Who is Bjorn and who s Zach

With R10Cs track record here take his nutty statements for all they're worth.

I get the ST debate-every-hypothetical-situation-to-death (and then argue pointlessly) thing, but I don't understand the debates over who is the best swimmer, cyclist, runner in the sport. It's a race to the finish line, not to each transition.

When watching football, I don't root for my team to be leading after halftime then turn off the tv.

I bet I can drink more beers than you before the awards ceremony starts at Griskus. Debate THAT :)

Most of the time this forum is one big mass-debate...


....

You used football so i'll assume youre a fan. You've never debated who has the better QB or RB, or which team has the best defense?

---

Styrrell

This is a reply to you and also to saltman. I think the issue here is how someone defines "the best cyclist in tri." That is largely a matter of opinion. It's perfectly valid - as you and saltman seem to be doing - to base exclusively off someone's cycling ability. However, in my opinion, that is basically meaningless within the context of the sport of triathlon.

In other words, when you ask, "who is the best cyclist in the sport of triathlon," I do NOT consider, "which triathlete would do the best in a cycling race." But of course, that's certainly one way to look at it. But it's not how I look at it, because I think that's basically meaningless. What I consider is, basically, "who is the person that when they go off the front, people go, 'oh shit!'" for two reasons:
1) if they try and go with them they will either fail or they will completely wreck their run
2) if they don't try to go, it's a huge risk as to whether or not they'll be abe to catch them on the run.

Normann Stadler was THE best example of this. He was, quite clearly, THE preeminent cyclist in triathlon. This because if you let him go (2004), you were faced with a massive and basically insurmountable gap at T2 (17min). However, if you tried to stay with him (2006), your run was going to suffer (only two athletes in the top 10 ran <2:50 and both were well off their best run times).

I do not - and have not - considered guys like Chris Lieto or Bjorn, both of whom are good friends of mine, to be equivalent. When they go, guys let them go, because generally, that's the "safe" bet. You MIGHT end up with a gap that you can't close at T2, but *usually* not. When Bjorn or Lieto went off the front, I think guys just accepted it. They didn't basically assume that the race was over, because it usually was not. When Stadler went off the front, people assumed the race was over, because it usually was.

So even when all three of those guys were racing, it was pretty obvious - TO ME - who "the best cyclist in triathlon" was. I never stopped to think about which of those three would win a cycling race. Because - TO ME - that's not what matters.

So, if your definition of "the best biker in tri" is who would do the best in a cycling race, then you are correct, it would be absurd to say that it's anyone other than Lance Armstrong.

But, to echo your comment, "triathletes - both pro and amateur - need to be reminded that triathlons are not bike races. They are triathlons." Triathletes of all abilities get this reminder every time they race, when the most common phrase heard at the finish line is, "I killed the bike, but then I had a bad run. It must have been the gatorade..." If you walk the run, you rode too hard...

There is no such thing as a "good" bike in a triathlon if it's followed by a bad run. Therefore, "the best biker in tri" is defined not only by someone's biking ability, but also by their ability to run after.

Kienle is the "best biker in tri right now" not just because he rides so well, but because he rides so well AND then runs so well afterwards.

Put simply, the "best biker in tri" in my opinion is the guy who wins triathlon races as a result of his cycling prowess. In other words, it's the guy who consistently has both the fastest bike split while also crossing the finishline first. Kienle is the person who, right now, typifies that archetype. Likewise, the best runner in tri is not the person with the fastest run; it's the person who can run the fastest after biking well. In other words, if you run from 30th place to 20th place, I don't think you are as a good a runner - within triathlon - as the guy who runs from 10th to 1st. I.e., I would not say that Pete Jacobs is a better runner than Crowie, even though he's run faster than Craig the past three years in Kona, because Craig is the one running to the win, whereas Pete, in 2009 & 2010 anyway, was simply running his way into the top-10.

So, in my opinion, to use Lance's career as a pro cyclist as a basis for your argument is laughable when you consider his (recent) career as a pro triathlete. But that's simply a matter of opinion...

---

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

I agree wholeheartedly. BUT, as I wrote (way to verbosely) in my reply above, I don't think that someone's ability to ride away "...not measuring himself to be sure he is able to run afterwards" is really relevant. It's someone's ability to ride away "while measuring himself to be sure he is able to run afterwards." E.g., Normann Stadler. And Kienle.

---

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

You are assuming that fast bikers will run significantly better if they ride slower on the bike. There is nothing to indicate that is the case hence why they have decided to ride so fast. I have rode and run with many people where their strength is run or ride. Many times the fast runners just simple cant ride fast for several reasons and the fast riders just arent as fast (relatively) when it comes to the run. Even though the fast ride loses to the fast runner in a triathlon they are still the better rider. They couldnt have run fast enough (even without biking) to win the triathlon.

