Gina Kolata, fitness writer for the New York Times, posted an article yesterday in which she argues that peak performance in more than one sport is not possible for triathletes. And the tone of her article suggests that it may not be possible for triathletes to peak in any of their three sports.
Kolata's interviewees acknowledge a few of triathlon's benefits: the variety is fun and avoids single-sport repetitive stress injuries, three sports allow athletes to compensate for weaknesses in one area with strengths in another, but as the voice of the article, Kolata focuses on perceived negatives, all based on a sense that peak performance in one sport is more desirable than lesser performance in three.
A more interesting article might have asked: Is it better to be fast at three sports or fastest at one?
But Kolata's argument is elementary and counter to the entire spirit and point of the sport of triathlon. Multisport athletes are unlikely to rival their single-sport counterparts because they are spreading their training time over three sports. This is the nature of the sport.
Triathletes should not be the best swimmers, the best cyclists, or the best runners. Triathletes should be the best at doing all three consecutively. You see, Gina, triathlon is more than three sports put together. Triathlon is its own sport. Triathletes do not compete against the best swimmers, the best cyclists, or the best runners. Triathletes compete against other triathletes. The goal of triathlon is to be a well rounded endurance athlete. The goal is to be fastest at all three sports, collectively. Triathlon's three-sport format is the great equalizer; Lance Armstrong may win 7 consecutive Tours de France, but he may never win a single Ironman (unless he can work on that marathon time). Lance's focus on cycling makes him a great cyclist, but not such a great triathlete. Triathlon's sponsors reward single-sport performance, but the sport reserves its greatest rewards for the fastest triathletes.
No comments:
Post a Comment