"Indeed. He trains with Canadians!! :) "

Now THERE is a handicap if I ever saw one! That's like -30 IQ points right off the bat. ;-)

Now THERE is a handicap if I ever saw one! That's like -30 IQ points right off the bat.

Humour aside, there really is nothing new here - Arthur Lydiyard did this, Percy Cerutty did this, Bill Bowerman did this, the Kenyans do this, the Ethiopians do this, the Norwegian Nordic skiers do this. Get a great group of athletes together and with the right coaching and dynamics great things happen.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

This is exactly why I recommend that most people in most cases should just sit on their target power and ignore the wind in an IM. The cost/benefit is never a simple equation and 99% of us will likely screw it up anyway. Not to mention, the overall benefit of getting right isn't really significant, by any means.

Thanks, Chris

Two separate issues, imho. One is your training and the other is your race execution. They are a fair number of people who thrive on hard work, commitment and excellence but still screw it up on race day. The need (or not) to pay attention to the numbers in training is one thing but the need to pay attention to the numbers when racing is a whole separate issue, imho.

Thanks, Chris

In training (to some extent) we go hard and see what numbers we get. In racing, you go by the numbers you know, and see what time you get. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but I think it's roughly what you are getting at.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Exactly.

Thanks, Chris

The need (or not) to pay attention to the numbers in training is one thing but the need to pay attention to the numbers when racing is a whole separate issue, imho.

Then of course we have the women's Ironman World Champion and clearly the best woman's long distance triathlete in the world right now, in another thread on the front page of the forum, stating that she does not pay attention to numbers when training or racing! :)

Different strokes for different folks.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Why do people always focus on the exceptions? My general message ALWAYS considers the 80-20 rule. I'm focused on addressing the 80% out there. Pros are usually pros because they are so genetically gifted it doesn't really matter what they do. We have no idea if they're as good as they are because of their training or in spite of their training. So, using Chrissy as your sole example doesn't really bring anything to the table, imho. If you're looking for a reason not to do something (eg pay attention to the numbers) you can always find somebody who's successful not doing it. I try to focus on finding individuals who are consistently executing well in their IMs year after year. Those are the ones I talk and listen to and I think you'll find that my past results are very reflective of that philosophy.

Thanks, Chris

Chris, one could look at Chrissy but also look at Mark Allen...he could ignore the numbers (at the time heart rate) and dominate races up to Nice....but that approach undid him 7 times, until he capped his effort from a heart rate perspective...then he was unbeatable at Hawaii.

But I think it is unfair to say that someone like Wellington is ignoring numbers...numbers are only a quantification of effort. she is gauging effort all along. There are people like Dave Scott, Wellington, Frank Shorter, or Jacques Antequil or Fleck and many others who were incredibily well tuned into their level of effort....the quantification comes out of their brain-body perception and they can make subtle changes to account for varying loads, on the fly, without a numerical quantification....they have a quantification going on, its just not visually displayed and it can't be downloaded....

Pretty well all the best XC skiers in the world fall into this category...they have finely tuned into their "power output" because there is no pace clock nor powermeters...the snow glide conditions and the terrain are just too variable. Not like I am in that category, but I did a 100K XC ski event 3 weekends ago that took me 6 hours (actually 5:59.30). Aside from the first 25K loop that took me 1:34 and the second at 1:26, the last two were 1:29 and 1:30 on extremely variable terrain....I even split the front and back half of the race with no powermeter, no heartrate monitor. But I was gauging my effort all along at a "6 hour sustainable level".

I don't think that Chrissy is an exception...she's actually doing what world class athletes have always been able to do...gauge their own effort...now, how they do it, is the question....powermeter, heartrate monitor, perceived exertion, cadence etc etc.

I think quantification has its place, and there are different tools...some people's perceived exertion meters are actually more reliable than others :-)

I try to focus on finding individuals who are consistently executing well in their IMs year after year. Those are the ones I talk and listen to and I think you'll find that my past results are very reflective of that philosophy.

