When to/not to join a competition

Hi everyone,

If someoone finishes an event with a time 10% worse than the first comer, then he/she should better not to join that event(race).
There is no onligation to join a race, one can see the performance without a race/in the training (aprrxoimately the performance would be obvious in the trainings) and stay in sport without competing just by training.
Guess that I am joining the formula1 race with Vw Golf, what would be? they will be finishing the race on 1 hour but I would finish on 4 hours. This is neither performance test not a FUN, would be torture!

I see oeple in the pool who want to join an ironman race with 1:50 pace, and strictly against it, they are advertising themselves as ironmen actually they are not ironmen. So if anyone has a low performance he/she should compete in shorter distance races rather than longer distances in order not to be outpointed.

You've certainly managed to provoke a response!

This site is surely about inspiring people in the way that Shelley Taylor-Smith, Paul Newsome, Seahiker and Terry Laughlin do.

Having people to look up to and be role models.

What do you say to the soldier with no legs who wishes to climb Kilamanjaro and succeeds!

You need some STS barking in your ears!

My one arm swimming is coming along just fine.

I think you have to distinguish between a 'race' and an 'event'. Specifically, a mass-participation event.

Consider the London Marathon - depending on conditions, the men's race winner will be 2:03-2:10. By your reckoning, no-one should enter unless they can run 2:23 or less. That would be a pretty small field! But that's why you have an elite race and an open race.

As someone who will never get within 10% of the winners, I like to have timed events to enter - I use them to motivate my fitness training (without goals I get lazy!), and to raise funds for charities.

Fortunately we have quite a few swimming events like this in the UK. Though I never get within 10% of the winning times, I generally get in the top 25-50% of the field, depending on the type of competitors the event attracts (50% if it's mainly serious triathletes and swimmers, 25% if it includes a lot of "recreational" swimmers). Some events are relatively small (50-60 swimmers); the biggest one I've done is the Dart 10k which was 650 swimmers, starting in 'waves' depending on speed. I swam 2hrs 20mins; the winner was 1hr 50mins, so (even with tidal assistance) I was outside 10% of the fastest time.

Personally I think anything that encourages people to get fit and take up sport is a good thing. To say "it's all about winning" or "don't bother trying if you're not a natural athlete" is a really bad message. To those of us who have more enthusiasm than talent, it's pretty much about racing against ourselves, or just challenging ourselves to complete the distance. Without timed, competitive events, it's hard to keep that motivation going.

I think Mike and Cottmiler already provided full answers.

On one hand, unlike tennis or soccer, (pool) swimming allows you to compete "remotely" by design. I often like to compare my SCM times with the results of local master meets to have an idea of where I am in the field. With tools like this you could virtually race against any swimmer in the world. On another hand, personally I think I really miss swimming/racing "live" with better swimmers (master squads don't train early morning in my area, I always train solo). In the rare occasions where I could share a 20x50 with a better swimmer in the next lane, I pushed myself farther. I would probably benefit from entering some master meets, just looking at better swimmers can be stimulating, especially for one who doesn't train in a squad. In this regard, joining a competition is fine regardless of outcomes.

As for open water swimming, competing "remotely" is not as easy and straight as pool swimming. A mass start, drafting, swimming safely over a long course with big buoys is something I can't experience outside of an event.

Salvo

Slow swim leg in an Ironman event is a poor example, they need competitor numbers, spectator numbers and sponsorship.

Pro sports have qualifying, fastest get to compete.

Motor Racing is a different thing due to safety concerns.

Somebody has to come last.

cottmiler wrote:You've certainly managed to provoke a response!

This site is surely about inspiring people in the way that Shelley Taylor-Smith, Paul Newsome, Seahiker and Terry Laughlin do.

Having people to look up to and be role models.

What do you say to the soldier with no legs who wishes to climb Kilamanjaro and succeeds!

You need some STS barking in your ears!

My one arm swimming is coming along just fine.

Crossing the British or Catalina Channels with a time over 10 hours(good swimmers finish on 7 hours) or competing in Manhattan Island Marathon (and being first with even with a poor time when elite swimmers didnt compete), running the New York Marathon over 4 hours, or climbing Kilamanjaro/Everest, crossing the Bosphorus/Dardanelles are not different than

"walking from Turkey to Germany".

These are not race events in real.

Mike A wrote:
I think you have to distinguish between a 'race' and an 'event'. Specifically, a mass-participation event.

Consider the London Marathon - depending on conditions, the men's race winner will be 2:03-2:10. By your reckoning, no-one should enter unless they can run 2:23 or less. That would be a pretty small field! But that's why you have an elite race and an open race.

As someone who will never get within 10% of the winners, I like to have timed events to enter - I use them to motivate my fitness training (without goals I get lazy!), and to raise funds for charities.

Fortunately we have quite a few swimming events like this in the UK. Though I never get within 10% of the winning times, I generally get in the top 25-50% of the field, depending on the type of competitors the event attracts (50% if it's mainly serious triathletes and swimmers, 25% if it includes a lot of "recreational" swimmers). Some events are relatively small (50-60 swimmers); the biggest one I've done is the Dart 10k which was 650 swimmers, starting in 'waves' depending on speed. I swam 2hrs 20mins; the winner was 1hr 50mins, so (even with tidal assistance) I was outside 10% of the fastest time.

Personally I think anything that encourages people to get fit and take up sport is a good thing. To say "it's all about winning" or "don't bother trying if you're not a natural athlete" is a really bad message. To those of us who have more enthusiasm than talent, it's pretty much about racing against ourselves, or just challenging ourselves to complete the distance. Without timed, competitive events, it's hard to keep that motivation going.

FINA Masters Worl/Europe Championships are also open races, everyone can joing without any time restrcition, but please take a look at the amateur/old swimmers' times in any event/race and see what would happen if you had joined the race. I recommend you not to confuse activity with event or race. Race can be an event, event can be a race bu activity can never be a race.

Tom65 wrote:Slow swim leg in an Ironman event is a poor example, they need competitor numbers, spectator numbers and sponsorship.

Pro sports have qualifying, fastest get to compete.

Motor Racing is a different thing due to safety concerns.

Somebody has to come last.

If we cannot swim well, we dont have to be swimmers, may deal with archery or poetry.  

Somebody has to come last but shouldnt come with a big time gap. Swimming the British Channel/or finishing the Ironman over 15 hours (while others finishing under 10 hours) cannot be joyful.  THROWING THOUSANDS OF BAD STROKES CAN NEVER BE ENJOYABLE. It will be better rather to get f.cked by a black guy instead of these tortures.