Draft legal in St Kitts

Discussion in 'Triathlon' started by S Austin, Jun 23, 2003.

  1. S Austin

    S Austin Guest

    Watching the St. Kitts ITU race coverage on "Saucony Running & Racing" on Outdoor Life Network,
    suddenly draft-legal triathlon makes a little sense.

    The 40K course has eight tough climbs and technically challenging descents. This means that the
    entire pro field doesn't end up in one giant pack as typically happens in flat ITU courses. A couple
    of good climbers can really work together to drop the weaker climbers, but a good descender could
    bridge the gap if the climbers don't have the technical skills. Just like in UCI cycling - flat
    stages are typically a pack finish, hilly stages spread the field out all over the course. Likewise,
    it's rare in UCI cycling for time trials to be held on mountainous courses.

    So for triathlon, it makes sense that flat courses should be no drafting (otherwise the swim & bike
    are irrelevant) but hilly courses could be draft-legal (hills test the fitness and technical skills
    of the athletes). And instead of shunning hilly courses, we should embrace them, right?

    Cheers
    S. Austin
     
    Tags:


  2. [email protected] (S Austin) wrote in
    news:[email protected]:

    > Watching the St. Kitts ITU race coverage on "Saucony Running & Racing" on Outdoor Life Network,
    > suddenly draft-legal triathlon makes a little sense.
    >

    Both of those also claim to be a legitimate version of the real thing, yet they are clearly missing
    key elements of the real thing:

    * Draftathalon = Triathlon - (time trail bike + meaningful swim)?
    * Alcohol free beer = Beer - alcohol?

    I just don't get it. Help me out, will ya?

    Thanks,

    Tom
     
  3. "S Austin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > So for triathlon, it makes sense that flat courses should be no drafting (otherwise the swim &
    > bike are irrelevant)

    Funny, I think the swim and (I assume you meant) run are irrelevant without draft legal races.
    Unless, of course, you find some rare race that has balanced distances.
     
  4. "Tom Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (S Austin) wrote in
    > news:[email protected]:
    >
    > > Watching the St. Kitts ITU race coverage on "Saucony Running & Racing" on Outdoor Life Network,
    > > suddenly draft-legal triathlon makes a little sense.
    > >
    >
    > Good. Perhaps you can explain alcohol free beer.

    Great for pregant women and designated drivers.

    Keeps the 9 year old hoodlems off the streets.

    > * Draftathalon = Triathlon - (time trail bike + meaningful swim)?

    Triathlon = Bike race with short distractions bookending it.
     
  5. MJuric

    MJuric Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 08:00:46 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"S Austin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >> So for triathlon, it makes sense that flat courses should be no drafting (otherwise the swim &
    >> bike are irrelevant)
    >
    >Funny, I think the swim and (I assume you meant) run are irrelevant without draft legal races.
    >Unless, of course, you find some rare race that has balanced distances.
    >
    >
    Frankly I'm beginning to believe that this whole debate is just for people who want an
    excuse for not being good at one event or another. I've been to several Tri's/Du's where
    I've heard "this was a runners/cycler/swimmers(Although rarely swimmers) race" Seems to me
    you know what kind of race it is up front, you train for that kind of race. If it's draft
    legal, better train for drafting . If not better train as if your not going to draft. To me
    it's kinda like training for a 10K and running a marathon then complaining that if everyone
    would have run a 10K pace for 10K you would have won because alls they did was run slow for
    26.2 miles. Train for the race you plan on racing, race the races you want to race and let
    everyone else do the races they please.

    ~Matt
     
  6. <MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Frankly I'm beginning to believe that this whole debate is just for people who want an excuse for
    > not being good at one event or another.

    Not necissarily. I'm good at all 3 events and great a none of them. I just want the three events
    to be even.
     
  7. MJuric

    MJuric Guest

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:04:59 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> Frankly I'm beginning to believe that this whole debate is just for people who want an excuse for
    >> not being good at one event or another.
    >
    >Not necissarily. I'm good at all 3 events and great a none of them. I just want the three events
    >to be even.

    First off I believe you could argue all day on what is even and by whom's standard. So why
    say a race is uneven or a race is a cycling race etc. A race is of any type(For the most
    part) is exactly what it says in the signup form. A properly measured marathon is
    26.2mi's and an ironman is 2.4/112/26.2 thats that. Do it or don't, but don't complain about it
    and say that it should be changed or is better or worse than a different way. Now if you want
    to complain about a race that is represented as one thing and ends up being something else than
    I'm with ya.

