WHATS UP HAWAII IRONMAN

""you still have to be a damn strong cyclist and tough-ass runner to survive the majority of the race....""

100& agree

sorry I meant 27 qualifying races in the WORLD every year...

There are a number of qualifying events throughout the world. Those that have been around longer and have larger fields get the biggest number of qualifying slots - IM Florida usually gets 80, for instance. Then, those slots are allocated by age group. Pros get a certain number, then the remainder are allocated based on the number of people participating in each age group. Usually M 30 - 34 or M 35-39 have the most participants, so they might get anywhere from 5 to 8. If you break it down statistically, you need to finish somewhere in the top 1 - 2% of your age group (or close to that, don't quote me exactly) to qualify.

There's always debate amongst IM athletes about what background is most helpful. In the past it was said that IM Hawaii could never be won on the bike, but then Normann Stadler, a bike "specialist" did just that. You have to remember, though, that the guy swam a sub 1 hour 2.4 mile swim, biked a sub 5hr 112 mile bike and then ran around a 3 hr marathon (maybe even sub - can't remember) - and this is all toughest IM course in the world.

cyclist wrote:

If you think cycling is more about technique than fitness, you have a lot to learn about cycling.

You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that cycling has more to due with technique...I said MANY TIMES it does. Look at major results in cycling. How many times does a domestique win a stage because he made the right move at the right time. Or how about guys who kills on the TT bike but can't do anything in a crit. Or a team leader who is the man in a leadout but is horrible on a TT bike. That is technique, not fitness. Sure, anyone who races the bike is fit, but a less fit cyclist can make up for their weakness if they have good technique. Also, many times the type of fitness needed to be successful in a bike race is much different that what is needed to be successful in a running race. You might be in the middle of a pack cycling easy for an hour, then need to hammer all out for a while before recovering in a pack again and then you need to hit it again. Much different than running.

To be a good triathlete you should:

1. Have been swimming since grade-school right through the high school ranks.

2. Be a competitive runner since high school.

3. You must adapt and excel at cycling. A major time commitment!

You must be a bit egotistical and selfish to spend all that time training. I raced in a handful of Ironman's and dozens of shorter tri's. The lifestyle is like running but magnified since you are often training 3x/day with several weekly 5-8 hour sessions.

cyclist wrote:

It's not just that they can, it's that they do. The best triathletes for draft illegal racing (like Ironman) are quite often NOT the best runners in the group. You don't seem to understand that the bike is about HALF of the race. You can put so much distance on someone in the bike that the running makes little difference. And so many of the great triathlon cyclists are also very good swimmers.

Again, I am not comparing triathletes here, but top runners, cyclists, and runners. There is a reason that someone is a top triathlete and I am aware that tris are won in differnt ways. The "runners" don't always win and I never said that they do.

The OP suggested that mediocre runners are arrogant about the fact that they think that they could win an IM. I agree that many runners are that way and have no idea about what it takes to win an IM. I am simply trying to shed some light on to the reasons why runners might have this arrogant opinion. They look at cyclists and swimmers and are pretty confident that they could whoop 'em in a tri. The problem is, most runners don't know any real triathletes. I agree that a real triathlete would crush a runner head to head. But runners don't think of triathletes that way...they see them as the local cyclist or swimmer.

There's also some snobbery about FINISHING an ironmanand being GOODat ironman. to me doing an ironman in 14 hours is great. just finishing at all is great. not everyone who enters a race, even a 5K road race, is there to win. they are there to be active and have fun and do something that others are NOT doing.

And Stadler has won twice. I think he came off the bike with like a 20 minute lead last year and then beat macca by about 50 seconds so Macca caught up on the run.

Technique in cycling? What technique? You sit on a seat and pedal.

Fellow Flea wrote:

Technique in cycling? What technique? You sit on a seat and pedal.

Ever taken a corner at 35 mph on a bike? How about holding a wheel in a pack going 50 mph? Go try it an come back to the conversation.

You're an idiot and are totally wrong.

hey you wrote:

you have to get top 3 or win your age group in a major qualifying race. There are 27 qualifying races across the US every year

Rolly Olly wrote:

Fellow Flea wrote:

Technique in cycling? What technique? You sit on a seat and pedal.

Ever taken a corner at 35 mph on a bike? How about holding a wheel in a pack going 50 mph? Go try it an come back to the conversation.

Thank you for a few more worthless posts. Please explain how much "technique" is involved in riding an Ironman.

You're right about the snobbery about being good, and just finishing. I tend to agree with whomever mentioned that Kona is the World Championship for the sport, hence many people not being fond of the whole lottery and buy-your-way-in aspect.

