IRONMAN TRIATHLON LANCE OR MOTTRAM?

Apparently he didn't win the run. Michael Rudd was 30s faster. Is that guy legit or did he cheat?

Neither are going to 'win' an Ironman, but for correlation, look at Laurent Jalabert (ex-top level cycling pro; winner of the Vuelta d'Espana, Tour stage wins, World Time Trial champion etc..)in last year's Hawaii at age 38(his second Ironman):

Swim: 1:15 Bike: 4:45 Run: 3:10

He was 76th overall (would have probably finished in the top forty if his swim hadn't been so slow). He's run a sub-3hr Marathon, if I recall, and has no swim/run background.

slowcoach wrote:

remember - it is a 112 mile bike. A great cyclist could take an hour out of a good club cyclist over that kind of distance

This is the answer.

Drawing from Roadent's append, the interesting thing about Jalabert's result is that his bike time isn't any better than the top pros. In fact he's back about 20 minutes in back of the fastest ride and 7 minutes off of the eventual winner. This from a former world time trial champion. It makes one wonder how much Lance could make of his obvious advantage on the cycling leg given that he still has to run a marathon when he gets off the bike.

Looking then at Mottram's Noosa result, he gave up about 6 minutes to the fastest cycle leg over 40 km. That figures to about 30 minutes over the Ironman distance. If you buy that, assume Armstrong's bike leg is even with the top tri guys, and assume the swim leg is a wash (Mottram's performance was very good there), the question is whether Mottram can marathon about 30 minutes faster than Armstrong.

I think it'd be a pretty close matchup.

As someone who has competed at a fairly high level in both track (14:40s 5K) and triathlon (1:56 non-drafting Olympic distance tri) I'll offer my take:

Mottram's swim (19:55) is strong. A sub-20 open water 1500 is impressive, probaly the swimming equivalent of a sub-15 5K on the track. His bike split however is mediocre. Assuming the course was relatively flat, 1:01 is not a great time. At my triathlon peak I was a middle of the pack Cat III cyclist (serious recreational level), and I could cover 40K in well under an hour (56-58 min) pretty consitantly on a TT/Tri bike. 1:01 is probaly equivalent to a 17:30 5K on the track. His run is good, but nothing special, the swim is just as strong. Of course there is a lot of potential for improvement on the run if he were to improve his cycling. Cycling fitness is probaly more important than running fitness for the run assuming a decent level of running ability (much less world class running ability).

In an Ironman I would have to give the edge to Lance (assuming we are talking about a tour fit Lance, not todays Lance). Given Mottram's bike split, its likely Lance could take an hour out of Mottram on the bike without even having to really lay it down. The swim might go to Mottram, but the spread between an awesome swim and an average swim is probaly only about 15 minutes. I don't see Mottram making up 45 minutes + on Armstrong in the marathon. His legs would be fried from the bike where as Lance would be relatively fresh. I don't see Lance running much slower than 3:15 given his 2:46 in NYC off of 30mpw, and I don't see Mottram running sub-2:30 off the bike.

Its a good matchup, but I think Lance takes this one.

the first drop wrote:

Mottram was one of the best juniors in triathlon before he started running. He CAN swim and he CAN bike. Lance on the other hand CAN'T run. Seems like a pretty obvious equation to me.

Can't run? He's run more sub three hour marathons than Mottram.

Let's assume that the swim is a wash (har har). Mottram's weakest event was the biking (according to one interview I read. According to another it was swimming) so... bad news. He gets his ass handed to him. Obviously if he trains for the marathon he will be faster than Armstrong, but he's going to have to make up a lot of time and I think that Armstrong, regardless of how fast he rides, is going to be fresher at the end of the biking than Mottram. Then we have to ask if Mottram can make up, how much? 30 minutes? 45?

Also, that 2004 triathlon in Noosa was only 2 months after the Olympics. I think it's safe to assume that Mottram wanted to have some fun and diversify his competition after the training and buildup for Athens.

Nobody runs ironman without training. Mottram wins fully trained. Lance is old.

Obviously, at the Ironman distance, anything can happen on any given day. All things being equal, there is absolutely no contest. Lance wins. He was one of the top 5 triathletes in the US, possibly the world, when we was 16/17 years old. (2 time US National Sprint Triathlon Champion)

Here's a link that describes Lance's win at the Hillcrest Tulsa Intl Distance tri, when he was 15 years old. He did a 1:45, breaking the course record by 4 minutes.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070531_238_D1_hAtee57754

Citizen Runner wrote:

This from a former world time trial champion.

Not to pick at nits, but it's probably worth pointing out that the bike leg of an Iron distance triathlon is 112 miles, whereas your typical pro time trial is about 30-40. The triathlon leg is really more of a road stage ridden on a time trial bike.