    ~Matt

    >
     
  8. Harold Buck

    Harold Buck Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, MJuric wrote:

    > On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:04:59 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >> Frankly I'm beginning to believe that this whole debate is just for people who want an excuse
    > >> for not being good at one event or another.
    > >
    > >Not necissarily. I'm good at all 3 events and great a none of them. I just want the three events
    > >to be even.
    >
    > First off I believe you could argue all day on what is even and by whom's standard. So why
    > say a race is uneven or a race is a cycling race etc. A race is of any type(For the most
    > part) is exactly what it says in the signup form. A properly measured marathon is
    > 26.2mi's and an ironman is 2.4/112/26.2 thats that. Do it or don't, but don't complain about it
    > and say that it should be changed or is better or worse than a different way.

    So, you don't think fans should have any input into the rules of a sport? Most sports respond
    to--or at least consider--the desires of the spectators, since keeping them happy improves or
    maintains ratings.

    And arguments about what is or isn't fair or right are a big part of sports. Deal with it.

    --Harold Buck

    "I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."

    - Homer J. Simpson
     
  9. Mjuric

    Mjuric Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 00:11:25 GMT, Harold Buck <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, MJuric wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:04:59 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> >> Frankly I'm beginning to believe that this whole debate is just for people who want an excuse
    >> >> for not being good at one event or another.
    >> >
    >> >Not necissarily. I'm good at all 3 events and great a none of them. I just want the three events
    >> >to be even.
    >>
    >> First off I believe you could argue all day on what is even and by whom's standard. So why
    >> say a race is uneven or a race is a cycling race etc. A race is of any type(For the most
    >> part) is exactly what it says in the signup form. A properly measured marathon is
    >> 26.2mi's and an ironman is 2.4/112/26.2 thats that. Do it or don't, but don't complain about it
    >> and say that it should be changed or is better or worse than a different way.
    >
    >
    >So, you don't think fans should have any input into the rules of a sport? Most sports respond
    >to--or at least consider--the desires of the spectators, since keeping them happy improves or
    >maintains ratings.

    Fans? No way. Picture this "I'm a race car fan. I'd love to see more crashes. simply because
    they are fun to watch so lets throw some nails on next indy course". Rules of any race
    should be set by either the participants and or a panel of "knowledgable" directors. Not by
    some Spectator that more than likely has never participated in the sport. Hell lets have the
    government make laws about how to run business, health care or education..... Oh they
    already do that that seems to work out just fine. (said with more than slight irony) I don't
    however have a problem with incorporating a rule into a sport that is recommended by a
    spectator if it is agreeable with the participants. Participants should absolutlely have a
    say. However why advocate for changing the rules to something that already exist? To me this
    is nothing more than trying to force everyone to do the same thing. I could see if their
    were ONLY draft legal races or visa versa. However that is not the case. A multitude of
    races including drafting, non drafting, longer swim, shorter swim or no swim exist. I'm
    advocating for doing the race you want and let people do the race they want without whining
    about it. People will watch what they want to watch and if it's not popular enough that
    style of race will dwindle and disappear as usual.

    >
    >And arguments about what is or isn't fair or right are a big part of sports. Deal with it.

    I do deal with. I read the race application and decide if that is a race I'd like to do. If
    it is I do it. If it isn't I keep my money and wait for one I like. I don't enter a race and
    then bitch because it was just like what it said it was going to be. And I certainly don't
    watch a race on TV and say "Man change the rules so this isn't so boring" I get up shut the
    TV off and go for ride. I simply find it hard to believe that with the plethora of races
    available that people can't find one to suit them. IMO if they can't they are probably
    either, as pointed out above, just looking for a reason to complain about losing or are
    simply too picky which usually leads back to the first reason.

    ~Matt

    >
    >--Harold Buck
    >
    >
    >"I used to rock and roll all night, and party every day. Then it was every other day. . . ."
    >
    > - Homer J. Simpson
     
  10. <MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > 26.2mi's and an ironman is 2.4/112/26.2 thats that. Do it or don't, but don't complain about it
    > and say that it should be changed or is better or worse than a different way.

    Good thing you weren't around when man was trying to learn to use tools or harness fire.
     
  11. "MJuric" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > thing. I could see if their were ONLY draft legal races or visa versa. However that is not the
    > case. A multitude of races including drafting,

    Not in the US at least none within an 8 hour drive from here. So you are saying I have no right to
    advocate draft leagal races because I can spend thousands of dollars flying out of the country to do
    an ITU race? You are the one telling people what to do and not to do, not I.

