I got a question…Why are some of the fastest Ironman times from the early 90’s when guys like Mark Allen were riding bikes that failed in comparison to todays machines.
I tend think that all of this mumbo jumbo about bike drag and race wheels is just a way to sell bikes… obviously being able to theoretically shave 3 min. off your bike time becuase of an extra 5K spent on parts and technology doesn’t matter when you are hit by a 40mph cross wind in Kona!
Flyfishing is a delicate art, compared to trolling.
back in the day the gents need only race one IM each year. just to qualify one needs to race atleast one to get to the big dance. That, and the days of “cherry picking” races for prize money are over. So many athletes competing at a very high level during all parts of the year IMHO leaves most who are capable of turning out an 8hr and change at the IM World championships cooked. I could be wrong but that is my opinion. ERIK
I think the obvious answer is “They were better”. Is that idea so horrible to contemplate?
.
back in the day the gents need only race one IM each year. just to qualify one needs to race atleast one to get to the big dance. That, and the days of “cherry picking” races for prize money are over. So many athletes competing at a very high level during all parts of the year IMHO leaves most who are capable of turning out an 8hr and change at the IM World championships cooked. I could be wrong but that is my opinion. ERIK
Maybe but since previous year ironman winners do not have to qualify and back in the day used to have the ironman world series which consisted of 4 to 5 or more ironman races… Granted tinley and pauli kiuru pretty much dominated those and would do 5 in a year.
Now Mark allen of course would do nice and hawaii but don’t think he ever did more than one in a year but he did race regularly.
Dave was same way although his fastest was at ironman japan 8:01 I think not sure what year. then Greg welch had tough race to beat pauli in japan in 1994 year he beat dave at ironman hawaii.
Luc Van Lierde’s also did more than one ironman when he won hawaii I believe…
Now I do agree that could be a factor for some with potential of fast times like the guys who kept busting 8 hours in roth then barely made top 5 in hawaii later in the year.
BUT it’s more due to ironman has become a strategy race hold it close on the bike no gambles then out run your competition with some minor exceptions
like norman who brought back the old wolfgang,helriegal,jurgan break them on the bike and hope you have enough time on the run to hang on.
There is no real incentive to break the record and take a chance and bombing rather than trying for the win or top 5 and some money.
althought strange for a long time hawaii offered no prize money which is why allen always did nice for the money often close to hawaii and he suffered in hawaii but then prize money and a change in dates and strategy and in 1989 he won(now don’t blast me if I’m wrong about prize money I just can’t remember when they started offering it).
That race where both he and dave broke the record I believe it was personel I believe and they pushed each other and prize money had nothing to do with it Mark had failed numerous times figured out why and stayed with dave. So until you get a real rivelry(not the fake macca,stadler wrestling thing but a real one) and get two guys or gals out there who say the heck with the win lets see what we can do or die trying you won’t see faster times.
Also back in the day there was some drafting and press vehicles probably attributed to that as well.
Time will tell… maybe if someone threw in enough money(used to be $100,000 to anyone who could break 8 hours at hawaii) like $500k or million.
you probably won’t see any records for a while.
Just my 2 cents worth of rambling…(sorry) just had 8 inches of snow here and 2 days ago was 74 degrees then going to be 70 this week strange.
.so I’m bored.
Just a thought did they drug test back then? I know genetics play a huge roll but looking at pictures of Allen’s legs I find it hard to believe a person can retain so much leg mass putting in the amount of training a pro puts in. Again, just a thought.
Points all noted… have not thought of the “strategery :)” aspect! I really would love to see a full on smack down of all the best just gunning for the record and going on 100% fresh… a great prize purse may be a carrot.
I think the obvious answer is “They were better”. Is that idea so horrible to contemplate?
I think the talent pool is as deep as it’s ever been right now, and a lot of new up and comers. I think last yr if Macca wouldn’t of had the mech problem (say what you will about it), you would of seen Crowie having to run faster. I think you are going to see the lead people having to push themselves to go to that Mark Allen/Dave Scott level for the wins, meaning faster times!!! I’m thinking one of the largest pools for fast, legit contenders for next yr!!!
Darren
Here’s the answer: Mark Allen vs. Dave Scott. They pushed each other to go as fast as they possibly could. I asked Dave Scott about this several years ago when he was a Leukemia and Lymphoma Society sponsor at St. Anthony’s: he contributes a great deal to his rivalry with Mark Allen.
I got a question…Why are some of the fastest Ironman times from the early 90’s when guys like Mark Allen were riding bikes that failed in comparison to todays machines.
