USA Triathlon - Perplexed!

Just Guessing wrote:

That's an excellent point. Triathlon is extremely expensive which is a serious problem to be addressed if we ever want to really compete on the world stage.

This is a problem for the growth of the sport in this country for sure. But from an elite perspective, it's not really an issue. Any athlete with medal-potential that shows up will get supported by USAT.

USA women do well. Triathlon pitches long course racing in the USA too much. Not many Olympic distance races that offer prize money. Kind of interesting too Europe out does USA in trail running too

TrackCoach wrote:

Although I have only done one tri, I have been to a lot of tris, swimming and bike events as a photographer. What I have noticed is there isn't much diversity (economic), the equipment cost and the events are 2 and 3 times the cost of a running event. I've met recreational triathletes who have $10K invested in equipment and travel several states away to compete on a regular basis.

I think it's not actually the cost that leads to the lack of economic diversity, it's the time commitment and the nature of the event. Even distance running isn't known for its cultural diversity in the US, it's mostly scrawny white kids (and African immigrants at the top level). But cycling and swimming have other barriers for entry. First, swimming creates hair issues for lots of people. Second, you need to have a lot of free time and a flexible schedule, which means affluence, it means not having a job after school or during college, it means not working more than 9-5 after college, it means piecing together multiple part-time jobs to fit your schedule. Third, it doesn't pay very well at the upper levels. Fourth, there are very few cyclists in inner-city neighborhoods, because cycling in most cities in the US just generally sucks. Fifth, learning how to swim properly requires lessons and ongoing coaching, while cycling requires being comfortable with fixing things.

I'm probably missing a bunch of important factors, but suffice it to say I'm not convinced the monetary cost is the biggest.

I wasn't trying to toot my horn, I mentioned I finished 4th to emphasize the possibilities for someone with more talent, the right equipment, and training. The triathlon was the Amica Lake Wylie tri which is pretty large and there was at least 30-40 guys in my wave, this assumes a wave is an age group. I don't know how competitive this event was but most of people had racks with multiple bikes and there was a lot of out of state tags, which leads me to believe this was not a completely local non competitve event.

Valentine McKee wrote:

Everyone who finished Boston this year did beat Galen.

Post of the day...the week...the month already! Good one!

As someone else already mentioned, the USAT already does this (think Morgan Pearson and Gwen Jorgensen). They recruit good runners with swimming backgrounds. The most difficult part for most runners is the swimming portion, as a lot of fast distance runners have extremely dense bones, are not as tall and do not have the upper body muscles required for a fast swim. I did triathlons for a couple years after college and won one and won my age group in another. I was a decent but not great D1 middle distance runner, but I could also bench press as much as a lot of throwers and never owned a car until I was 23, so I biked pretty much everywhere. Just because a person is a good runner, it doesn't mean they will pass as a triathlete, as a lot of runners sink like stones when they hit the water.

That's definitely true, but part of getting athletes with medal potential to show up is having them do the sport in the first place. In the US, a guy like Alan Webb pursues running whereas in Australia, a guy like Jacob Birtwhistle does triathlon. That's not to say that they didn't make the right choice, but I definitely think that the fact that triathlon is niche and expensive limits the US presence on the world stage. It's not like we aren't good, but there is definitely room for growth.

TrackCoach wrote:

John Utah wrote:

You finished fourth in your age group that had seven racers in your age group. And most of which were "dudes from the office" who decided to do a triathlon. You must be proud. You should go pro.

I wasn't trying to toot my horn, I mentioned I finished 4th to emphasize the possibilities for someone with more talent, the right equipment, and training. The triathlon was the Amica Lake Wylie tri which is pretty large and there was at least 30-40 guys in my wave, this assumes a wave is an age group. I don't know how competitive this event was but most of people had racks with multiple bikes and there was a lot of out of state tags, which leads me to believe this was not a completely local non competitve event.

It probably wasn't very competitive. And start waves are not typically age groups.

Just Guessing wrote:

That's definitely true, but part of getting athletes with medal potential to show up is having them do the sport in the first place. In the US, a guy like Alan Webb pursues running whereas in Australia, a guy like Jacob Birtwhistle does triathlon. That's not to say that they didn't make the right choice, but I definitely think that the fact that triathlon is niche and expensive limits the US presence on the world stage. It's not like we aren't good, but there is definitely room for growth.

This is closer to the truth. All countries face the same financial issues the American athletes face. The real reason is many top Aussie HS runners consider triathlon a totally realistic career (e.g. Birtwhistle, McCormack, Welch), whereas most American HS runners run at college. In the US, Verzbicas was an anomaly, whereas if he came to Australia, he would have been normal. Interestingly, Mottram started as a triathlete. If triathlon was college sport, things might change.

Let's clear this up for the runners who believe that running is the key to ITU success.

It is not. The gate to entry in ITU draft-legal triathlon is the swim. If you can not hack it in the swim, you will be left in the dust on the draft legal bike leg, and so far behind when the run begins that your 13:30 credentials mean little to nothing, assuming that the lead pack didn't lap you out.

Your ideal triathlete swam growing up (maybe year round until 13) and switched to running in high school upon finding that they were very fast. They have the technique and the ability to improve the swim with recommitment to it. The bike, for many but not all, can come later.

Even more ideally, said prospective triathlete surfed and spent a lot of time in open water growing up in addition to swimming (McElroy surfed, as have many other top triathletes in history).

