I recently purchased John Babbitt’s book “25 yrs of the Iron Man Triathlon World Championship”. At the back it has top ten fastest swim, bike and run times. It’s surprising to see that not a single swim, bike or run from the four events held so far in the 21st century from the year 2000 has made it into the top ten from the pro men. Mark Allen still has the fastest run from 1989, Lars Jorgensen has the two fastest swim times from 1998 and 1995 and the three top bikes are from 1996, 1993 and 1980.
The bike times really surprise me. Despite the supposed technical innovations there is not a post 1996 time in the top ten. No sign of Steve Larsen or any of those 16 guys benefitting from the draft in last years “group ride” at Kona.
The women much fair better with their times being a bit more current although Paula Newbie-Frazer and Erin Baker still hold the two fastest bike times from 1993. Age group records vary from 1993 to 2002.
You can’t make excuses for the male pros when looking at the women and AG’ers. These guys are just getting slower. The times speak for themselves.
I think it would be interesting to see an analysis of the top 10 places (men and women) in Ironman racing over the last 25 years. I’ll bet that although the winning times are slower, the mean time of the top 10 has generally gotten faster, with a smaller standard deviation. Does anyone have the data to prove me right or wrong?
The info is in the book. Reid’s time in 2000 was the 11th fastest, DeBoom’s times in 2001 and 2002 were the 15th and 13th fastest. Reid didn’t crack the top ten either in 2003. Fastest time is still LVL in 1996 followed by Mark Allen’s times in 93 and 92.
In the women the six fastest times were all set by Paula Newby-Fraser, the course record being in 1992. Natasha Badmann is the fastest non Paula time for 7th overall fastest in 2002.
We here a lot about LVL, Scott and Allen, but Paula is the real dominator.
Sorry, I meant the top ten male and female in each race over the last 25 years. ie compare the 2003 top 10 to the '02 top 10, etc. So you should end up with 2000 data points. (25 years x 10 places x 2 sexes x (3 splits + 1 overall time)).
I think that you need to cut the current top folks a bit of slack for the following reasons:
The sport is still pretty young, let’s face it we are still trying to figure out the optimal mix of training is and what the best tactics are for a race like Ironman.
To get good, I mean really good physical conditions at IMH, is a rarity. I would say that optimal day comes along at 1 in 10 years. That yields only 2 maybe 3 REALLY good days in the history of the event.
All sports reach plateaus in performance, before the next big break-through. Derek Clayton’s World Best marathon time stood for many years with no one coming close. Recently, the marathon times have been dropping rapidly. Perhaps we are in a bit of a plateau with Ironman distance racing.
The big stars of 10 - 15 years ago were on the cutting edge. They broke new ground on the training and racing front. Race pay-days were not as big or as important. Therefore they could afford to really go for it more. Now the stakes at IMH are relativly speaking very large in $$$ and exposure and I think that this has lead to more conservitive racing.
The talent pool at the or near the very top is getting better every year and right now has never been deeper, but compared to many other sports it’s still relativly thin. I say this with the utmost respect, but when someone like Steve Larsen can come in and within a year finish in the top 10 of the “world championship” - that’s an indicator that the talent is still thin. What other endurance sport could you do that in - not distance running, not nordic skiing, not swimming, not cycling.
Hey guys, I thought the years 1986 - 1995 was a press vehicle draft fest (or so I have heard on this forum), as the ABC/NBC motorcade would surround the likes of Allan and Scott. Hey in 1995, Hellriegel passed the motorcade, and biked solo to a 13 min lead out of T2 ahead of the Allan group, only to be run down with a few miles to spare. I believe the second fastest time of all time is still Hellriegel’s second in 1996 when he went 8:06 behind Van Lierde’s 8:04 and rode something like 4:24. I’m unsure if there was a motorcade for this :-). Anyway, assuming there has been no motorcade close to the pros since 1995, and they only have each other to “pace” off, then the bike and run times should naturally be slower.
But how do you explain the drop off in times at Roth or any other “fast Ironman” like Austria or Australia. Don’t forget that way back when (~1990), Dave Scott also went 8:03 at Ironman Japan, racing solo with no one to push him. In 1997, Van Lierde, Zack, Leder and Hellriegel all went sub 8. There have been no sub 8’s at Roth in a while. I believe Pauli Kiuru’s record at Ironman Australia still stands at 8:0X. Clearly they can’t be racing “conservatively” at all these other races like they do in KONA. I think the guys were just faster in the late 80s and early 90’s at the top end of the guy’s field. Maybe it is deeper now, but not as fast across the board at all the Ironmans out there.