I tend think that all of this mumbo jumbo about bike drag and race wheels is just a way to sell bikes… obviously being able to theoretically shave 3 min. off your bike time becuase of an extra 5K spent on parts and technology doesn’t matter when you are hit by a 40mph cross wind in Kona!
I think it had to do with the way the pros started thinking like lemmings. It became more of a tactical race as they all thought the race was won on the run. But, it you are going to have a fast overall time you need a really fast bike. So, they were “all” more tactical on the bike hoping to “win” it on the run. It was not until Steve Larsen came along, followed by Norman and a couple of others, showing that if everyone was racing that way that it was possible for someone with just an ok run to “win it on the bike” that has caused some to rethink this approach and, now, most are “racing” all three disciplines and those are the ones who seem to be winning now and the times are coming down again.
If we want super fast times, we also need another Oct 30th (or therabouts) race date. Generally it will be slightly cooler, so less differential between the ocean and lavafields heating up, meaning slightly less wind (or winds later).
I hadn’t thought about that but it makes sense - start later in the season and get more favorable conditions.
Lots of “good wind” years were week 3 and week 4 of October. Also, I don’t know if they get more likelihood of cloud in Hawaii later in October, but in general cloudy days will be less windy than sunny ones, cause the lavafields won’t heat up as quickly. The moment the lavafields get really hot compared to the ocean, you get big wind gusts.
I got a question…Why are some of the fastest Ironman times from the early 90’s when guys like Mark Allen were riding bikes that failed in comparison to todays machines.
I tend think that all of this mumbo jumbo about bike drag and race wheels is just a way to sell bikes… obviously being able to theoretically shave 3 min. off your bike time becuase of an extra 5K spent on parts and technology doesn’t matter when you are hit by a 40mph cross wind in Kona!
I may be wrong, but it seems like the bike technology will help the “avg. joe” more than the top athletes, who are basically all equal or just about at the same playing field as far as fitness. The avg AGer would seem to get alot more of an edge and advantage to this new technology now than 20 years ago.
Drugs is the only possible answer, sorry folks. Every other sport, particularly endurance sports (cycling, track, x-country skiing, swimming, etc.), where there are long standing records have been afflicted by drugs. Sports that have so far avoided the morass of drugs have shown chronic and steady improvements in the records. To argue that there is something unique in tri, or that tri athletes weren’t aware of the performance gains of drugs, is simply delusional. (There are still records from the steriod laden days of the East German teams that have stood for 30 years that are only now being re-reached.)
Think about the question in the perspective of every other advancement that has taken place and how every other “clean” sport has benefited. These include, in no particular order, equipment, training techniques, sports nutrition, race day nutrition, psychological coaching, increased specificity of athlete type at earlier ages, wind tunnel testing, video performance enhancement, injury management, etc.
So somehow race strategies and tactics or mano-a-mano competition twenty years ago were enough to produce long standing and unimproveable times. I don’t think so.
I know my argument is largely circumstantial but the logic is overwhelming.
This in no way diminishes current individual accomplishments. Nor should it detract from the sports we love.
All good arguments…but I can’t help but wonder that somehow we are approaching the apex of human ability. I mean, all the technological advances of today only account for about a 5-10 min. “theoretical” gain in bike times and yet there is wide variances in the course from year to year…so even though there are gains in the wind tunnel etc. maybe they’re affects are further diminished due to athletic variations between years, weather, temp. etc etc.
Maybe but since previous year ironman winners do not have to qualify and back in the day used to have the ironman world series which consisted of 4 to 5 or more ironman races… Granted tinley and pauli kiuru pretty much dominated those and would do 5 in a year.
Tinley said after the year that he did win the IM World Series and won or placed in 5 IM races, that doing that nearly killed him. He admits now that, that sent him into a downward spiral of over-doing it and over-training, that he never recovered from.
It is an excessive amount, even for athletes at this level. Now I know there will be people here who will jump in and say, what about Hillary Biscay or Bella Comerford or Joe Bonness. You need to understand that these people are recovery freaks-of-nature. Wonderful freaks, but none the less freaks. To put them up there as some norm or standard that others or all should shoot for is a gross mistake.
Hillary and Bella are not freaks, they are very disciplined. they know how to train from the best coach in the world, brett sutton. i’m sorry, but there is no difference btw them and the other women pros other than the training. the other girls should be bloody curious what they are doing to be able to race a full schedule and actually make money at the sport. it just goes to show that having the best coach, can take a novice like Chrissie and turn her into world champion. just imagine if bree wee, lindsey corbin-especially her, and kate majors were to be coach by brett. so glad rebekah keat has gotten the chance to be with brett. watch girls, she’s going to be on fire.
the obvious answer is that they mismeasured the courses. they can’t possibly have gotten it right without modern gps.
and god liked them better. clearly.