Who cares? That's like saying that you like the decathlete who comes in 5th place in the Olympics better than the one who won gold because the 10th place guy was top 10 in all 10 disciplines but the guy who won gold was first in 5 disciplines and 11th in the other 5 satisfying your fetish for "completeness". After supposedly watching Auckland this weekend and merely describing her as "not a bad cyclist" bike despite having the 4th fastest bike split, shows how biased you are. There were plenty of other women who not only weren't pulling but were getting dropped by the lead group. Moreover, she can swim with the lead group as she did in London last year when she was just 5 seconds behind Zafares coming out of the water and ahead of uber swimmers like True and Routier.

I get the feeling that some of the posters on here just started watching ITU races this year with Abu Dhabi based on how silly some of the comments have been.

Gwen is a superb athlete, however, she is vulnerable to defeat because she does not control the race. Her run is a level above all the other women and in 90% of races she will win due to being able to run 60 to 120 seconds faster than all the others over 10K. The problem is that the olympics will be a totally different race for three reasons: super hard bike course, team tactics (there was even speculation at the last olympics that there was cooperation between teams to try to defeat Alistair and Jonathan) and a smaller field. Gwen relies on others to get her in a position to win, she is less likely to able to do this in the olympics. It is very likely that strong cyclists, on the Rio course, will be able to pull away from Gwen on the hills just like Graves did in the men's race in Aukland over the weekend. His mistake was that he went alone and he didn't tell any others what he was going to attempt and when. If Gwen is in a chasing pack and has to chase down any potential breakaway it will be a totally different race. Smaller fields mean that the swim and bike are far more likely to fragment into smaller groups and therefore you are less likely to be in a position to rely on others for assistance. The mens race in Aukland should be a massive wake up call to all ITU athletes, if you are a strong swimmer and you commit to cooperation and some work in the front group then you are far far more likely to get a top ten finish than is the peleton comes together.

Honestly they would probably have to put her 3 plus minutes down and then have the run of their lives to beat her now and even on a one day event on a hard bike course.

jaretj

You apparently, as you're getting quite bent out of shape over this.


Errr no it's not. Not even close. You do know that the three people I used in my example of "complete" triathletes are the current Olympic medal holders, as well as one being the current World Champ and the other two former World Champs right?

And what's with this "fetish for completeness"? All we've done is made the observation that Gwen, whilst a terrific athlete, is proportionally a lot stronger in one of the three disciplines. You're reacting as if we'd slagged her off saying she was rubbish and not fit to take the win or something.


You're the one coming out with the silly overreaction to a perfectly reasonable appraisal of Gwen's abilities in each of the disciplines.

I'm not having a go at Gwen. Why are you reacting as if I am?

Excellent post, Mr Monkey!

The Rio bike course is several degrees harder than anything seen in recent memory, so it is quite possible that it will favour a very different set of athletes than we expect.

After exiting T1, they ride for about 700K, then start a 0.7 K climb ascending 50 meters at an average of 7%. The second half has pitches of 10 to 20% (!). That is approximately the amount of climbing per lap as we get in Auckland. There is then a technical decent at 10-15%, followed by a second hill, and another 40 meters of climbing at 10-15%. As I said before, that is 80% more climbing per lap that Auckland or Madrid. After descending the second hill, there is then an out and back of about 2.5km along the shore. This is a custom made "Brownlee brother course", but I don't think it is a Gwen Jorgensen course. And in truth, I don't know who it would favour (possibly Jodie Stimpson, or Non Stanford).

Bro. Bruh. C'mon man!

Gwen is incredible. She dominates and continues to improve. She is a force.

She is not yet a complete triathlete like Gomez or the Brownlees. She doesn't swim comfortably front pack. Despite the split, she isn't the fourth best cyclist (yet?).

This is obviously semantics, but IMHO it isn't a moral flaw or anything. I'd argue that's Kienle isn't complete either in the way Van Lierde is. Still a fantastic athlete though!