    > I'm advocating for doing the race you want and let people do the race they want without whining
    > about it.

    As is your right, a right you unfortantly don't seem to think other people have.

    > >And arguments about what is or isn't fair or right are a big part of sports. Deal with it.
    >
    > I do deal with. I read the race application and decide if that is a race I'd like to do. If it is
    > I do it. If it isn't I keep my money and wait for one I like.

    So you are for no drafting. If all the races went draft legal you would not complain but rather wait
    indefinatly for one to become available? I think not. You complain about someone voicing their
    opinion, I'm quite sure you would also compain about not getting a race your way.
     
  12. MJuric

    MJuric Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:56:21 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> 26.2mi's and an ironman is 2.4/112/26.2 thats that. Do it or don't, but don't complain about it
    >> and say that it should be changed or is better or worse than a different way.
    >
    >Good thing you weren't around when man was trying to learn to use tools or harness fire.
    >
    Why? Turning a stone into and hammer is far different from getting rid of stone so I can
    have a hammer.

    ~Matt
     
  13. <MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:56:21 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >> 26.2mi's and an ironman is 2.4/112/26.2 thats that. Do it or don't, but don't complain about it
    > >> and say that it should be changed or is better or worse than a different way.
    > >
    > >Good thing you weren't around when man was trying to learn to use tools
    or
    > >harness fire.
    > >
    > Why? Turning a stone into and hammer is far different from getting rid of stone so I can have
    > a hammer.

    Thanks for making my point for me. That is EXACTLY what USA Triathlon has done by making it a
    requirment for sanctioning that the race not allow drafting.
     
  14. <MJuric> wrote in message news:3ef9cc87.6723271[email protected]...
    > Frankly no. Apparently most people, At least in the US, desire to do non drafting events.
    > Obviously if the demand existed for drafting events more drafting races would exist.

    Here's a clue for you. The US sanctioning body for Triathlons and the only source for cheap
    insurance will not allow it. Demand has nothing to do with
    it.

    > >> I'm advocating for doing the race you want and let people do the race they want without whining
    > >> about it.
    > >
    > >As is your right, a right you unfortantly don't seem to think other
    people
    > >have.
    >
    > How so?

    By telling me not to advocate my preferences. Are you just being agurmentative or were you really
    unable to grasp the meaning of that stament?

    > I would love to do a drafting event as I would see it as a new challenge rather than "those guys
    > are ruining my race"

    Don't put words in my mouth. Acording to legend the point of a triathlon was to see who were better
    atheltes: swimmers, bikers or runners. I have yet to see a triathlon I can compete in that would
    even come close to answering that question. Get off your high horse, if you wish to argue the merits
    of drafting go ahead, don't try to tell me I have no right to express my opinion. There are many
    words for that and none of them are nice.

    > Voicing ones opinon is different from complaining and advocating for change based on ones desires.
    > For example saying "I enjoy drafting legal races more because...." is an opinion. Saying "they
    > should have all races drafting because I enjoy them more" is selfish.

    And never have I said anything of the kind. What I have said is that Triathlon is about 3
    disiplines. Almost all of the races favor one of those diciplines more than the other two. I'm not
    particularly for drafting, I would much rather see the diciplines even'ed out.

    > >I'm quite sure you would also compain about not getting a race your way.
    >
    > Read above. I would welcome any type of racing.

    So you only complain about people who's opinions differ from yours and nothing else? Doubtfull.
     
  15. MJuric

    MJuric Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:21:45 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:56:21 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> >> 26.2mi's and an ironman is 2.4/112/26.2 thats that. Do it or don't, but don't complain about
    >> >> it and say that it should be changed or is better or worse than a different way.
    >> >
    >> >Good thing you weren't around when man was trying to learn to use tools
    >or
    >> >harness fire.
    >> >
    >> Why? Turning a stone into and hammer is far different from getting rid of stone so I can have a
    >> hammer.
    >
    >Thanks for making my point for me. That is EXACTLY what USA Triathlon has done by making it a
    >requirment for sanctioning that the race not allow drafting.
    >

    Unfortunately you missed the point. Apparently the USA Triathlon choses to support one type
    of race. For whatever reason that's what they chose to do. As far as I see it they haven't
    gotten rid of the stone they merely discovered it. If you want a hammer mabey you better
    make one. I have absolutely no probelem with anyone "voicing" there opinion. However it
    makes no sense whatsoever to take an event(s) taht the majority of participants are happy
    with adn try and change it. Sounds to me that a NEW event needs to be started.

