On an ironman distance event. The bike is the same distance as some of the longer one day bike races and longer than the oft mentioned century. The run is a marathon -named after . Yet the swim is relatively short. In the world of marathon open-water swimming the shortest race is 5k - with a lot of the swimmers being a 10k or 25k swim.
Just wondering.
From ironmanlive:
*During the awards ceremony for a Hawaii running race, a debate ensues among competitors about who is more fit – swimmers, runners or other athletes. One of the participants, Navy Commander John Collins, dreams up a race to settle the argument. He proposes combining three existing races together, to be completed in succession: the Waikiki Roughwater Swim (2.4 miles), the Around-Oahu Bike Race (112 miles, originally a two-day event) and the Honolulu Marathon (26.2 miles). “Whoever finishes first we’ll call the Ironman,” said Collins. *****
I know that but, I guess I am just dreaming.
Well, from my perspective, the swim is the longest part: Staop pedalling, you coast. Stop running, you walk. Stop swimming- you drown.
Seems to me, if they wanted it to be fair and judge the best “overall” athlete, they’d change it to distances that take the same amount of time. (Don’t change the IM, it has tradition … come up with a new annual race … that’s what I mean)
Swim for 3 hours, ride for 3 hours, run for 3 hours … whatever diatnces those would be.
Let the swimmers gain some time on the cyclist, etc. The gap (in regards to time) between the best swimmers and the average is not comparable to the gap between the best runners and the average (in regards to time).
The Ironman arose from a discussion on who were the better athletes – swimmers, cyclists, or runners. Then they set the race up with the swimmers being at a disadvantage. Hence, swim training gets much less attention than the others. Survive the swim, kick butt on the next 2.
If the swim was 25K, you’d better believe folks would take the swim more seriously. If the best swimmers could open up a 30-40min lead on poor swimmers (but VG cyclers & runners), non-swimmers would notice.
I’m new to this and not trying to post like an expert. I posted, not out of qualification, but because I had the same question in regards to IM races. From what I understand it’s basically a arce for marathoners that can tolerate a good deal of cycling and swimmming. Is that wrong?
The swim is so short to keep my from dying. I appreciate it.
And I don’t know about you TT, but I can run and bike for a lot longer time than I can swim. A 3 hr run = some pain. A 3 hr swim = Davy Jones’ locker.
=) Yeah … me too. But, I’ve trained the run a lot more than I have the swim.
I’m not going to argue against IM races, b/c they are what they are, and they have great tradition in them. I’m just stating that if we’re going to have a race that determines who the best overall athletes are among swimmers, cyclists, and triathletes (the best combo of each) … then have a race with equal portions of all 3.
It would be interesting to see if a great marathoner could overcome the time deficit lost on an “marathon equivalent” swim. It would also be interesting to see if an elite swimmer oculd hold onto their lead through the bike and marathon.
I like to swim, so I guess I’m partial to it a bit. I don’t like seeing it be the red-headed stepchild of the race.
The “Olympic” distance seems to produce a well-proportioned race (i.e., athletes need to be good in ALL 3 sports to excel and it takes about equal effort to drop the same no. of minutes off each leg).
So I propose a new type of long distance race using the olympic distance as a ‘base’: a ~4mile/=6km swim; ~100mile/=160km bike; and ~25mile/=40km run.
I think the current Ironman distance favors the cyclist and disfavors the swimmer. And I think no specialist should be favored–ya gotta be good in all 3!
I think if the swim were a lot longer more people would turn to duathlon. I enjoy the swim but I don’t think I would if it were more than 1-1.5 hours. I think a lot of triathletes tolerate the swim because it’s part of the sport but truly enjoy the bike and run.
Heh. It’s better not to even get me started on this thread. I’m an ex-college swimmer that was always terrible at running.
The ways triathlon discounts the swim isn’t even funny. In many ways, I have the same wishes as TT does where I’d like to see all three events being equal in time - the swim taking an hour, bike taking an hour, and run taking an hour for all good athletes. How many people, though, do you see signing up for a 2 mile swim, 20 mile bike, and 8 mile run triathlon. The turnout for an event like that would be terrible… at the very least filled by all ex-swimmers. 
But I think the lack of seriousness of the swim really cheapens the sport. I know a good deal of triathletes that barely train at all for the swim. You can train once a week for the swim and be ok. Try training once a week for the bike and run legs and you’re going to find yourself in a world of hurt.
Add to that the fact that wetsuits are a standard now and you have to train even that much less. How come you can take a poor swimmer and throw on a wetsuit and out comes a decent swimmer. There is no similar crutch device that’s allowed on the bike or the run that brings poorer athletes in these events closer to the better athletes. And please… spare me the safety issues. If temperature were really an issue, they’d require one of all athletes or no athletes. And if people were really worried about drowning, I’d be nice and offer them the standard issue orange coast guard life preserver to wrap around their neck to use if they really wanted to.
But alas… I’m in a dreamworld. I’m all for people participating in the sport, mostly because I’m for people living healthy lifestyles and triathlon would not be as popular as it is if you actually had to know how to swim well to participate. Still, in the back of my mind it urks me how meaningless the swim really is.
EDIT: I meant to say “train once a week” for the individual sports, not “once a day” I like originally did.
I don’t think that 3 hours in each event would make it fair, but I do think that more of a balance would be interesting. I like that 6K/150K/25K idea for a race.
But I also agree that longer swim events would drop the amateur participant numbers.
I think that it would be fun to see a variety of events with all sorts of distances. That would keep us all on our toes. I think that putting triathletes in some unfamiliar territory would be great for the sport.
It could be similar to the early years of IM (well, not really, but kind of) when proper pacing was unknown. If new distances are created outside of the standards of OLY, HIM, and IM, then it might make for some interesting races.
