AngusW said:
If you knew the history of IM, you'd know that it wasn't started to look impressive, rather it was to try to settle the question of who were the superior athletes; swimmers, cyclists or runner. The guy credited with starting IM argued that cyclists were the best athletes.
I agree that PR is much harder to win - no argument there IMO. And IM athletes are jacks of all trades.
However, the fastest marathon at IM Kona is 2:40, hardly a "few minutes" under 3 hours. While it's not anywhere near world class time, it is done on an undulating course after 180km cycle time trial.
Drafting is not officially legal in IM races - you are getting confused with Olympic distance tris. IM is not always won by the best runner - Normann Stadler won in 2006 after setting the bike course record.
Times haven't stagnated in IM from 30 years ago. In 1980, Dave Scott won the race in 9:24. The record now is 8:04. Funny you should mention stagnated times. The fastest time for Paris-Roubaix was achieved by the late Peter Post in 1964. Different course, I know, but the next 3 fastest times were all achieved prior to 1961. Which proves nothing - the race doesn't have to be fast to be exciting to watch, P-R or IM.
Luck arguably plays less of a part in how IM is won, compared to P-R - look at Demol's win in 1988.
Lots of good points , i realize i tend to flip back and forth between Im & draft legal events of which i am quite aware.
I was addressing certain issues. Drafting in the Olympic Triathlon pretty much hands that event to the best runner. Also making drafting legal because you have a hard time closing 25 mile bike courses is not an excuse when only a few events are draft legal and these same venues hve no problem closing longer distances for marathons.
In regards to marketing, i was talking not about how the sport started but what it became later. Kona was sold long ago, the person involved in starting Kona had no bearing on the way the event is run today or its marketing. When Television notched up the hype in Triathlon & RAAM and tried to draw parallels with other sports that have been around for quite some time i started to see more hype than substance.
While you claim the Kona record is 2:40 fair enough. That is the record, by and large the top 5 men every year are "running" at closer to 3hr than they are to 2:40. BTW the marathon record for
65 year old men is 2:42 and Considering as i stated a world class walker can walk close to as fast as these guys it is not much of a run no matter what u put before or the conditions encountered. IMO it is simply not an "Elite" athletic event.
Difficult yes, Elite and worthy of all the Hype no.
As far as stagnant yes,my bad I made a mistake in throwing out the
30 year figure and should have went with the true figure of
22 years to when Dave Scott was wrapping up his career and aero bike equipment was closer to what it is today.
Dave came in second at 8:10 and ran a 2:45 marathon split
two decades later the records are 8:04 and 2:40
I realize you are probably a big fan but over the course of 8 hours a 6 minute improvement does not impress me very much.
Just checked the website of the top 21 pros 6 were able to break 2:50 15 were not
5 of the top 21 did not break 3 hrs
4 were faster than 2:45
so more of the top runners were over 3hrs vs those that ran faster than Dave Scott did over 22 years ago