The person who won was the best.

In 1978 John + Judie Collins organized the first Hawaii Ironman on Oahu. Every participant had to become a member of the "Ironman Triathlon Organizing Committee". This was done on purpose, such that if there was a problem during the race no one would sue the Committee, since who would sue oneself?
I do not think that in the following years there was any dispute whether the swimmers, bikers or runners are better.

I was not there, I only read a bit about it, to get details ask Monty.

The town/district of Kona [or Kailua-Kona or "City of Refuge"] has always been on the Big Island

That's where Captain Cook was murdered by the native people, where Hunter Thompson wrote The Curse of Lono in 1980 after attending the Honolulu Marathon,



and where Kona coffee is grown

As for the Ironman; you got it pretty right

---

"What's your claim?" - Ben Gravy
"Your best work is the work you're excited about" - Rick Rubin

^^^This.

The winners generally were not single sport athletes in the beginning; they were workout fanatics. The first would be John Howard, who was clearly in the cycling camp.

---

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)

Also, where the motto "Brag for the rest of your life!" came from.
Triathletes have been intolerable douchebags since. It's a fact, look it up. 8-)

Just like people who are vegans and crossfitters.

They will tell you.

Ironman is the same.

Pointless unless you've done Kona.

Anyone can finish an Ironman

---

------------------
it doesnt matter what you say, someone on here will pick a fight over it.

From memory the distances were based on long distance events already on the island - the the Waikiki Roughwater Swim (2.4 mi./3.85 km), the Around-Oahu Bike Race (115 miles; originally a two-day event) and the Honolulu Marathon (26.2 mi./42.195 km) - basically to

Someone needs an enema.

Actually, while the first winner in 1978, Gordon Haller, might be termed a "workout fanatic" but after that, the majority of the winners from 1979 onward were swimmers: Dave Scott and Mark Allen were both swimmers growing up and both swam in college. John Howard was, AFAIK, the only cyclist ever to win the event, and he only won once. Scott Tinley was a runner turned triathlete but only won twice. More recently, Frodo was a swimmer growing up. :)

---

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

and Faris Al-Sultan swam in his youth.

Not that only good swimmers won: Kienle won once and is a mere "2nd pack" swimmer, I think AOS.

As a swimmer of course you must become a good biker and runner to become a good triathlete. But indeed, biking and running you can generally learn after 20. With swimming that‘s a problem.

That said, i heard that the percentage of poor runners is larger under the good swimmers. But I do not know if that‘s true.

Dont forget Norman Stadler. He won the world Duathlon title in 1994 before stepping up his swimming and competing in Kona as an age grouper in 1999. Took him a few years but he took the win as a professional in 2004 - the boy had worked hard on his swimming!! He also held the bike course record for a few years at some point. Definitely not a swimmer!

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Link to original results: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/...8/s1600/DSCN0338.JPG

Interesting to note: A tie for 4th place, and 33% finished after 17-hours.

I've read that Kienle has done tri since around age 9 or 10 so I would not consider him to be an AOS per se, but rather just a good example of how just b/c you start swimming at an early age does not necessarily mean you will become a really fast swimmer. As has been pointed out here many times, lots of kids start swimming summer league at age 7 or 8, stay with it for 3 or 4 yrs, but then just quit either b/c they're just not that good at it, or they just don't like the regimentation, etc. The top swimmers are "self-selected" as someone put it.

Also along these lines, after having watched literally 100s of guys take up swimming for fitness and/or for tri as adults, I think it all goes back to natural ability: to be able to feel what you arms, legs, etc, are doing, and the ability to change your stroke, kick, or whatever when someone points out that you'd be faster if you did X instead of Y. The guys with natural talent for swimming catch on quite quickly; those who lack this ability struggle for years. I hate to say it but I think claiming you can't swim fairly quickly b/c you're AOS is bogus. Sorry but that is just my viewpoint. :)

---

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

I understand your point but am not sure to agree. If that's right than Frodeno and Phelps would have become such good swimmers if they would have started with 20. But we don't know, since they haven't.
Are there a lot of good swimming triathletes who learned in after 20? I do not know the stats.

Of course most kids who swim do not become top swimmers in the swimmer community, but maybe those kids can become a top swimmer in the population of triathletes.

AFAIK, there are no stats that track triathlon swim times vs the age they started swim training. However, there are some Masters swimming stats which, IIRC, show that about 75% of USMS members swam growing up. So, about 1/4 of those adults who like swimming enough to join USMS are AOS. Not sure exactly how to interpret these numbers except to say that clearly not everyone who gets into swimming enough to join Masters started at age 7.

I think somewhere around 10-15% of the population have some degree of natural swimming ability. I have absolutely no doubt that Phelps and Frodo would have become top Masters swimmers even if they did not start until age 20. Rowdy Gaines, the long-time swim commentator, did not start until age 17 but yet set his first WR just 2 yrs later. Obv 17 is not 20 but still his meteoric rise to the very top of swimming just shows the importance of natural talent.

---

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

So slight tangent

Assuming that I'm never going to qualify for IMWC at Kona, is there any value to a vacation to Hawaii?

I mean, flying my bike out there, swimming one day in the bay, and over a few days running part/all of the run course? Is there any actual historical points that make it interesting to us? Or is it like an empty Formula 1 circuit that has very little appeal outside race weekend? Interesting, but not worth significant expenditure to see.

Not worth it. At least not if you're looking at the race course. It's super boring with nothing to look at. There may be other parts of the island worth cycling, though