    ~Matt
     
  16. MJuric

    MJuric Guest

    On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:12:08 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> Frankly no. Apparently most people, At least in the US, desire to do non drafting events.
    >> Obviously if the demand existed for drafting events more drafting races would exist.
    >
    >Here's a clue for you. The US sanctioning body for Triathlons and the only source for cheap
    >insurance will not allow it. Demand has nothing to do with
    >it.

    So maybe the insurance won't be cheap. Maybe it will take time for your drafting event to
    gain a following. Maybe you won't have a following. But making a drafring event is
    definately possible adn the USAT is not stopping you.
    >

    >> >> I'm advocating for doing the race you want and let people do the race they want without
    >> >> whining about it.
    >> >
    >> >As is your right, a right you unfortantly don't seem to think other
    >people
    >> >have.
    >>
    >> How so?
    >
    >By telling me not to advocate my preferences. Are you just being agurmentative or were you really
    >unable to grasp the meaning of that stament?
    >
    >> I would love to do a drafting event as I would see it as a new challenge rather than "those guys
    >> are ruining my race"
    >
    >Don't put words in my mouth. Acording to legend the point of a triathlon was to see who were better
    >atheltes: swimmers, bikers or runners. I have yet to see a triathlon I can compete in that would
    >even come close to answering that question.

    As I said before we could argue all day long on what woudl be an even event. An even event
    for you may not be an even event for me. Instead of waiting for an even event why not train
    for the event that exists? Your original post of "Funny, I think the swim and (I assume you
    meant) run are irrelevant without draft legal races" was an opinion. I interpreted that
    opinion as meaning that any race taht does not have drafting is a cycling race adn or NOT a
    triathlon. Although I did paraphrase what you said as "those guys are ruining my race" this
    is my interpretation of your stated opinion. Unless of course you meant something else?

    > Get off your high horse, if you wish to argue the merits of drafting go ahead, don't try to tell
    > me I have no right to express my opinion. There are many words for that and none of them are nice.

    Oh by no means would I every say that someone has no right to express their opinon. Voice
    away, however I have the same right to respond to your opinon as you have the right to voice
    it. As far as draft vs no draft I have no opinion as I have never competed in a drafting
    tri. I would if one was readily available, however it simple isn't important enough to me to
    put the effort forth to make sure I compete in one. On even distance. I still stand by my
    original statement that I think it's an excuse. Tri distances are what they are. An even
    race is going to be different for a world class runner than a world class swimmer. You have
    different distance tri's with a fairly wide range of distances and ratio's, particulary in
    the shorter races.

    >
    >> Voicing ones opinon is different from complaining and advocating for change based on ones
    >> desires. For example saying "I enjoy drafting legal races more because...." is an opinion. Saying
    >> "they should have all races drafting because I enjoy them more" is selfish.
    >
    >And never have I said anything of the kind. What I have said is that Triathlon is about 3
    >disiplines. Almost all of the races favor one of those diciplines more than the other two. I'm not
    >particularly for drafting, I would much rather see the diciplines even'ed out.

    As I said before not likely to be done and certainly won't make everyone happy. How is "I
    would much rather see the disciplines even'ed out" much if any different from "they should
    have all races drafting because I enjoy them more"? As far as my interpretation, and correct
    me if I'm wrong, saying that you would rather see the distances evened out implies that the
    current distances are not what you would prefer and not what "makes you happy"

    >
    >> >I'm quite sure you would also compain about not getting a race your way.
    >>
    >> Read above. I would welcome any type of racing.
    >
    >So you only complain about people who's opinions differ from yours and nothing else? Doubtfull.

    No I complain about alot of stuff that I don't care enough about to actually do anything to
    change. That's what complaining is. If it matters enough to me I'll actually try and change
    it. I simple don't see any reason for complaining/stating ones negative opinion about
    something like a race.(Unless of course the race turns out to be something other than it
    stated itself to be) Something which most people do for enjoyment.
     
  17. <MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Your original post of "Funny, I think the swim and (I assume you meant) run are irrelevant without
    > draft legal races" was an opinion. I interpreted that opinion as meaning that any race taht does
    > not have drafting is a cycling race adn or NOT a triathlon.

    Well you know what they say about assumptions.

    > Although I did paraphrase what you said as "those guys are ruining my race" this is my
    > interpretation of your stated opinion. Unless of course you meant something else?