Lance is past his prime and competing in 'serious recreational' sense, not on a professional level. If you take Lance of three years ago he would win for several reasons.

1) He was a better Tri guy for his age (18) than Mottram;

2) The much-longer bike ride favors a cyclist in the Ironman distance/rules (no drafting).

3) the training for cycling involves many more hours and gives him an advantage over Mottram, who normally competes in events that are over in less than 15 minutes (although he ran a good 10,000 and has done the XC 12k).

4) a serious Lance at a younger age would likely been capable of 2:20 in the marathon, although not while training for the three events and the leg muscle development that he had for cycling would probably work against that level of performance.

Not sure which one is/was cockier, but I would give the advantage to Lance, if just because he was cockier for longer.

I go with Lance. The 112 mi cycle would not beat him up as much as Mottram.

Remember, runnning after cycling is different than running fresh.

There is running... And then there is Triathlon running!

Dude, you are joking. a 1500m in 20min is equivalent to about a 35min 10k off the bike and an hour 40k on the bike

we have an amatuer cyclist in the uk called gethin butler he has rode 3:26 for 100 miles in a timetrial and has now took up running now and won his first marathon at Blackpool in 2:34...he would give them both a run for thier money

cassio598 wrote:

Citizen Runner wrote:

This from a former world time trial champion.

Not to pick at nits, but it's probably worth pointing out that the bike leg of an Iron distance triathlon is 112 miles, whereas your typical pro time trial is about 30-40. The triathlon leg is really more of a road stage ridden on a time trial bike.

Jalabert was also an exceptional road racer with a grand tour victory, a couple TDF green jerseys (sprint classification), a couple TDF polka dot jerseys (climber), and a long list of major one day road race victories. While he's clearly past his prime and presumably training at less than pro level, the point remains that it's not a given that the retired world class cyclist gains huge chunks of time on the bike.

Citizen Runner wrote:

Jalabert was also an exceptional road racer with a grand tour victory, a couple TDF green jerseys (sprint classification), a couple TDF polka dot jerseys (climber), and a long list of major one day road race victories. While he's clearly past his prime and presumably training at less than pro level, the point remains that it's not a given that the retired world class cyclist gains huge chunks of time on the bike.

Of course it is. Over the best cyclists in the Ironman? No. But over someone like Mottram? Clearly.

A juiced Lance always wins, duhh. I'm not quite sure if he's capable of beating anyone not juiced.

If mottram was juiced And Lance was too, Lance wins. and doesn't get caught either.

sperm donor wrote:

Of course it is. Over the best cyclists in the Ironman? No. But over someone like Mottram? Clearly.

Let's review. At Noosa, Craig Walton (who lead the 2000 Olympic Triathlon up until midway through the run, has won Noosa a bunch of times, and is known for hammering the swim and bike stages) put 6 minutes into Mottram over 40 km. My presumption is that over the Ironman distance (4.5 times that distance) he'd get in 30 minutes or so. Considering Jalabert's performance Armstrong might do about the same. In short, Mottram is weak on the bike, but I don't believe he is as weak as some of you presume. He's a very good swimmer and obviously a world class runner.

I don't see Armstrong having a clear advantage over Mottram in an Olympic distance race. At the Ironman distance, Armstrong has demonstrated ability in very long races whereas Mottram is an unknown.

this is the answer. The bike absolutely destroys running form especially 112 miles on the bike. Lances running form is never going to get any better, but it is what is needed at the end of an ironman. While i personally feel running fitness translates far better to cycling than the reverse, an ironman is more about who does not fall apart over 8-9 hours, being able to keep performing while you are trying to refuel over and over. In a shorter triathlon speed,fitness & form are required to win, if you don't have the form to run a sub 5 minute mile you aren't going to be running low 30 10k's following a fast bike. however if you can grind out ugly 6 minute+ miles after a hard bike you might be in the thick of things in an ironman

here is how it would play out:

Mottram would have to ride 40,000 miles in order to get the base to ride a strong 112mi. Lance would need to get back on his bike for 6 months to be 95% of the cyclist he was a few years ago.

Lance split 15:17 and 15:42 at a duathlon back in 1990. He can run.

If Lance decided to do 2009 Ironman, he could swim 55 min, ride about what Normann Stadler, or whoever the fastest rider would ride, then run a 3:10 marathon. This is assuming that he had the focus and same type of program he was on during his hey day.

If Mottram did the same event, I could only say that he would not run faster than a 2:40 marathon. The swim, bike, heat and humidity is an equalizer.

I remember when Barrios claimed he could run a 2:20 off the bike at the end of the Ironman. It would be a miracle if he could have run a 2:20 solo in Kona, assuming he started his time trial at 1pm in the sweltering heat on the Queen K.