If you had to do it again, what would you do differently?
The title of this blog entry is probably my second favorite question I like to ask folks who have recently completed a goal event/project...y'know, it's a good question for us curious folks to pose to people who have spent some time and energy striving to achieve a goal that really means something to them. It's an opportunity for us all to learn, so to speak.
Though, really, it's not a very good question to ask someone who, on a whim, decides to give something a go at the last minute. These style of folks probably didn't give what they did (their "execution"), or how they approached the goal (their "process") much thought - so, the answer that these folks might give doesn't really mean much, I reckon...
but...the folks who put some effort into the deal...well, I reckon I'd be a bit curious about what I could learn from them and their experience. So, yeah, I think the title of this blog is a good question for these folks.
Case in point: Jordan Rapp - recently crowned 2009 IM Canada champ. I haven't asked him this question after his IMC effort. Nor do I expect that I'll get the chance to. Who knows, though, about that...I mean, I did get a response from him after this blog entry:
http://www.biketechreview.com/kdublog/2008/11/ironman.html
so, maybe he just might indulge me! lol! :-)
But really, I reckon the more interesting time to have asked "the question" to Rapp might have been after his second attempt at IMAZ last fall. Here's how I would have expected him to answer "the question" after IMAZ 2008: -> "focus more on the run".
If, indeed that would have been how he answered that question last November (2008), his result today in Penticton (August 2009) wouldn't be that surprising.
FWIW, I'm not too surprised.
Though, I am curios to see what he might be able to do in the future if he ever explored the "faster is faster" process, rather than the "optometrist" process (which Mr. Rapp is obliged currently to promote) as it relates to how one ought to sit on a bike.
The topic of how to sit on a bike has evolved over a hundred+ years, and the modern day tools - such as a power meter and a wind tunnel - have suggested that history has gotten things pretty much "right".
Well, that's what the demand side data from n=100+ athletes in the wind tunnel (and n=1000+ runs) has suggested to me anyway. Granted, this is only the demand side of things, but once one considers how much "supply" is necessary/targetted for an IM effort, well, that sort of thing becomes secondary, I reckon.
Though, really, in the grand scheme of things, I'm open to all sorts of ways to play around with how one might try and sit on a bike...and, believe me, in individual cases, I've seen things that buck the trends. Which is why I sort of chuckle to myself when I hear the "certainty" and "precision" of some folks out there on the interwebs when it comes to how one "ought to sit on a bike"...
Hence, "faster is faster" is the process I prefer to promote.
All of this, as it pertains to Rapp, is pure speculation on my part, of course, but hey - dood just won IMC, so congrats to him on a fine performance.
To personalize this a bit on my end...if I were to have asked myself "the question" (and believe me, I've already done this a number of times! :-) ) after my IMAZ performance last fall, I reckon I'd have said: "focus more on the run".
so, yeah...What's my "caveman" summary about the whole Ironman deal?
More often than not, on the day of the event, long course triathlon isn't really about the bike.
Next week, I think I'll jot down some of the specifics of what I did for IMAZ 2008 and what I'd have done differently knowing what I know from experiencing the whole deal.
elites might find these thoughts irrelevant...but then again, non-elites might also find them irrelevant! :-D
Regardless - the IM deal last summer/fall was "my" n=1 experience...and I guess my big hope would be that someone reading can learn, or better yet/more importantly - think about their approach a bit more deeply.
That'd be pretty cool, huh!? Thinking more deeply about process stuff, and whatnot?!
Though, really, it's not a very good question to ask someone who, on a whim, decides to give something a go at the last minute. These style of folks probably didn't give what they did (their "execution"), or how they approached the goal (their "process") much thought - so, the answer that these folks might give doesn't really mean much, I reckon...
but...the folks who put some effort into the deal...well, I reckon I'd be a bit curious about what I could learn from them and their experience. So, yeah, I think the title of this blog is a good question for these folks.
Case in point: Jordan Rapp - recently crowned 2009 IM Canada champ. I haven't asked him this question after his IMC effort. Nor do I expect that I'll get the chance to. Who knows, though, about that...I mean, I did get a response from him after this blog entry:
http://www.biketechreview.com/kdublog/2008/11/ironman.html
so, maybe he just might indulge me! lol! :-)
But really, I reckon the more interesting time to have asked "the question" to Rapp might have been after his second attempt at IMAZ last fall. Here's how I would have expected him to answer "the question" after IMAZ 2008: -> "focus more on the run".
If, indeed that would have been how he answered that question last November (2008), his result today in Penticton (August 2009) wouldn't be that surprising.
FWIW, I'm not too surprised.
Though, I am curios to see what he might be able to do in the future if he ever explored the "faster is faster" process, rather than the "optometrist" process (which Mr. Rapp is obliged currently to promote) as it relates to how one ought to sit on a bike.
The topic of how to sit on a bike has evolved over a hundred+ years, and the modern day tools - such as a power meter and a wind tunnel - have suggested that history has gotten things pretty much "right".
Well, that's what the demand side data from n=100+ athletes in the wind tunnel (and n=1000+ runs) has suggested to me anyway. Granted, this is only the demand side of things, but once one considers how much "supply" is necessary/targetted for an IM effort, well, that sort of thing becomes secondary, I reckon.
Though, really, in the grand scheme of things, I'm open to all sorts of ways to play around with how one might try and sit on a bike...and, believe me, in individual cases, I've seen things that buck the trends. Which is why I sort of chuckle to myself when I hear the "certainty" and "precision" of some folks out there on the interwebs when it comes to how one "ought to sit on a bike"...
Hence, "faster is faster" is the process I prefer to promote.
All of this, as it pertains to Rapp, is pure speculation on my part, of course, but hey - dood just won IMC, so congrats to him on a fine performance.
To personalize this a bit on my end...if I were to have asked myself "the question" (and believe me, I've already done this a number of times! :-) ) after my IMAZ performance last fall, I reckon I'd have said: "focus more on the run".
so, yeah...What's my "caveman" summary about the whole Ironman deal?
More often than not, on the day of the event, long course triathlon isn't really about the bike.
Next week, I think I'll jot down some of the specifics of what I did for IMAZ 2008 and what I'd have done differently knowing what I know from experiencing the whole deal.
elites might find these thoughts irrelevant...but then again, non-elites might also find them irrelevant! :-D
Regardless - the IM deal last summer/fall was "my" n=1 experience...and I guess my big hope would be that someone reading can learn, or better yet/more importantly - think about their approach a bit more deeply.
That'd be pretty cool, huh!? Thinking more deeply about process stuff, and whatnot?!
Labels: Faster is Faster, ironman, power, TT Position
posted by kraig at
4:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home