I care. For me I’m not racing anyone else but myself, hence on any given day ‘we all race the same’ is irrelevant to me. I’m testing myself against myself. Repeatability, stability what ever you want to call it, year on year, standard course is valuable to me and almost impossible to find at the moment.
But why? I race a large number of the same events year after year. Whatever the exact distances, they are close to the same. Meaning, the swim bouys are always put in race morning so never in the same exact place. And where we have wind or heat, etc. totally changes the dynamics of the race. So there is a reason rankings are done only against folks who race on a course on a specific day all at the same time. Year to year comparisons do not mean a lot if you are talking about PR stuff, IMO.
people want to measure their own progress. placing vs other people doesnt quanitfy that. perhaps you beat your nemesis who always beats you. but he could have been sick, injured etc. so it doesnt mean you improved.
It can go both ways though. Course conditions can affect things drastically. I did the same race the past two years. Same course both years, unchanged, except due to the swim being in the ocean the tide was different. Year 1 the tide was incoming hard and I swam 5 minutes faster than year 2 when the tide was high and slack. There was also a bit more wind the second year. Concequently my time the second year was “worse” than my first by about 6 minutes. However I placed higher against the overall field, and my USAT score reflected the “better” performance the second year.
So sure it helps to have the same course year over year but basic course conditions can affect your overall times. That said your performance against the field can be skewed by simply not having the fastest guys show up that year.
So which do you trust? You can’t trust either metric.
It can go both ways though. Course conditions can affect things drastically. I did the same race the past two years. Same course both years, unchanged, except due to the swim being in the ocean the tide was different. Year 1 the tide was incoming hard and I swam 5 minutes faster than year 2 when the tide was high and slack. There was also a bit more wind the second year. Concequently my time the second year was “worse” than my first by about 6 minutes. However I placed higher against the overall field, and my USAT score reflected the “better” performance the second year.
So sure it helps to have the same course year over year but basic course conditions can affect your overall times. That said your performance against the field can be skewed by simply not having the fastest guys show up that year.
So which do you trust? You can’t trust either metric.
All valid points. Nothing is perfect, variables are impossible to remove completely but adding them unnecessarily massively impacts my ‘why’. I’m equally entitled to create my ‘why’, as you are for yours.
It can go both ways though. Course conditions can affect things drastically. I did the same race the past two years. Same course both years, unchanged, except due to the swim being in the ocean the tide was different. Year 1 the tide was incoming hard and I swam 5 minutes faster than year 2 when the tide was high and slack. There was also a bit more wind the second year. Concequently my time the second year was “worse” than my first by about 6 minutes. However I placed higher against the overall field, and my USAT score reflected the “better” performance the second year.
So sure it helps to have the same course year over year but basic course conditions can affect your overall times. That said your performance against the field can be skewed by simply not having the fastest guys show up that year.
So which do you trust? You can’t trust either metric.