    Again assumptions. Do you always leap to such wild conclusions? At what point did I say I do not
    enjoy triathlons? When did I say non-draft triathlons are not a triathlon?

    > On even distance. I still stand by my original statement that I think it's an excuse.

    An excuse for what? Again you try to put words into my mount. I already know what my times are in
    races that are laid out so >60 of the time is spent on the bike. I am not unhappy with my results. I
    would now like to know how I would fare in a ballance triathlon.

    > As I said before not likely to be done and certainly won't make everyone happy.

    Let me know when you find that race that does.

    > How is "I would much rather see the disciplines even'ed out" much if any different from "they
    > should have all races drafting because I enjoy them more"? As far as my interpretation, and
    > correct me if I'm wrong, saying that you would rather see the distances evened out implies that
    > the current distances are not what you would prefer and not what "makes you happy"

    Duh. I would prefer a balanced triathlon. What part of that don't you understand? What I don't get
    is why my personal preference is such a threat to you?

    > No I complain about alot of stuff that I don't care enough about to actually do anything to
    > change. That's what complaining is. If it matters enough to me I'll actually try and change it. I
    > simple don't see any reason for complaining/stating ones negative opinion about something like a
    > race.(Unless of course the race turns out to be something other than it stated itself to be)
    > Something which most people do for enjoyment.

    Well if you don't enjoy complaining...please feel free to stop any time now.
     
  18. MJuric

    MJuric Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 08:06:46 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> Your original post of "Funny, I think the swim and (I assume you meant) run are irrelevant
    >> without draft legal races" was an opinion. I interpreted that opinion as meaning that any race
    >> taht does not have drafting is a cycling race adn or NOT a triathlon.
    >
    >Well you know what they say about assumptions.

    Yes and everyone must assume a meaning to the written word. If my assumption/interptetation
    is wrong please let me know what you really meant.

    >
    >> Although I did paraphrase what you said as "those guys are ruining my race" this is my
    >> interpretation of your stated opinion. Unless of course you meant something else?
    >
    >Again assumptions. Do you always leap to such wild conclusions?

    Hardly wild conclusions. To me a wild conclusion woudl be something on the order of you
    were trying to purposely destroy triathlons by advocating for change in races that the
    apparent majority are happy with. My conclusions appear to be somewhat less conspiratory
    and hardly wild.

    > At what point did I say I do not enjoy triathlons?

    At what point did I say you didn't?

    > When did I say non-draft triathlons are not a triathlon?

    Let me break it down for you.

    "Funny, (Insinuates "thats odd", or strange, unusual Also in this context "funny" means you
    disagree with the original poster) I think the swim and (I assume you meant) run are irrelevant
    (Irrelevant meaning has no meaning, unrelated to matter at hand, in this case a triathlon) without
    draft legal races"

    So to break it down a little further to "I disagree with you, without drafting the swim and run mean
    nothing" Well a triathlon with a meaningless swim and run is hardly a triathlon is it? So I guess
    either I'm making wild conclusions or I'm misunderstanding your point of view, which BTW am more
    than willing to have clarified for me rather than being charged with making wild conclusions.

    >
    >> On even distance. I still stand by my original statement that I think it's an excuse.
    >
    >An excuse for what?

    Traithlon Affirmative action. Here goes another WILD AND CRAAAAAAAZZZZYYYY conclusion. For
    the most part the people I see asking for a more balanced anything are those that are not
    excelling or feel the current situation is "unfair". Keeping the subject on triathlons, the
    people I spoke of earlier that complained about "this race was a runners/bikers/swimmers
    race, almost always did so after the race and normally did it after not doing so well. So
    the WILD conclusion is "if this race would have been more "balanced" I would have done
    better" These same people normally have a maladjusted idea of what "balanced" is and not
    surpprisingly it's usually bent towards their particular strong suit.

    > Again you try to put words into my mount. I already know what my times are in races that are laid
    > out so >60 of the time is spent on the bike. I am not unhappy with my results. I would now like to
    > know how I would fare in a ballance triathlon.

    Again Balanced on what basis. Time, energy expenditure, distance. And by whom's standards
    will you even it out? A cyclist, a swimmer, A runner, your's? As far as I can see there is
    no way to create a true balanced tri. So what is the real purpose behind "trying" to create
    one. This is obviously a rhetorical question as I've already answered above.