Can you believe that LVL actually made his historic race on a Giant!
How can that be? How did he accelerate with that light rear end? How could he handle the bike with that long wheel base? How did he possibly find a fit with only three sizes to chooses from? And with such shoddy workmanship how did the bike stay together?
Do we even dare to imagine what he would have done on a Cervelo?
It’s a wonder the ONCE riders didn’t fall of their bikes in those hard mountain stages. And those TTs, those guys must of gone easy, because if they pushed it the bikes would of fallen apart!
/sarcasm
Giant makes good bikes, and LVL probably had a custom made one.
The criticism that I hear about the pros is so true. It appears and I say appear, that they lack the true grit and courage to blow away the competition. It takes enormous confidence with oneself to know that you can swim hard, bike harder, and then blow away the field on the run. I remember reading an article about the IRONWAR. Dave Scott was saying how the times of '88 were soft and they were only running high 2:50’s. He said that if they did that in '89, then him and Allen would be miles ahead, and guess what happened =). This pro men need to suck it up and push to another level. It is easy for me to be an AGer and talk, but come on people!!! I am tired of the bland ITU style ironmans. Give me a performance like IM Australia where Macca outswam, outbiked, then outran the field.
“I just read a review of the Cervelo Soloist that trashed Giant.”
Who wrote that?
At this very moment in my basement I have a Cervelo P2K and a Giant TCR1(upgraded with dura ace & aero wheels) hanging side by side. I love my TCR.
I’ve never rode a Soloist, but I’ve heard some people describe it’s handling as being quite twitchy. IMO, the handling of my TCR is impeccable. Inspires confidence the way it handles on those twisty 75 kph descents on our hill rides.
Well he doesn’t exactly say the word “Giant” when he talks about the three previous compact frames he’d owned, but it’s probably a fair assumption. Obviously he’s not a Giant dealer!!
Tom is most definately NOT describing a TCR/OCR handling characteristics as I’ve known them. My TCR is the best handling frame I’ve ever owned and all kinds of road racers would agree. Perhaps an issue is that he could be one of the small % that falls into the cusp between frame sizes. One advantage the Soloist does have is availability in six frame sizes instead of three for the TCR(more recently four). It’s not an issue for me, the medium frame fits me fine. I have a friend two inches taller who also rides a medium TCR but with the next size aero seat post and a 2 cm longer stem. Fits him great also. Some people may not fit one of the frame sizes, so this would be an issue.
I stopped at some used bookstores and bought some older (mid 80s) tri books and its interesting how much the training differs compared to today.
It’s almost funny, but we mock their excessive training methods in favor of our more “intellectual” modern, scientific approaches (it’s been my experience that in any training “scientific” usually means watered down or sissyfied, under the umbrella of “recovery enhanced”) … yet without tech developments we would be even slower than the “neanderthal triathletes” of old that “trained too long” or “trained too hard”.
All of the tech advances … bikes, Bodylink, HRMs, CT, aero bars, wetsuits, bike shoes, etc … all this stuff that shreds time off your total, and we still can match the times of those who basically were training by trial and error.
25 years of research, trial and error, is enough time to get a good bearing on something. Look at the other m,ajor sports … they certainly didn’t go backwards in progress. In every sport the athletes continually got better, and then one superathlete made the sport a household name (Babe Ruth, Jim Thorpe, Bill Russell, Maurice Richard, etc). Triathlon’s have not seen this superathlete. This sport desperately needs a Tiger Woods
Me thinks present day athletes rely too heavily on technical advances rather than training to improve race times.
The bikes they used in the good ol days are laughable by today’s standards … yet the race faster. There is no way that the top 10 bike times shouldn’t all be “the last 10 years”.
Seriously, you listen to how coaches talk today about the advanced training systems, the advanced training technology. Then, you look at all the expensive equipment entailed in making you faster, and it’s quite obvious what the difference is … the athlete.
The thing that drew me to triathlon is it seemed that beyond everything else, it still came down to “who had the most balls” and who could tolerate the most discomfort for the sake of winning.
