TdB. The best racers in the world at the moment are European, and if the Americans want to beat them at Kona, they need to be racing and beating them on their home turf in the big European and championship races, to see what it takes.

The fact that US pos don't want to do that for financial and family reasons, only shows that they don't have the same racing mindset and determination. They're comfortable doing their American races, not racing the best, and don't want to venture out their comfort zone to compete aginst the leaders of the sport. That's fine, but its not going to win you the big one....

Compare that to Kienle and what he says in his iterview with Bob Babbit - what motivates him is racing and beating the best (Frodeno, van Lierde etc). And he wants to beat them without them having mechnicals, off days etc. Kienle, Frodeno, van Lierde, etc are racing each other a few times a year and know what it takes to beat each other. They are IMO pushing each other ahead and the US pros are getting left behind...

Wait...didn't the US finish 2d and 4th at last year's Kona?

I completely agree. Race the best to be able to race the best. The only way to get into the mind and learn the tendencies of your competition is to go head to head. Otherwise, one's just guessing.

Sure, they had good races last year and finished high up, but you often get that at Kona as the top contenders all go flat out til they blow (all or nothing for Kona), opening the door for a few "lesser known" pros to finish high up. Just like Luke McKenzie and James Cunnama in 2013...

But when you hear Sebi talk about who he's worried about, it's not Hoff and Potts - it's Frodeno, van Lierde, Frommhold... that in itself says something. (And those guys won IM Championship races and Roth this year, the biggest races on the calendar with deep fields...)

I'm not writing the US Pro's off completely - anything can happen at Kona...!

At least one of the guys you're discussing understands that.

Sure - the German talks about other German's. Makes sense and probably helps them all with their sponsorships in Germany.

Potts is not "lesser know". He's probably one of the most known current racing triathletes. Olympian, Previous 70.3 World Champion, multiple other wins. At least 3 top 10's in Kona and a top 5.

Well its not just Sebastian talking up the Germans and Belgians!
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...view_-_Men_5395.html

Sure Potts is well known, wins races, and gets top 5/10s at Kona usually being the top US Pro. And that's the point of this thread - what does he need to do WIN Kona...?