---

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team

If Gwen could win an OD triathlon from being three minutes down after the bike then it would reflect really badly on the credibility of the sport. I am always suspicious that if the women are more than 10% slower then the men then either the men are super fast or the women are not as fast as they have been in the past. Gwen's winning time this weekend was the slowest time in the last 3 years and Annie Haag's run time, in 2013, was faster than Gwen's time in 2015 and Jodie's run time in 2014 was only 70 seconds slower. The mens times over the 3 years are comparable although it is possible the distances and conditions were slightly different. I suspect Gwen shines so much because she is an excellent runner and because her current competition isn't as fast as it has been in the recent past.

Yes, I am aware that you just spread the accomplishments of the three people you used in your example over three years -- 2012, 2013 and 2014. How was A Brownlee's "completeness" last year in Edmonton? I could just as easily change my example to the reigning world champion in the decathlon who just came in 5th in the Olympics by coming in the top 10 in all 10 disciplines but losing to 4 guys who were top 3 in multiple disciplines but outside the top 10 in others. The goal is to win and maximize the chances of doing that by playing to your strengths -- not to impress internet posters with a completely irrelevant notion of "completeness".

Your comments are more reasonable but the ORB's are just downright ridiculous. It's not reasonable whatsoever to make idiotic comments like "It's just all this Gwensanity nonsense and hype" and then question how she would fare in a sport she doesn't compete in (non-draft Olympic). Hype is something like Dan and Dave before the '92 Olympics. Being almost unbeatable in a sport for over a year has nothing to do with "hype" and "nonsense". I do think that northern monkey's analysis is spot on, which is why Gwen hardly is a sure thing in Rio and what will make the race extremely interesting. She definitely is much more vulnerable in a non-wetsuit swim with a very hilly bike and team tactics being used against her. However, I don't think he is correct in thinking that the field will be a lot smaller in Rio. It might be a few bodies smaller than a typical ITU race but not enough to really make a difference.

I am always suspicious that if the women are more than 10% slower then the men then either the men are super fast or the women are not as fast as they have been in the past.//

And I'm always suspicious of comparing gender races where one is fought 100% to the line, and the other a done deal early into the run. Im guessing even though she continued to open her lead when she really did not have to, that there was still 30 to 60 seconds in there if it was a 100% run like the mens.


But I agree with everyone here talking about her weakness on hard bike courses, she will definitely need to do something about that before Rio. She has this incredible weapon right now because she is so much faster than anyone on the run, but the olympics seem to bring out the best in people and i expect everyones runs to step up a notch. I will go on record and say she will not win if 2 1/2 minutes down there, 2 will be hard to close after riding her legs off to limit losses. This is going to be a case where we absolutely should provide a domestic for her, maybe even two if we have them. It is the gold medal at stake here, not just some high placing in the olympics that means nothing to a country(athlete yes, but medals are what grow the sport)

I think for her to make up 3 minutes, she would have to run 33 low and 2nd would have to run 36 low. Yes, that would reflect poorly on the sport if the 2nd best woman only can run a 36+ 10K. Part of the problem is that so many of the top women are hurt/not racing (Norden, Non Stanford, Simpson, Spirig, Haug, Jenkins, etc). I think the dynamics of the races would change a lot if 2 or 3 of the aforementioned former top women started racing and racing healthy.

I do think that the run times were slower this year because the women rode harder than normal on the bike. Riding that course hard takes a serious toll on one's legs. Gwen certainly rode faster than she normally does, which probably explains her slowish time (also having a 90+ second cushion). However, as far as I could tell, it didn't look as windy as it has been in the past and I think the rain held off until the men's run. Compare that to the 2012 conditions at the GF.

The Rio field may not be that much smaller numerically but because of selection for the olympics ie to represent your country. So there will be fewer of the best athletes. So the quality of the top half is probably as good but the quality of the bottom half is less good than an ITU world series race. More groups, more fragmentation. Less potential help.

Do you want to tell Zafares and True that one or both has to domestique for Gwen? I don't think that would be a pleasant conversation. At this point, I think USA should be shooting for a podium sweep.

I agree but I think that's irrelevant to the dynamics of the front and the chase pack. The fact that there isn't a second big chase pack but rather a lot of fragmentation with the stragglers riding solo or in tiny groups will have no impact on the medal contenders (unless, of course, one of them somehow falls off the back of the chase pack and is in no-woman's land).