Justin D
I definitely agree here. I don’t come from a swimming background, but I have been working hard to bring my swim time down. Its kind of funny because if I say I am swimming 25K in a week, people are like “why???”, but if I said I was riding 500K, “ok.”
I don’t think that people necessarily ignore the swim, but once they reach what they believe is a point of diminshing returns, they shift their focus. This is highly variable to each and every athlete so its not one standard time.
One of my coworkers is training for Caliman. He can swim sub 70 without swimming more than once/week. For someone who works 30 hours/week and goes to grad school, he believes his free time is better spent biking and running.
Another friend of mine from Florida doesn’t swim train at all, but he surfs and he usually swims around 60-65 min.
Justin D
Being a former swimmer myself, I have had pretty animated discussions about the length of the swim.
I like the distances used in the international long distance triathlons: S: 4k, B: 120k, R: 30k. Of course, this ends up making the overall race a little shorter (in both time and distance), but at least it puts more emphasis on the swim.
I have thought for a long time this should be very simple: the time lost by the MEDIAN swimmer to the best swimmer should be the same as the time lost by the MEDIAN biker or runner to the fastest biker or runner in any particular triathlon. For example, at the most recent Ironman Florida, 1991 people finished the swim. The media swimmer would then be number 995 out of the water. His time was 1:14:54, compared to the 49:54 swum by James Bonney. Thus, the time lost by the median swimmer was 25 minutes exactly. Compare this to the median bikers and runners, who lost 1:26:36 and 1:54:26, respectively, to the top times in each of their legs. Fair to swimmers? Not even close. But this is the traditional IM distance, with its roots based in the three separate endurance races held in Hawaii. Would I like to see a long distance triathlon with a more fair swim? Of course, but it ain’t gonna happen any time soon.
Now, it would be MUCH more possible for sprint triathlons to approximate a more fair distance. On the other hand, race directors tend to keep the swim as short as possible in order to not scare away the many hydrophobes and novices that do these events. Unless you get a race director with some guts to stick up for swimmers in your area, you’re screwed there, too.
So, what’s a fishie to do?
Note: What may seem surprising about the Florida IM results is that the median runner lost almost 30 minutes more than the median biker. Remember that Florida is an extremely flat bike course, and the times on the bike tend to reflect that. If the course had been a little bit hillier, you’d see some more separation between the men and the boys on the bike leg.
So, what’s a fishie to do?<<
Become a race director, then you can put the kind of race on that you want.
clm, where my race would be 1k swim, 200k bike, 100yd run
where my race would be 1k swim, 200k bike, 100yd run <<
I’d be the first one to signup!
But I also agree that longer swim events would drop the amateur participant numbers.
I agree. I wouldn’t change the events as there are. People are used to them, and amateurs seem to dig the distances. I would ADD one race, and winner is the “WORLD’s GREATEST TRIATHLETE”. Equal portions of swim, bike , and run., Let’s see who has the best combination of the 3.
As others have said, it’s not set up equally. It’s a race for marathoners that can cycle and swim a bit. The Ironman tradition is too rich to drop/alter it entirely. I’m talking about a race for the pros … to see which is really the best “Combination of the 3 events”.
The person that pointed out the difference betweent he 1st & median athlete described exactly what I am referring to.
Time to break out my standard rant on the subject:
I think the point that is often missed is that this is a Triathlon. It is not simply a swimming race, a bike TT, and a Marathon held back to back; it is a whole entity unto itself. It seems that the swimmers are always whining that the length of the swim is not proportional, putting them at a disadvantage. And, the cyclists are whining because they come out of the water so far down and have to draft or bend the rules in order to unleash their awesome bike speed. And, the runners would rather not swim at all and just do a Duathlon. This is a TRIATHLON. If the swimmers want to do better, they had better learn how to bike and run. If the strong cyclists find the roads too congested for them to ride as fast as they would like to within the rules then they really should spend some time working on their swim. How many times have we heard people dismiss the swim as unimportant and train only hard enough to get through it. The truth is that the swim is VERY important if you want to be in a position to ride with minimal traffic and passing requirements (which uses up a whole lot of energy as well). Why should the sport be changed to accommodate the strengths of one group of athletes? The sport is what it is and we need to learn how to compete in the sport as it exists, not change it because we don’t want to spend more time in the pool.
Haim
Haim, you nailed it. It’s what the sport is. Imagine if someone was a better putter than driver in golf. Don’t think golf would make the fairway half the distance and the putting green 3x larger. How about we change the height of the basketball rim to 7 feet so I can dunk, and while we’re at it, move the three point line in. The sport is what it is. The athletes need to adapt to it, not vice versa.
Haim and haennp,
You’re both missing my point. My beef is with the race directors that are making the swim shorter and shorter because of how many people are fearful of the swim. In my area, two races that last year were 1k/30k/5k have become 600m/30k/5k. Why? Because the longer swim scares some people off. My question to these people (and don’t kid yourself, there are a LOT of triathletes with this attitude), why don’t you just become duathletes?
Ironman is what it is. So is Olympic Distance. Those won’t change.
And let’s not forget, the greatest IM champs in the sport were all swimmers. Swimmers can and do adapt to the other sport easier than do runners and cyclists.
There is a local Splash n Dash Series here in Phoenix. They have races of the following distances:
500m S/ 5k R - Swimming Lyte
800m S/ 4k R - Getting Better
1000m S / 3k R - Now we’re talking!!
600m S / 6k R - Calling the Runners
1000m S/ 6k R - Not bad balance
800m S/ 5k R - Also not bad
Go to http://www.redrocktriathlon.com to find out more info if you are interested.
Ed