monty wrote:
It was after his accident, and he really needed to be worried more about that 200 time too. For the 5 or so seconds he never had in speed there, it made him burn a lot of matches in the first half of his ironman rides to get near or at the front of races. Shorter races he would just never really get there from that swim deficit.
He had the power to hang onto the lead swim group, he just didnt have the speed to actually get into it, quite frustrating for him for sure..
I might have lost a touch of top-end with my accident, though not a ton. But it definitely reset me. Like, I was making really good progress - I didn't give up much to the leaders in '09 and was definitely "getting there" and I had to work really hard to get back to that same point after my accident. I did get back to being as fast as I was - and faster, at least based on standalone times - but I do wonder what I might have been able to do if I hadn't needed to spend almost two years just getting back to where I was. But, fundamentally, I was never really a fast opener. I'm just not built for it, neither in terms of build (very small upper body, relatively long and heavy legs) nor physiology (not particularly explosive in ANY sport, including cycling).
Swimming, though, the delta was VERY low.
My best ever 200 SCY was 2:03.X
My best 500 was 5:23 (though I could have gone faster; I didn't race the 500 all that often)
My best 1000 was 10:59.
Interestingly, those times ALL came at the same meet (at the Rose Bowl). I swam 58.X in the 100y *in a relay* (so flying start). I swam 58s plenty of time, but never really any faster. All in 2012.
My best mile and my best hour came in 2014. I swam 18:19 for the 1650 and did 5275 for the Hour (1:08.2 pace - I won it in in 2012 overall for 30-34 AG, but less distance; I was 3rd that year - Jarrod Shoemaker won it in 5375. I bet Jarrod would have put way more than 1:08 on me in the swim of an Olympic tri, because that's the difference making the pack makes).
If I had it to do over again, I don't know that I'd actually focus on the 200. I think I would have NOT "focused" on swimming to any additional degree. What I would have done is what I did when I actually had the success in my career that I did have - I would have picked races with very hard bike/run combos and focused on winning those races. Kona was just never the race for me. But it was "Kona!" And I picked a really bad time to decide to race Kona; I took a huge hit in my swim when they split the male and female pros. Because the 1st pack (not off-the-front) female swimmers tended to be perfect pacers for me. 2012 - my first year in Kona - was the first year of split swim starts for male/female pros. That was a huge difference maker. I think in a mixed start, I made the 2nd group easily in 2012, and I probably came top-10. Shrinking the size of the swim in Kona from 100ish men and women to 50ish men made a huge difference to me. Kona was never a great race for me, but it was especially bad with a split swim.
I'm just not built for high-speed openers. Even with cycling, the delta between my absolute peak power and sustained anaerobic power is fairly low. Absolute peak of 1200w but I can do just about 800w for 1min. The pursuit is as short as I can race competitively. Like, some pursuiters can race the kilo competitively - like Ashton. But not me. I just don't have the physiology for it.
Sam's a LOT younger than I was. That's definitely a consideration when it comes to where his focus should lie. In my early 30's, with my build and physiology, it was probably a waste to focus on swimming. I should have been more like Kienle - doubled down on running. The time I put into running directly translated into improved run performance. Both speed and volume directly translated into triathlon success. Biking was more mixed; it was very specific riding that made me faster - mileage didn't do much but intensity did. With swimming, it didn't really matter much what I did. Speed, power, mileage. Nothing really changed. All the time I ended up putting into swimming was a waste, in hindsight. But of course, that's in hindsight. i didn't know that I wouldn't be able to do what Cunnama or Hoffman did. It seems obvious now, but I don' t know if it was obvious then. Maybe. Certainly I think I tried longer than I should have to become a substantially better swimmer. And maybe Sam will follow the Hoffman and Cunnama model. They were both a LOT slower than I was when they started. And they became clear front pack swimmers. Maybe that will be Sam. Guys with more "powerful" builds like Sam and Lionel probably are more suited to it, especially to the 200 speed aspect of it. Certainly they're built much more like Hoffman and Cunnama are.
But it's worth remembering that there really are two choices when it comes to how to tackle this particular issue. One is to work to become a much better swimmer. The other is to tailor your race schedule to races where the swim is less critical and to just be a good enough swimmer.
However, i will say that the lesson I took away from this - playing to your strengths and shoring up your weaknesses is a better approach than trying to fundamentally "change" or "eliminate" your weaknesses - has been by far the most impactful one for post-triathlon professional life. In my career since triathlon, I've put my energy into playing to my strengths. So, at least from that standpoint, it was a frustrating - but invaluable - experience.
I wish Sam the best in his quest to become a front pack swimmer. But I also believe you can make a career without it. You just have to pick the right races.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp