Is it valid to compare tri WRs to single sport WRs??? The only tri WR I have really heard of is for Ironman, which I think is 7:45:58 by Marino Vanhoenacker at Ironman Austria last year. We may well debate about whether the course was short, etc, but my real question is regarding relative performances as compared to those of runners and swimmers. For example, if we take the IM WR at 7:45 and the marathon at 2:03, is a 20% slower time in each event the same level of performance??? I.e., is a 9:18 iron distance race the same level of athletic achievement as a 2:28 marathon??? Is a 15:30 IM the same as a 4:06 marathon???
If we estimate the (non-drafting) Olympic distance WR to be say 1:40, is a 2:00 OD result the equivalent of a 32 min 10K, or a 17:30 for the 1500m long course???
I realize that there is some drafting advantage on the swim and some advantage in riding is legal groups on the bike, and we could even take that into account, i.e. add X min to the record to reflect this.
We can debate what the various tri WRs would be but the main question in my mind is whether the level of achievement is the same. It seems logical that % slower than WR time should be valid regardless of the event.
I think it makes for an interesting discussion, but nothing is ever going to be proven. As you said lots of variables, lack of measurement. With track or running records they are pretty scrupulous. You can get a great day, low temp highdest alowed altitude, fast track, good rabbit, etc but its still not a big advantage over average.
If IM distance races had a record that was a big deal, and all participants flocked to the fast courses, like the marathon, the record would be close to 7 hours for men.
I think it makes for an interesting discussion, but nothing is ever going to be proven. As you said lots of variables, lack of measurement. With track or running records they are pretty scrupulous. You can get a great day, low temp highest allowed altitude, fast track, good rabbit, etc but its still not a big advantage over average.
If IM distance races had a record that was a big deal, and all participants flocked to the fast courses, like the marathon, the record would be close to 7 hours for men.
Close to 7 hrs??? Now that I would find hard to believe. A 7 hr IM would be something like 40:00 swim (1:03/100m) + 3:50 bike (29 mph) + 2:30 run (5:43/mi), a combined effort hard to fathom.
What would you predict for OD and HIM??? Maybe 1:36 and 3:00???
Why? Beach to Battleship has a swim in waterway with a tide coming in. Its 2.4 miles, but near where I live you could do 2.4 miles downstream in 35 minutes. Have bike racked right where you come out and ride a flat point tot point with prevailing wind at your back, thats not quite 112 (l0ts of courses a not 112) same with the marathon, lots of short courses.
The alternative, if you want to make a big deal about a WR, is to be strict on standards, but with an IM that will either be a really contrived course or just boring. Plus it adds a ton of expense to strictly measure.
Why? Beach to Battleship has a swim in waterway with a tide coming in. Its 2.4 miles, but near where I live you could do 2.4 miles downstream in 35 minutes. Have bike racked right where you come out and ride a flat point tot point with prevailing wind at your back, thats not quite 112 (l0ts of courses a not 112) same with the marathon, lots of short courses.
The alternative, if you want to make a big deal about a WR, is to be strict on standards, but with an IM that will either be a really contrived course or just boring. Plus it adds a ton of expense to strictly measure.
Obviously such a course would not be valid for a WR, just as the 2:03 at Boston was ruled not valid. For a valid WR, there could be no aids from downstream swims, riding and running with a tailwind, etc. Relative to the $$$ these races are taking in, the measurement cost would be very small.
Anyway, you’re really missing the point which is whether, all things being equal and strictly controlled, is a 20% slower time in a tri event = 20% slower in a pure run or swim event??? I fully realize that “nothing will ever be proved”, but from a strictly mathematical/logical standpoint, they should be, again IF the course is accurately measured with no downstream swim or tailwind on point-to-point bike and run.
But I can look up the WR for any track or road distance and have a arguement about wether the mens or womans record is “better” based on which one is closer % wise. For triathlon, tel me what the WR is. Anything you respond with you’ll end up with an arguement that its not a legit course. From a strictly mathmatical/logical standpoint you have to start with proper measurement and that doesn’t exist, so the arguemnt isn’t “logical”
But I can look up the WR for any track or road distance and have a argument about whether the mens or womans record is “better” based on which one is closer % wise. For triathlon, tell me what the WR is. Anything you respond with you’ll end up with an argument that it’s not a legit course. From a strictly mathematical/logical standpoint you have to start with proper measurement and that doesn’t exist, so the argument isn’t “logical”
I fully agree that accurate measurement is crucial. For the sake of argument, let’s just say that the OD WR were to be validated on an accurately measured course at 1:40:00, or 100.0 minutes. If I go 2:00 or 20% slower on the same course under the same conditions, have I done the same as my friend the swimmer who goes 17:29 for 1500 meters long course, which is 20% slower than the 14:34 WR??? Is it the same as my runner friend who went 15:09 on the track for 5000m, which is 20% slower than the 12:37 WR??? Again, assume that the tri swim, bike, and run are all very accurately measured and no downstream or tailwinds, etc.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with comparing men’s and women’s records…???