Disappointingly, the more I learn about the sport, the more it seems to be less about “balls” and more about who can spend their way to a top 5 finish. I’m hoping that won’t always be the case.
These things usually go in cycles (at least they do in other sorts), so there may come a time when tris go back to training like they did in the 80s … or perhaps not, most folks will usually go with the program that is the easiest … and that would be modfern programs.
“it’s quite obvious what the difference is … the athlete.”
Also interesting to note that there have been seven sub eight hour IM’s (not at Kona), the fastest being LVL in 7:50:27 at Roth in 1997. Nobody has gone sub eight at any course in the 21st century.
Two I wasn’t aware of. Not annoyed at all Francois. All these sub eights occured in the 20th century. Doesn’t this add further evidence the male pros have been getting slower in the 21st century.
sorry … for some reason I was under the impression that comments were revealing that times today did not cmpare well to times of the 80s (or around there).
In regards to “times in the 21st century” … we’re only talking about 3 years. We’ll see how times change in the upcoming years before we can really conclude much of anything.
“times in the 21st century” … we’re only talking about 3 years."
Technically it’s four - 2000, 2002, 2002 & 2003. My prediction is that neither LVL or Paula’s Kona records will be broken in the next couple of years. After that we’ll just have to wait and see if a new tri superstar emerges. A changing of the guard is definately overdue.
Are you guys nuts? Sure the times are slower now, but there are lots of differences. I have raced Hawaii 11 times now, and can assure you the course now is conservatively 10 minutes slower than the old course from Kona Surf Resort. The difference between todays athletes and the athletes of the 80’s is the simple fact that the Ironman race has now become more marshalled and the press vehicles up the front have been pulled away. I recall in 1988 and again very badly in 1992,93 and 94 when I raced, coming back from Havi and seeing the lead men surrounded by an onterage of press vehicles. This has been taken away now and the men are forced to ride more of their own race. This has to slow the run times up considerbaly aswell as the bike times. Their is the famous picture of Scott Molina coming back from Havi with the press Cars all around him. This is now gone and has naturally slowed the marathon times down considerably. This being said, I spoke with Mark Aleen and he agrees that the current Marathon course is 5 minutes tougher than the old course and that Tim Debooms marathon run time of 2.45 in 2001 was an incredible marathon and equivalent to a low 2.40 on the old course. peter ran a 2.48 this year which was one of the best marathons (taking into consideration the course change) i think Hawaii has ever seen. The LVL year of 1996, was an exceptional year for conditions. This being said LVL is an amazing athlete and his time of 8:04 was well deserved. I am sure he will admit that todays guys are just as fast.
It is unfair to just look at the tiomes and compare the guys against the ages. The sport is different now, things are different now and course have changed. The Australian Ironman course that pauli kuiri holds the record on is a completely different course to the one that is raced today. To compare Maccas time, 8.14 with the time of 8.06 by kiuri is like comparing red wine with white. It is completely different. It might be the Australian Ironman but it is over a different course. The Roth race has had some subtle changes and slowed the times up a little. You cannot compare athletes across the ages unless the courses remain unchanged. Events like Wildflower, St Croix etc are held on the same course they were done on 20 years ago, and these times can be compared as it is fair. If you look at the modern day pro in these races, the times have gotten substantially faster.
You need to look at the real changes and speak to the people from both eras to understand. I have raced Hawaii in the 80’s, 90’s and now in the new Mellennium. I can assure you that the athletes of today are as tough, if not tougher than the athletes of yesteryear. The courses are tougher, the rules are tougher and the times although not faster, I think represent as good if not better performances.
Thats my say in the entire debate. Put Tim Deboom of 2001 in a race against Mark Allen and Dave Scott from 1989 and I think you would be very surprised of the outcome. I personally believe that tim would hold his own very well in this race.
All the evidence points towards the effects of global warming, apart from that minor point about correcting the run distance or changing the bike course.
There’s a greater pool of triathletes now; so higher probability of having an exceptional athelete or a record being broken.
Bikes have improved in 10 and 25 years; so times should have come down more.
Every book I’ve read states that heat effects performance and it is a touch warmer.
QED
The other point to consider is the deterioration of the roads over the past 25 years. Just wait till they redo the road surface.