Everyone knows she can come back from 1:30 down and probably 2 minutes that is why I said 3 plus minutes ahead.

I suspect the women in the sport are under-performing on the run compared to the men. I think there will be a change in that soon.

I think she's on the level of running that Emma Snowsill was on.

jaretj

Mag900 you appear to have quite the emotional investment in the whole "Gwensanity" hysteria. That's fine, but there's no need to keep throwing insults, it just cheapens your opinion.

As several others have reaffirmed, saying she isn't as complete a triathlete as legends like Gomez or the Brownlees is pretty far from an insult. Who knows, if she keeps working on improving the bike and swim (to a lesser extent) maybe she will be right up there with the greats. Then again based on the current women's field she may never need to be.

The Rio course may not suit her current skills, but with the amount of top end US ITU talent available right now, she should get the best possible help to position her for success.

In the context of a "complete" triathlete, I'd argue only Gomez qualifies. Look at his resume: complete at the ITU level, Xterra World Champion, 70.3 Champion. If he pulls gold at Rio and chases down Kona there will be nothing left. Maybe niche races.

Regarding Gwen: wins are wins.

Do you want to tell Zafares and True that one or both has to domestique for Gwen? I don't think that would be a pleasant conversation. At this point, I think USA should be shooting for a podium sweep.//

Sure i would tell them that, but at this point not really sure they would be the domestiques. Could be others would be more qualified for that role. It is possible that we would have another medal hope, but i do not think it is either one of the two you mentioned. In that case, that person would still work for Gwen, but in a more passive role. There are so many things an athlete can do to help someone out, included is getting in the lead group and not working, or even disrupting. If someone truly has a medal chance, then they better be able to win it on the run on our team. Any scenario where our team is helping the lead bike group is just unacceptable when you have such a favorite for the gold, stupid in fact..

She didn't get dropped this time and many, many others did.

Her bike has improved. If it continues to improve her bike, it won't matter what the Rio course looks like.

Having said that, I expect uber bikers Norden and Spirig to be the ones to beat.

Zafares will be tough too.

---

Advocating for research & treatment for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME).
http://www.meaction.net/about/what-is-me/

"Suck it up, Buttercup"
(me, to myself, every day)

Team USA is going to have to make some difficult decisions. If all USA women triathletes work entirely for themselves then they could be partially responsible for denying Gwen a gold medal.

Team USA is going to have to make some difficult decisions. If all USA women triathletes work entirely for themselves then they could be partially responsible for denying Gwen a gold medal//

It is not difficult at all, you send the team with the best chance to win the gold medal. Anything else is just stupid. This is what they spend all their budgets on, winning medals. If they choose 3 individual athletes, then they should be fired..

I don't think it is that easy to sacrifice two possible medals for one probable. You have to factor in illness, nerves, punctures, crashes not to mention individual careers.

I agree. The US women right now are like Kenya in the steeple. I think it's more plausible to pay a woman from another country with no shot at medaling to domestique than to tell 2 other serious medal contenders that they can't contend. What happens when you leave those 2 at home for 2 domestiques and there's a crash or a flat (kind of London all over again)?

I don't think it is that easy to sacrifice two possible medals for one probable. You have to factor in illness, nerves, punctures, crashes not to mention individual careers. //

And just who are these other medal contenders? Now if between now and selection time someone shows they can beat complete fields consistently, then I think my passive domestique should be put in place for that athlete, while the 3rd as a true helper to both, but Gwen first.


Of course people can get sick, injured, etc., but you have to go with what you got at the time of selection, with maybe a few outside possibilities. I just do not see someone beating the entire world except for one(what it will take for a bronze if you factor in Gwen for the gold) on the team at the moment. Planning for anything else is planning for mediocracy.

Zafares is 2 for 2 this year beating the ENTIRE field not named Gwen. I think that's about as consistent as you can be! the 2 courses are about as different as you can get with one being hot and flat and the other being cold and hilly.

YOu are trying to say Auckland was a complete field? I don't mean the field that just happens to show up, but a field that has all the contenders. I think there is a Rio test race on the course isn't there, that would be a good time to see where the other ladies stack up, and if Gwen has closed any gaps on the bike..