    >
    >> As I said before not likely to be done and certainly won't make everyone happy.
    >
    >Let me know when you find that race that does.
    >
    >> How is "I would much rather see the disciplines even'ed out" much if any different from "they
    >> should have all races drafting because I enjoy them more"? As far as my interpretation, and
    >> correct me if I'm wrong, saying that you would rather see the distances evened out implies that
    >> the current distances are not what you would prefer and not what "makes you happy"
    >
    >Duh. I would prefer a balanced triathlon. What part of that don't you understand?

    I don't understand why you prefer a balanced triathlon? I don't understand how you plan on
    creating one? I don't understand the reasoning behind doing a "balanced" tri versus doing an
    existing race? Obviously you know how fast/strong you are in each discipline can you not
    make some sort of guestimation for your balanced tri? Other than changing things to be more
    in ones own advantage what difference does the lengths make?

    > What I don't get is why my personal preference is such a threat to you?

    I'm really not sure why you feel that your personal preference is somehow threating me.
    Particularly since I'm the one with a lock on WILD conclusions. If simply asking one to
    clarify logically and sensibly ones preferences and opinions then yes I'm terribly threatend
    as so far you have failed to do so.

    >
    >> No I complain about alot of stuff that I don't care enough about to actually do anything to
    >> change. That's what complaining is. If it matters enough to me I'll actually try and change it. I
    >> simple don't see any reason for complaining/stating ones negative opinion about something like a
    >> race.(Unless of course the race turns out to be something other than it stated itself to be)
    >> Something which most people do for enjoyment.
    >
    >Well if you don't enjoy complaining...please feel free to stop any time now.
    >

    So arguing is complaining now. Interesting. Who's feeling threatend?

    ~Matt
     
  19. <MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > At what point did I say I do not enjoy triathlons?
    >
    > At what point did I say you didn't?

    Ok. I'll break it down in real simple terms for you.

    1. I do triathlons. That is an assumption you should be able to leap to as I sometimes a freqent
    poster to this group.
    2. I am not a masochist. Another assumption you can take based on simple statistics.

    Therefore? I really don't think it is necissary for me to preceed every negative post with "I really
    like triathlon but..."

    > > When did I say non-draft triathlons are not a triathlon?
    >
    > Let me break it down for you.
    >
    > "Funny, (Insinuates "thats odd", or strange, unusual Also in this context "funny" means you
    > disagree with the original poster) I think the swim and (I assume you meant) run are irrelevant
    > (Irrelevant meaning has no meaning, unrelated to matter at hand, in this case a triathlon) without
    > draft legal races"

    Funny as in I DO find it odd that two people can get completely opposite opinions about the same
    thing. Irrelevant as in does not signficantly affect the outcome of the race, except in the case
    where a person is partiularly bad at one or the other.

    > So to break it down a little further to "I disagree with you, without drafting the swim and run
    > mean nothing" Well a triathlon with a meaningless swim and run is hardly a triathlon is it? So I
    > guess either I'm making wild conclusions or I'm misunderstanding your point of view, which BTW am
    > more than willing to have clarified for me rather than being charged with making wild conclusions.

    Just when I was starting to miss Wagner.....what happend to him anyway?

    > >> On even distance. I still stand by my original statement that I think it's an excuse.
    > >
    > >An excuse for what?
    >
    > Traithlon Affirmative action. Here goes another WILD AND CRAAAAAAAZZZZYYYY conclusion. For the
    > most part the people I see asking for a more balanced anything are those that are not excelling or
    > feel the current situation is "unfair". Keeping the subject on triathlons, the people I spoke of
    > earlier that complained about "this race was a runners/bikers/swimmers race, almost always did so
    > after the race and normally did it after not doing so well. So the WILD conclusion is "if this
    > race would have been more "balanced" I would have done better" These same people normally have a
    > maladjusted idea of what "balanced" is and not surpprisingly it's usually bent towards their
    > particular strong suit.

    Well as I have already mentiond I do not feel I have a particular strong suit. I am good at all
    three and great at none. But let me give you my opinion on what a balanced race would be. I would
    probably base it on the times of the pro's and using those times align the distances so that the
    average pro would spend aproximatly the same time on each event. Now I'm sure you would argue that I
    must therefore be a strong swimmer because as it stands now with traditional triathlons the swim is
    a very small percentage of the race. Looking at a typical 12 hour IM with 1hr/6.5hr/4.5hr (or some
    approximation there of) that would certaninly be the case. However that is NOT my point. If the race
    were 6.5hr/1hr/4.5hr I would make the same argument.