Example: Me
I can ride a 1hour 40km - My fastest 10km run is 44-45mins.
I have several friends that can ride ~65 minute 40kms and can run under 40 minute 10kms. Sometimes I win, sometimes they win. But bottom line I am they better cyclist whether I ride a slow 40km trying to preserve a little more for the run or I murder the 40km and suffer on the run.

Not is you dope enough ;)

Interesting reading. For me, I tell folks I suck at the swim, bike and run if I tried to do them as a single sport. But, when I put all three together, sometimes I can compete. And in my Wildflower race, even though I had folks who beat me in the swim, and big time on the bike, I was able to come back and get them all on the run. So another angle in our sport is throw the age factor in, and things can really start to move around as to what is more important.
So, I could care less about who had the best sport splits, all that matters is who had the best combo to get over the finish line first.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

No, I am not assuming that at all. I'm just saying that I don't think it's really relevant if someone is a great cyclist if they can't back it up with a good run. I.e., the sport is triathlon, so who cares if you are absurdly good at one part of the race if you suck at the other two?

Take golf as an example. Imagine if you had some guy who only ever 1-putted. BUT, it took him - on average - two shots more to get on the green than the top guys. Based strictly off putting average, he's technically the best putter, but if he's not actually winning any tournaments, who cares. It'd be like a guy in cycling with a great sprint but who was so shitty at everything else that he never actually got to use his sprint. I.e., Mark Cavendish is a great sprinter not only because of his sprint, but because he gets to the line in a position to unload it.

All I'm saying is that if you are going to talk about the "best cyclist in tri," it makes sense to consider cycling ONLY within the context of triathlon. Stadler didn't win every race he entered, but that didn't change the fact that he was pretty clearly the best cyclist in the sport of triathlon. The fact that Chris Lieto or Bjorn might have beaten Normann is a straight up bike race does not - in my opinion - change that fact.

Perhaps a better definition is the best cyclist in tri is the guy whose cycling ability most powerfully changes the dynamic of a race. Generally, that change comes about as the result of winning races. Thomas Hellriegel, Normann Stadler, and Craig Walton are to two guys that come most to mind. I don't think Lance has yet demonstrated that his ability as a cyclist changes the dynamic of a race in a meaningful way.

As you said in your example, "Sometimes I win, sometimes they win." If you NEVER won, I'd say, "who cares if you are a better cyclist, it's not a bike race..." We're talking about triathlon, so the only results and context that should matter are triathlon-related. That's my OPINION.

---

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

"Put simply, the "best biker in tri" in my opinion is the guy who wins triathlon races as a result of his cycling prowess. In other words, it's the guy who consistently has both the fastest bike split while also crossing the finishline first."

I wish more people understood this in this sport.

All that being said Jordan. If there was an open 112 mile TT - no swim no run. I dont think that Lance would put any more than 10 minutes on most Pro Tri guys, and a few would be within 1 minute or possibly even beat Lance at that distance.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Chip,

Skipped the meds again today?

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

Not a chance in hell most guys finish within 10 mins after 112 miles.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

When is the last time Lance did an unsupported 112 mile TT? Serious here - is he better? Yep - but not *that* much better.

I should not have said "most", I should have said "some"...I dont think he could put much on McDonald or Bjorn - a few others.

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

THe real answer is no one knows. The uniballers have Lance travelling at the speed of light and the doubters think he is human. Lance has never, as far as I know, never done a 112 mile TT. He talks of having back problems, so may struggle holding an aero position for the whole race. But Rappstar is right, it is not about who is the fastest cyclist, but who can put all 3 together on the day.

Best I can tell - Lance must ride at the "Speed of Stink" - I am not sure the speed of stink has been quantified - but, even in an environment with no atmospheric movement - stink has a way to travel....and fast....

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

An open 112 mi TT? I'd say that I'd be happy to finish within 30min of Lance. Thankfully, there's a swim before, and VERY thankfully, there's a marathon afterwards. But I look at a guy like Hutchinson - who Lance would decimate if he ever started racing long TTs - and how badly Hutch would kick my ass, and well... I have no desire to ride a bike race against a bike racer. If I did, I'd race bikes.

---

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

Jordan - you just stated in writing that "There is no way Lance would put more than 30 minutes on me in a 112 mile time trial" (please, do not let the facts of your post get in the way). Now, who is going to be first to put out a Twitter Challenge? This here soup needs a few more chef's with a few more ladles...

Can someone please post a link to CyclingNews and Velonews?

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

This is what he said

"I'd say that I'd be happy to finish within 30min of Lance"

Unless I missed a post.

As per internet rules, I took what he said, changed it around and left out a major part ;-P

---

----------------------------------------------------------

What if the Hokey Pokey is what it is all about?

Rapp as per usual when we take the conversation 2-deep we are in complete agreement.

You are right he's never done a iTT of that length, but look at the time gaps at just a 40k TT. I'd wager the top 3 wouldn't even be within 8 mins of each other, let alone 20 guys coming within 10 mins of lance. It's kinda cool thought, but your still dealing in lance's wheelhouse, certainly not in an weak area for him.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

x2