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