    > > Again you try to put words into my mount. I already know what my times are in races that are
    > > laid out so >60 of the time is spent on the bike. I am not unhappy with my results. I would
    > > now like
    to
    > >know how I would fare in a ballance triathlon.
    >
    > Again Balanced on what basis. Time, energy expenditure, distance. And by whom's standards will you
    > even it out? A cyclist, a swimmer, A runner, your's? As far as I can see there is no way to create
    > a true balanced tri. So what is the real purpose behind "trying" to create one. This is obviously
    > a rhetorical question as I've already answered above.

    Wow, we've lept from wild assumptions to telling me my opinion before hand. Fine you win. I'm an
    evil beast who wants to end all these cycling races we call triatlons, jail the evil race directors
    and sponsor bike burings. Since that is the conclusion you have reached and you obviously have so
    much more insight into my own personal opinions than I do I see no point in continuing this, well
    discussion is not the appropriate term here, that would take back-and-forth points from both sides,
    not just you repededly telling me I am anti triathlon,

    > >Duh. I would prefer a balanced triathlon. What part of that don't you understand?
    >
    > I don't understand why you prefer a balanced triathlon? I don't understand how you plan on
    > creating one? I don't understand the reasoning behind doing a "balanced" tri versus doing an
    > existing race?

    We've made it clear you don't understand much. I've got no arugment with that.

    > > What I don't get is why my personal preference is such a threat to you?
    >
    > I'm really not sure why you feel that your personal preference is somehow threating me.

    Hmm, perhaps your continued attack on me for simply expressing it?

    > Particularly since I'm the one with a lock on WILD conclusions. If simply asking one to clarify
    > logically and sensibly ones preferences and opinions then yes I'm terribly threatend as so far you
    > have failed to do so.

    I've made myself perfectly clear enough times that a 5 year old can understand it. Yet you still
    seem to be putting words into my mouth. If you haven't got it by now you never will.
     
  20. MJuric

    MJuric Guest

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:48:56 -0500, "James Goddard" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ><MJuric> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> > At what point did I say I do not enjoy triathlons?
    >>
    >> At what point did I say you didn't?
    >
    >Ok. I'll break it down in real simple terms for you.
    >
    >1. I do triathlons. That is an assumption you should be able to leap to as I sometimes a freqent
    > poster to this group.
    >2. I am not a masochist. Another assumption you can take based on simple statistics.
    >
    >Therefore? I really don't think it is necissary for me to preceed every negative post with "I
    >really like triathlon but..."

    OK for someone who say's I put words in your mouth. WHERE did I every say taht you didn't
    like triathlons? I did say that by stating you'd rather see a more balanced tri, appears to
    insinuate that you are unhappy with the current distances. For someone who is so quick and
    keen about pointing out jumping to conclusions I'd say that's a leap.

    >
    >> > When did I say non-draft triathlons are not a triathlon?
    >>
    >> Let me break it down for you.
    >>
    >> "Funny, (Insinuates "thats odd", or strange, unusual Also in this context "funny" means you
    >> disagree with the original poster) I think the swim and (I assume you meant) run are irrelevant
    >> (Irrelevant meaning has no meaning, unrelated to matter at hand, in this case a triathlon)
    >> without draft legal races"
    >
    >Funny as in I DO find it odd that two people can get completely opposite opinions about the same
    >thing. Irrelevant as in does not signficantly affect the outcome of the race, except in the case
    >where a person is partiularly bad at one or the other.

    Really I'm not trying to be argumentative or just a pain in the ass but teh above statement
    sounds exactly like what I said. Are you or are you not saying that if a triathlon doesn't
    have drafting it makes teh swim and run portion irrelavant, unless you are particularly bad
    at swimming or running. Does this not mean that teh running and swimming portion becomes
    irrelavent and goes back to what I said earlier?

    >
    >> So to break it down a little further to "I disagree with you, without drafting the swim and run
    >> mean nothing" Well a triathlon with a meaningless swim and run is hardly a triathlon is it? So I
    >> guess either I'm making wild conclusions or I'm misunderstanding your point of view, which BTW am
    >> more than willing to have clarified for me rather than being charged with making wild
    >> conclusions.
    >
    >Just when I was starting to miss Wagner.....what happend to him anyway?

    Always humors me when someone has no argument how they defer to distraction.