Chris.

I hope you did not take what I said directly or personally. I did say, different strokes for different folks.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I think a strong argument can be made against power meters, at least for the elites. An analysis of the average kona winning time from 1990 to 1996 compared to those of 2000-2006 show the later to be substantially slower, despite supposed improvements in aerodynamics, nutrition, etc. I suspect most of those in the later decade had power meters and most of those in the earlier did not. How does one explain that general slowing despite all the so-called improvements that had supposedly occurred in the interim?

A power meter may be a better way for an inexperienced athlete to gauge their effort when they have little experience in proper pacing, and it may even be an superior way for an elite to "not blow up". but, it seems that it might keep people from racing to their full capability by making them watch some number rather than learning how to listen to their body.

A power meter is a tool of potential usefulness, but if used inappropriately, it can become a crutch and slow one down. It appears this may be the case more often than not.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Frank,

90-95 the Kona times were elevated by the need to beat Mark Allen (or Dave Scott....94).
96 was when Hellriegel went 8:06 and was beaten by LVL going 8:04. The course was also said to be faster, but that is arguable without the pit etc.

I think that in the early 90's the performances were that much faster cause guys like Pauli Kiuru, Christian Bustos or Thomas Hellriegel had to race their pants off to keep anywhere in the same zip code as Mark Allen...we have not had that since...perhaps 96 and 98 with LVL, and there was the 2001 2:40ish run by deBoom, but we have not had anyone closing with a low 2:40 run in recent times...that alone makes the difference.

In 2005, Faris won racing with a powermeter...but his run was not 2:40ish....it was 10 minutes slower than Mark Allen times, and his overall time was also ~10 min slower...there just have been no devastatingly fast closing marathoners in Ironman since 2001.

I don't think it is lack of technology or too much technology...its just that on the men's side we have no one who can run that fast...on the women's side there have been a string of athletes that could run around 3 hours: Erin Baker, Paula Newby Fraser, Heather Fuhr, Lori Bowden, and now Chrissy Wellington...

I am simply saying times were faster when people were training and racing without power. You can explain it however you want but this data can be intepreted in several ways, including that training with power is more a hindrance than a help to an elite athlete who wants to do his best or set records. I don't know the answer but the times are the times.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

I don't know that Triathlon is a sport about setting records, I think of Tri as being more similar to a Grand Tour, or a Crit race, then I do swimming, track and field, or the hour record - it doesn't always matter how fast you go - just that you win.

I think what we need is the next Bob Beaman performance buit in triathlon....or we need a Mark Allen+Dave Scott duo...something that is so far out there in front of the competition that it forces everyone to elevate their game. Its good to see the Germans and Vikings elevating the bike splits and soon we will see someone who puts down a 4:20 bike and backs it up with a 2:45 marathon....something like what LVL did in Roth 1997, but now in Kona...once we get that, all the times will come down to "compete".....but right now if you can race a touch under 8:20, you have a good shot at winning Kona and no one is about to blow out their race to go for 8:00 when those times are not needed to win.

On the women's side it will be different...with Chrissy elevating everyone's game plan...

Except that the cycling world DIRECTLY contradicts this. Look at Lance.

I hate this talk of how fast everyone "was." You are basically saying that all current pros are wimps who don't train hard enough and also race soft.

There are a couple options:
1) training with power is really a hindrance. In addition, today's athletes are wimps who don't really race or train hard.

2) there was something fishy about guys riding the same times as pros today despite not having aero frames, aerohelmets, aero wheels, etc.

Given that we know that aero equipment saves time, you are basically conceding that Mark Allen was able to ride with 30-50 more watts than Faris et al., and then run a low 2:40 marathon off that kind of riding. That would mean his FTP for cycling was roughly the same as Lance Armstrongs. So, given that, Mark Allen had the cycling motor to win the TdF AND Kona in the same year. Either that, or there was something other than solo time trialing going on.

We've all seen the lines of cars in Kona. Maybe the reason that the aero equipment doesn't make as much of a difference as it should is that Kona isn't now (and never really has been) any sort of a solo effort.