I'll also say this. The bike is not a given. I have met many great runners who could not bike worth a damn even after years of trying. Or, the time required for them to ride well and the (occasional) increase in leg muscle relative to running hampers their running ability and they have traded a strength for two relative weaknesses.

Your comment that, based on a local triathlon where you placed 4th in your age group, the US should be dominating triathlon internationally, is stupid enough that I do not know where to begin with correcting it.

TrackCoach wrote:

John Utah wrote:

You finished fourth in your age group that had seven racers in your age group. And most of which were "dudes from the office" who decided to do a triathlon. You must be proud. You should go pro.

I wasn't trying to toot my horn, I mentioned I finished 4th to emphasize the possibilities for someone with more talent, the right equipment, and training. The triathlon was the Amica Lake Wylie tri which is pretty large and there was at least 30-40 guys in my wave, this assumes a wave is an age group. I don't know how competitive this event was but most of people had racks with multiple bikes and there was a lot of out of state tags, which leads me to believe this was not a completely local non competitve event.

Have you actually watched a pro triathlon? Hint, it is all about the swim, if you don't get out of the water close to the main group your are screwed. Remember Webb, he couldn't get over the swim barrier so it didn't matter how good he was on the run or bike. If you have never done much swimming unless you are a natural you probably can't make the transition to Tri.

But as others have said, t hat is exactly what USA Triathlon is doing. They are finding good runners who have some kind of swimming background.

I did a couple sprint triathlons in high school that were 1/4 mile swim, dozen mile bike, 5k run. I got like 13th out of 400 with my first go. My quarter swim was almost 10 minutes and the best swimmers were 3-4 min ahead of me. I rode a 1980s era aluminum bike borrowed from my friend's dad that was a size or two too small. My bike time was probably 50th or so and the best bikers were 2-3 min ahead of me. My run was 2nd overall and at least 30-60 sec faster than most of the top competition.

I barely practiced the swim and probably biked twice a week at most. The people that beat me were mostly over 30, many over 40, and had much better equipment than me. The triathlon has more to do with money and leisure than distance running. But with the right support and time, anybody who is decent at 2 of the 3 events came become pretty competitive at the tri. Despite my atrocious swim, I was decent at the bike and run and the top teenager in the field. Give me a better bike and I could have taken a 1-2 min off the bike and actual swim trunks and probably at least a minute there.

I have been swimming a lot lately and have come to realize that distance running and swimming are sorta mutually exclusive. Swimming requires a lot of upper body strength and great form that's hard to develop on your own. Distance running kills your upper body strength unless you are doing a ton of work in the weight room.

TheRealCoachPaulo wrote:

This is a problem for the growth of the sport in this country for sure. But from an elite perspective, it's not really an issue. Any athlete with medal-potential that shows up will get supported by USAT.

I spent 6 years racing elite ITU, going to 9 world cups. This is absolutely still a problem. The money non-drafting races that many guys used to help support their ITU racing have been slowly disappearing. Sponsorship is just has hard as ever to get (sure you can get a bit of product here and there, but finding someone to cover your travel? Good Luck).

Yes for a few on the national teams there is some support, but those are the same guys making decent prize money already (they've earned it, no doubt). So it's tough to break into the elite ranks. You rarely see athletes just do it overnight. You have to spend a few years figuring out how the races work, even if you come from a strong background. And it can be tough to make ends meet for those transitioning years before you really break on the scene. Many of the guys who were able to stick with it for more than a year had some help from family.

The biggest problem I see is that we're still losing athletes to individual sports (especially on the men's side). We lost a generation with guys who were really good in the juniors (Steve Duplinsky, and Lukas) that either left the sport or had other problems. The Europeans and Australians just have better support overall. They have professional leagues where they get to do a lot of high quality racing (check out the German league

)

And this comes to one of the biggest problems. There is very little appreciation or respect for ITU draft-legal racing in the US. The vast majority of age groupers that even know it exists don't think it's "real" triathlon. It's hard to market the races and we consistently see new races come and go that can't get traction. I don't know if the US, where participation rules endurance sports, can ever really get over that hump.

In addition, the tri seems to be contracting like many running events. My hometown just shut down their triathlon a couple years ago after participation dropped from 500 to 250. It was the main triathlon in the area when it started, grew fast, and then too much competition from other events led to its decline. So competition at your local tri is probably diluted at this point.

This is exactly why, in the mens taking someone who is a cross runner but unable to make national teams and turning them into a triathlete isn't necessarily taking the best talent. Not when some countries have guys who could make national teams, hell some are or have been national champs, and they also train and race triathlon. Just so you get it look up the French cross country results, see Louis and Coninx in there? now look up some Aus junior track results from the past...see Birtwhistle in there, 11 times champ? with Stewart Mcsweyn (podiums diamond league now) Morgan Mcdonald, Luke Matthews (olympian 2016) and Pat Tiernan (olympian2016) all finishing behind him..Birtwhistle wasn't a true runner but competing in triathlon at this stage already. That is why taking an almost good runner and trying to turn them into a triathlete isn't making them dominant against worlds best straight up, and may never.

No one cares about ITU racing. Ironman racing is real triathlon.

TrackCoach wrote:

?

You should just move to Great Britain or Spain and you wouldn't have to be perplexed anymore.

D. Empfield wrote:

No one cares about ITU racing. Ironman racing is real triathlon.

Ironman racing is for retired old ITU racers, or younger guys not fast enough to make it in ITU.

Dan Empfield is the founder of Slowtwitch, which is basically Letsrun for triathletes. So that's bait right there.