    >
    >> >> On even distance. I still stand by my original statement that I think it's an excuse.
    >> >
    >> >An excuse for what?
    >>
    >> Traithlon Affirmative action. Here goes another WILD AND CRAAAAAAAZZZZYYYY conclusion. For the
    >> most part the people I see asking for a more balanced anything are those that are not excelling
    >> or feel the current situation is "unfair". Keeping the subject on triathlons, the people I spoke
    >> of earlier that complained about "this race was a runners/bikers/swimmers race, almost always did
    >> so after the race and normally did it after not doing so well. So the WILD conclusion is "if this
    >> race would have been more "balanced" I would have done better" These same people normally have a
    >> maladjusted idea of what "balanced" is and not surpprisingly it's usually bent towards their
    >> particular strong suit.
    >
    >Well as I have already mentiond I do not feel I have a particular strong suit. I am good at all
    >three and great at none. But let me give you my opinion on what a balanced race would be. I would
    >probably base it on the times of the pro's and using those times align the distances so that the
    >average pro would spend aproximatly the same time on each event. Now I'm sure you would argue that
    >I must therefore be a strong swimmer because as it stands now with traditional triathlons the swim
    >is a very small percentage of the race. Looking at a typical 12 hour IM with 1hr/6.5hr/4.5hr (or
    >some approximation there of) that would certaninly be the case. However that is NOT my point. If
    >the race were 6.5hr/1hr/4.5hr I would make the same argument.

    No I would simply argue that the above is your opinion of a balanced tri. In my opinion it
    would be a horribly unbalanced race. Thus the reason a true "balanced" tri can't exist.
    Balancing by time is simply unbalanced IMO. Running for 4 hrs is no comparison to biking for
    4 hrs. I would not argue the fact that you have every right to do it if you want. I just
    doubt that many would join you.

    >
    >> > Again you try to put words into my mount. I already know what my times are in races that are
    >> > laid out so >60 of the time is spent on the bike. I am not unhappy with my results. I would
    >> > now like
    >to
    >> >know how I would fare in a ballance triathlon.
    >>
    >> Again Balanced on what basis. Time, energy expenditure, distance. And by whom's standards will
    >> you even it out? A cyclist, a swimmer, A runner, your's? As far as I can see there is no way to
    >> create a true balanced tri. So what is the real purpose behind "trying" to create one. This is
    >> obviously a rhetorical question as I've already answered above.
    >
    >Wow, we've lept from wild assumptions to telling me my opinion before hand.

    Man are you on a hair trigger. Where did I say anything about your opinion in the above
    paragraph? And where did I state that this is your opinion?

    >Fine you win. I'm an evil beast who wants to end all these cycling races we call triatlons, jail
    >the evil race directors and sponsor bike burings. Since that is the conclusion you have reached and
    >you obviously have so much more insight into my own personal opinions than I do I see no point in
    >continuing this, well discussion is not the appropriate term here, that would take back-and-forth
    >points from both sides, not just you repededly telling me I am anti triathlon,

    No response here as I'm entirely unwilling to believe that anyone could have gotten any of
    this from wht I've written.

    >
    >> >Duh. I would prefer a balanced triathlon. What part of that don't you understand?
    >>
    >> I don't understand why you prefer a balanced triathlon? I don't understand how you plan on
    >> creating one? I don't understand the reasoning behind doing a "balanced" tri versus doing an
    >> existing race?
    >
    >We've made it clear you don't understand much. I've got no arugment with that.

    Nor an answer fro the questions. Again.

    >
    >> > What I don't get is why my personal preference is such a threat to you?
    >>
    >> I'm really not sure why you feel that your personal preference is somehow threating me.
    >
    >Hmm, perhaps your continued attack on me for simply expressing it?

    First everything is not about you. Get over it. My statements are generally meant as global.
    If I'm expressing something directed at you and only you I will make it entirely clear and
    there will be no doubt for most.

    >> Particularly since I'm the one with a lock on WILD conclusions. If simply asking one to clarify
    >> logically and sensibly ones preferences and opinions then yes I'm terribly threatend as so far
    >> you have failed to do so.
    >
    >I've made myself perfectly clear enough times that a 5 year old can understand it. Yet you still
    >seem to be putting words into my mouth. If you haven't got it by now you never will.
    >

    Could it be you aren't expressing things as clearly as you think you are? Remember there is
    always at least two sides to everything. I'm trying to understand yours without implying you
    are stupid, immature or jumping to conclusions. You on the other hand haven't even attempted
    to try and understand my points without such actions.

    ~Matt
     
Loading...
Loading...