And that's really true of Ironman generally. Look at Ironman Arizona this past weekend. On a 2 loop course, do you think there wasn't a whole lot of draft effect going on with ~2000 people on the course.

Getting into these debates is pointless, but I think some healthy skepticism is a good thing. I just wish people would exhibit **SOME** skepticism, instead of worshipping at the altar of the past.

And, don't forget that Macca won the race last year running ~2:42.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I am not saying or implying anything. It is a simple fact that the winning times at Kona are slower since the advent of power meters than it was before, despite all the other supposed aerodynamic, nutritional, and training knowledge "improvements" in the interim, and that includes PowerCranks. The last two years things are closer to what they used to be for whatever reason. I doubt the athletes are less capable now than they were then so one struggles to explain this.

---

--------------
Frank,
An original Ironman and the Inventor of PowerCranks

Or could it be that people are over estimating their ability to ride their bike AND get off and run. I realized with a PM both personally and in the athletes I coach that cumulative time (Bike/run) is typically faster if people ride a touch under what they think they "should", irregardless of their running ability.

Bingo!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

2) there was something fishy about guys riding the same times as pros today despite not having aero frames, aerohelmets, aero wheels, etc.

Tires, man it's all about the TIRES!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I am simply saying times were faster when people were training and racing without power.

Frank,

That's a pretty bold and broad statement to make. My feeling is that it's a bit more complicated than that and their are other forces at work that have led to the times through the mid years not matching up to the times of earlier years. My honest opnion - the racing became much more strategic as the importance of winning IMH became greater and greater. Not to take anything away from the great champions of those years - they won fair and square and should always be remembered and respected for their wins, but after that equilibrium was established, it now hopefully appears to be perhaps going to a higher level with a new group of athletes that will risk more for the win and the times should drop accordingly.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Yes, it's true. But the heyday of tires was back when Clement was still handmaking sewups, oh about 30 years before I was even born... :)

In all seriousness, I think that back when you didn't have to consider frame, wheels, aerohelmet, etc., pros probably did pay attention to two things with a lot greater detail than they do today:

1) position. I think as a general rule, you had a higher percentage of pros in good positions that you do today. Of course, it may just be that we only see photos of the good athletes from "back in the day," and nowadays I see everyone at the races, but I think you had to pay attention to your position, because that was all there was in terms of aerodynamics. You couldn't assume your frame would work. I also think you had better geometries back then. Look at how long, for example, it has taken Trek to make a bike that fits almost as well as the HILO.

2) Tires. Everyone raced on the same tires, which isn't to say they were the best available, but I don't think you had the Tufos, etc. of today. I think the older Conti tubulars were probably better than a lot of the half-assed-glue-job POS tubulars people run today.

As with all things, people are coming back around, especially as regards #1.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

But how do you know that for sure? Again, maybe a lot of pros are (relatively) horrible at gauging their own effort as compared to your typical top AGer but they're so genetically gifted it doesn't really matter. That's the point. We don't know. We probably won't ever know (at least in our life time).

Here's one thing we do know: Genetics play a huge part in the strength and success of an athlete. I've seen pros who definitely have horrible execution but they still kick most people's ass. The only reason why I've focused on analyzing Jordan's power numbers is because:

1. He's kind enough to allow me
2. I consider him to be all the things that Fleck mentioned
3. He has impeccable execution, imho

It really has nothing to do with the fact that he's a pro.

Thanks, Chris

Yeah, sorry, don't take me too serious. Clearly, PMs are not for everyone. Again, not directed at you but what I don't understand is why people who don't like PMs bother to chime in on a thread entitled, "....anyone know how many watts he averaged on the bike?" People who use PMs thoroughly understand why others don't care for them. So, for those people who don't like PMs, why is it so hard for you to understand why we like them? More importantly, why do you criticize us so much? We certainly don't bother to criticize those who successfully race by RPE. All the power to you...

Thanks, Chris