Stadler did win twice. The stats I cited were from last year when the weather was great and many records were broken, including his for fastest bike. My point was that it was often said that "cyclists" couldn't win the championship, and he did. Now with Macca on his game and a bit more humble, it'll be interesting to see what happens next year.

dawgruff123 wrote:

i also think that the order makes a lot of difference. if you started out with the marathon, followed by the bike, followed by the swim - you\'d probably see different athletes winning. just my $.02

You would also have a lot more drownings.

Ante up wrote:

Thank you for a few more worthless posts. Please explain how much "technique" is involved in riding an Ironman.

Have you even been reading the conversation? I have been waxing eloquent about why runners are so arrogant when it comes to triathlons. My opinion is that runners look at cyclists and swimmers and have a distorted idea of what it takes to be a triathlete. Technique was brought up to show that cyclists could be good at that discipline but not be able to transfer their talent to the tri precisely because you are doing a TT, not a traditional bike race which requires considerable technique.

Rolly Olly wrote:

Get all your top cyclists and swimmers and see if they can even complete a marathon. I would venture to say that some cyclists might be able to, very few swimmers could even come close.

Top swimmers couldn't complete a marathon. Have you seen a marathon lately. It is quite obvious ANYONE can definately complete it.

That's not putting words into your mouth. I might not have repeated you word for word but what I said is the only way your idea would have any applicability in the triathlon (which it does not)

Certainly cyling has a lot to do with technique and getting into the right break when you are comparing two world-class cyclists with very little to separate them trying to win a stage race.. And in THAT case the one who makes the right break might get a few minutes. But neither of those guys has to jump off the bike and then run a marathon. Nor did either one come from just swimming over two miles in the ocean. And in draft-illegal cycling, there is no "break" because there is no drafting.

But when you are comparing two different sport athletes and trying to determine who will be the better cyclist, the one who has the greatest cycling fitness is going to win, period. No technique in the world is going to help the runner who isn't a very fit cyclist.

No, they can't. Really. The guys who make breaks in the Tour and hold them are invariably guys who nobody in the GC cares about. They are allowed to go because they can't win the GC. In the triathlon, everyone needs the win today.

Rolly Olly wrote:

Fellow Flea wrote:

Technique in cycling? What technique? You sit on a seat and pedal.

Ever taken a corner at 35 mph on a bike? How about holding a wheel in a pack going 50 mph? Go try it an come back to the conversation.

This thread is about an Ironman. I don't see too many people taking a corner at 35 mph or riding in a pack at 50 mph during an Ironman.

Do you?

Rolly Olly wrote:

The OP suggested that mediocre runners are arrogant about the fact that they think that they could win an IM. I agree that many runners are that way and have no idea about what it takes to win an IM. I am simply trying to shed some light on to the reasons why runners might have this arrogant opinion. They look at cyclists and swimmers and are pretty confident that they could whoop 'em in a tri. The problem is, most runners don't know any real triathletes. I agree that a real triathlete would crush a runner head to head. But runners don't think of triathletes that way...they see them as the local cyclist or swimmer.

I can't speak to swimmers as they come in all shapes and sizes but I can tell you that your argument really only holds weight in ITU-style triathlons where drafting is legal. In those competitions you'll often see runners-turned-triathletes do much better.

But in an Ironman or half-ironman the time difference that a good cyclist can put on you on the bike when you are not allowed to draft and when the bike is pretty much half the race pretty much dwarfs the advantage you'll have on the run.

Unless the cyclist is a particularly horrendous runner. But if I can assume that then I can likewise assume that the runner is a particularly horrendous cyclist and swimmer even.

Cyclists also tend to be better swimmers than runners in general, in my experience. The upper body strength/weight that swimming gives you is more of a hindrance in running than in cycling and the simple act of running tends to "burn it off" more anyway. The very good cyclist is likely to have an upperbody strength advantage in swimming as well.

well, Ill tell you what from a first hand perspective. I had run 8 marathons with a pr of 2:46. I decided to get into triathlons and more specifically ironmans, I thought that with my good marathon times and all those runs under my belt that it would be no problem. I trained for about 6 solid months before my first Ironman which was in lake placid NY. The swim was hard, I basically survived it. I got kicked, punched and swallowed lots of water. My swim time was about 1:20....piss poor. On the bike, the winds and heat got to me and it took me nearly 7 hours to get off the bike. On the run, my legs were shot and I was barely able to break 4 hours for the run.

Next time around, I trained, trained and trained more. I had a better swim 1:07, a better bike 5:45. Problem was the same, my legs were gone when I started the run, I ran a 4:45.

Third time, swim was fine 1:02, bike was pretty decent, 5:33, and I actually ran much better but still only 3:30ish my time was 10:10 (ish) and I was still far from a hawaii slot.

Fourth try, I swam hard after almost a year of solid training went :59 which was great, biked a 4:55 which is again..awesome, but again, the run came around and I was walking 20 miles for another 4:45 marathon.

Good luck to all those out there who think IM is easy. Sign up and do it.