Only three carded athletes

peter kern

RayCun wrote: »

oh this is just silly.
if a Brownlee can run 2.03, let him do it.

I did not say that Alister would run 2.03. what i said is that they run the 10 k at world record marathon pace of the bike as they also have train to swim and bike.

what I said is a brownlee is most liklely the best triathlete every seen , a roger feder in tennis a heile gebreselassie in running an micheal phelps in swimming a usin bolt in running ( well that guy might even be a bit more talented than alister)
so the cream de la cream in sport and all the best in their game and that means in a way all those performace value very closely the same (within plus minus 0.5%) , so what i did for you is to find out how how we can compare Aileen M s performance to male marathon running which was your question.

thanks

RayCun

peter kern wrote: »

I did not say that Alister would run 2.03. what i said is that they run the 10 k at world record marathon pace of the bike as they also have train to swim and bike.

You didn't just say he ran the 10k at world record marathon pace, you said "what a triathlete runs off the bike for 10 k is comparable to marathon speed"
ie, his marathon speed is world record pace. But not even that extremely sketchy calculation suggests that Aileen Morrison could run 2.20 (which would put her in the all-time top 25, a couple of minutes inside the Irish record), so you have to say that er, if he can run 2.03, and she was this much slower than him in the run leg of a triathlon, she must be that much slower in a marathon therefore 2.20!
here pick another

peter kern

yes what they run off the bike is marathon pace ( of the very best kenayan runners).
but of course i did not even come close to suggest that they could run a marathon in in 2.03 with swim bike run training.
At the same time paul amy in his best times as triathlete has run a 1.03 half marathon. so one would assume really focusing on it would lead to faster race.
Craig motram used to be a triathlete and I believe has been an podium athlete over 5 k after maybe 5 years specializing soly on running ( i dodnt know the exact timing)

In the same way its no suprise that if a world class rower that wins gold medals and has a bit of a swim background needs less 4 than years to become a top Ironman.
You can use lance dopestrong it wasnt a suprise at all that he did well in 70.3 races after training for it for 2 years given his tri background)
A top speediceskater can win world title in ice skating and then 2 years later win a world champ title in track cycling.

paul o connell the rugby player was an 800 m swim junior nat champ.
I think you get the picture and this is exactly the reason why tri UK a few years ago opened a program for very succesfull 1 dicipline people-mostly runner- to get them into tri ( with good funding on no tri results) it s is a great oppurtunity if you have a top runner that has a bit of a swim background.

Thats really all I can do to try explain how we can compare top performace accross the board.

RayCun

There's a big gap between saying "very good at one endurance sport -> could be very good at another" and "very good triathlete -> could be a world record marathoner" (or a few minutes off the world record, for Aileen Morrison)

I've no idea what time AM could run a marathon in, but she's not getting her grant for her times, it's for her finishing positions. In a sport that does not have near as many competitors as male marathon or track running.

Anyway, Krusty's point is better. Do you think Connor is more deserving of funding than the triathletes who got funds? Or do you think there should be lots more funding available for triathletes at the expense of other sports?

catweazle

I was watching The Abu Dhabi triathlon on Eurosport last week and the Butterfields were interviewed and said it was very much a lifestyle choice for them. They acknowledged that only guys like the Brownlees and Gomez were ever going to make serious money from triathlon.

There is a massive difference in earnings between being top 100 in golf or tennis then there is in Triathlon. Surely there is more incentive for the sports council to fund a promising golfer or tennis player who has a chance of becoming self financing rather than Conor who in fairness is top class in Irish circles but is not near world class levels. I would rather see the money go into the Junior program - someone like Con Doherty could be world class if they can keep him in triathlon.

There are some major glitches in the system, not only did Kenny Egan get full funding last year when he wasn't even Oympics bound, he gets 12k this year even though he is retired, the same as Derval O Rourke :eek:

On another note - great result for Keane in Mooloolaba

peter kern

RayCun wrote: »

There's a big gap between saying "very good at one endurance sport -> could be very good at another" and "very good triathlete -> could be a world record marathoner" (or a few minutes off the world record, for Aileen Morrison)

I've no idea what time AM could run a marathon in, but she's not getting her grant for her times, it's for her finishing positions.
Anyway, Krusty's point is better. Do you think Connor is more deserving of funding than the triathletes who got funds? Or do you think there should be lots more funding available for triathletes at the expense of other sports?

Its ok.

your questions.
A As I already said less bureucracy more money to ahletes ( not crazy money to athletes either ) NOT taking away from other sports.

B I am sure an improving Connor ( swimming and running about 6%slower than A.B )and my run example are both at least equally deserving. I am sure both will improve nicely over the next few years.