I think you can compare your self to a % of WR for swimming and track athletics where conditions are a lot less variable. With road race running and non drafting triathlon it would be more accurate to compare your performance to course records as different courses can throw up a wide spread of times. I personally think with ironman/ iron distance races it should be changed to a world best performance and course records should be regarded more highly than they currently are.
Comparing triathlon times to single sport records is something you really couldn’t do. swimming your cant even think about it pool v open water, wetsuit v non wetsuit, drafting v non drafting. you could do it somewhat with the run if the are IAAF approved and measured courses, although energy systems % is highly different between open and triathlon running so somewhat pointless.
With how fast the men could go over the iron distance, i think another around another 6min could come off the time of Andreas Raeler’s 07:41:33 at Roth based on his single discipline splits to the fastest splits on the course combined with aero advancements.
I think you can compare your self to a % of WR for swimming and track athletics where conditions are a lot less variable. With road race running and non drafting triathlon it would be more accurate to compare your performance to course records as different courses can throw up a wide spread of times. I personally think with ironman/ iron distance races it should be changed to a world best performance and course records should be regarded more highly than they currently are.
Comparing triathlon times to single sport records is something you really couldn’t do. swimming your cant even think about it pool v open water, wetsuit v non wetsuit, drafting v non drafting. you could do it somewhat with the run if the are IAAF approved and measured courses, although energy systems % is highly different between open and triathlon running so somewhat pointless.
With how fast the men could go over the iron distance, i think another around another 6min could come off the time of Andreas Raeler’s 07:41:33 at Roth based on his single discipline splits to the fastest splits on the course combined with aero advancements.
Ya, tri WRs would most likely be set on flat, accurately measured courses on cool, windless days. Also, really my point is if a person goes closer to tri WRs than he/she ever did in single sport events, then he/she is more competitive in triathlon than he/she was in their single sports. The most well known examples of this are guys like Mark Allen and Dave Scott. Both swam in college but neither came close to setting any NCAA D1 records or WRs. They are both excellent swimmers but just not world class.
Also, I’m not at all suggesting comparing swim splits to pool times nor run splits to stand-alone running races.
What are the triathlon ‘world records’?
How accurate were the courses that they were set on?
I realize that there are no officially sanctioned WRs in tri, which is why I put the quotation marks around the phrase “triathlon WRs”. However, we can estimate what the records would be based on the numerous races. On an accurately measured, flat course on a cool, windless day, with no drafting on the bike, I’d say the OD WR would be around 1:40:00. My main point is, regardless of whether we put it at 1:39 or 1:41, or even 1:35, is whether a a 20% slower time is same level of achievement as in running or swimming. I think I’ve explained this in my other posts. I am mainly focused on OD races (non-drafting, of course) since the distances are short enough to be accurately measured.
So you want to compare performances against actual records versus tri performances against estimates. What is the point, they are different sports that happen to include the same components.
Disregarding that we won’t get usable data for tri, I still don’t think a triathlete that is a certain % away from a WR will get the same respect a a runner would.
The WR for the marathon is 2:03. 10% is about 2:22. For Kona the record is 8:03, 10% is 8:51. My impression is amongst people who are pretty serious AGers in both events, would much rather be a 2:22 marathoner. You’ll win many many second tier races and even get to compete in a lot top tier races. 8:51 is fast but you’re not sniffing a win in any WTC event or even the biggest independant races.
I think with the course-to-course variability of distances, the best you can do is compare yourself against a particular course record, assuming the course hasn’t changed.
Disregarding that we won’t get usable data for tri, I still don’t think a triathlete that is a certain % away from a WR will get the same respect as a runner would.
The WR for the marathon is 2:03. 10% is about 2:22. For Kona the record is 8:03, 10% is 8:51. My impression is amongst people who are pretty serious AGers in both events, would much rather be a 2:22 marathoner. You’ll win many many second tier races and even get to compete in a lot top tier races. 8:51 is fast but you’re not sniffing a win in any WTC event or even the biggest independent races.
OK, now you’re hitting the nail, except 10% for the mary is 2:15 not 2:22, but this just makes the point even more. So, my question is why is this??? Is it because of the bike, which is kind of an equalizer to some extent, i.e. the % variation from median bike split to best bike split is less than for the run or swim??? In any case, this is why I posted this question, to try to get some ideas on why an 8:51 at Kona does not quite command the same respect as a 2:15 for the marathon.
I think a lot of it has to do with the power needed to go faster.
In running more power gives more speed, almost linear. In cycling, due to the higher speeds compared to running, fighting the wind causes increases in power to give smaller gains in time. In swimming its even worse more power doesn’t give much in the way of time savings, plus technique is a huge factor.