Thorsten

In the last posts, I have been laying the groundwork for the changes to the KPR that I propose. This post brings these thoughts together and introduces the main elements of my suggestion for a modified Kona qualifying system.

Have some Direct Qualification Slots 

As I have outlined in „Why have a points system“, I think there are a lot of advantages to slots that you can get from having one great result in a limited number of Ironman races. My base line suggestion is as follows:

• Top 10 from Kona get a direct slot (while still requiring validation, winner still has an AQ status and doesn’t count = 9 slots)
• Top 5 from the three Regional Championships get a direct slot (3 races * 5 slots = 15 slots)
• Top 3 from the five „Continental races“ get a direct slot (5 races * 3 slots = 15 slots)

You can certainly play with the numbers and reduce the number of direct slots (e.g. 6 + 3*3 + 5*2 = 25 slots), but the important point is that there are direct slots (from racing very well in one race) and points slots (from racing well in multiple races).

Award the Rest of the Slots through a Points System

This leaves at least 11 slots open for those athletes that are willing to work for their slots (i.e. race more often) – in fact there would be some more as there won’t be a rolldown for the automatic slots. The points slots could be assigned by a system that is very similar to the KPR system today, with points from all of the Ironman races offering a Pro category counting towards Kona qualifying.

The number of races that count towards Kona qualifying could be similar to what we have today (up to 5 races including up to 3 70.3s), but as I discussed in “Which and how many races should qualify for Kona” I suggest to lower the number to reduce the impetus for racing many IMs over the season. My suggestion would be to have up to three IMs plus up to two 70.3s.

I would also suggest to simplify the points schedule: After the direct slots, all races should be P-2000 races (so that 11th Kona = 6th in the Regionals = 4th in the Continentals = 1st in other IMs = 2000 points).

Some more details

Of course there are a lot more details that have to be clarified for a complete system. Here are some that I have been thinking about:

• 50 slots for both the men and the women
• no roll down for the direct slots (slots declined or not needed go to the points slots – so there will probably be about 15 to 20 points slots)
• points slots are awarded at the end of July
• only August slots would be the direct slots from Mt. Tremblant
• the Regional and Continental races should be spread on the calendar so most months have one direct qualifying race (e.g. October-Kona, November-Arizona/Florida, December-Western Australia, March-Melbourne, April-South Africa, May-Brasil, June-France, July-Frankfurt, August-Mt. Tremblant)

I think that such a system could be a great compromise between those that want to focus on Kona and those that are willing to work hard for their Kona slot. It’ll be interesting to see what ideas WTC is considering and what system they will decide on.

Please add your voice to this discussion, it is important to Professional IM racing to have an open broad discussion before any final decisions are made!

After a nice long weekend (with a short trip to visit friends), here is the next post in my series of thoughts on different aspects of the KPR. The focus of this post is the type and number of races that count towards Kona qualifying.

This question has two different aspects:

• How many races should count?
• Should 70.3s count towards Kona qualifying?

Number of races

An issue that has been discussed for as long as the KPR has been announced is the number of races that count for Kona qualifying. There are different views on this issue: One type of athlete would like to be able to qualify in once race (and therefore argue for just one or two races counting), other athletes want to be rewarded for racing often (and want as many races as possible to be included). It is probably impossible to come up with a number of races that would satisfy both types of athletes. The 2013 changes have been aimed at pleasing the first type (better points for top 3 places), but have probably resulted in even more racing by those willing to race often and thereby increasing the required cutoffs.

My view is that WTC shouldn’t encourage a behavior where athletes have a chance to qualify for Kona by racing themselves into the ground. We are now at a point where Kona qualifying by racing often makes it virtually impossible to have a real off-season. Racing often may work for a season or two, but will usually catch up with athletes after some time and force a longer, usually unplanned downtime. There will always be athletes that are willing and able to race four or five Ironmen a year, but this is probably too much for the typical athlete and also doesn’t allow proper peaking for all these races.

Therefore, I think that the KPR should limit the number of Ironman races that count towards Kona qualifying. The current system allows for five scoring Ironman races. If you add Kona (which is the goal after all) and maybe another sub-par Ironman performance, this could easily mean six or seven IMs per year! I think that no more than two or three IMs should count for Kona qualifying. Last summer (when analyzing the impact of the new KPR points system), I was also simulating the impact of only two races for Kona – and except for some „edge cases“ close to the cutoff line there was hardly any difference in the athletes that would have qualified.

It has been argued frequently that one of the goals of the KPR was to force athletes to race more WTC races and therefore increasing the depth of the Pro field in races. The depth of Pro fields in the 2014 races indicates that there is sufficient interest in racing Pro and „forcing“ athletes to start often is no longer required from a business viewpoint.

70.3 for Kona?

Another question that has been discussed for a long time is whether results from 70.3 races should count for Kona qualifying. The idea behind including 70.3s is that if an athlete needs just a few more points, this shouldn’t force him to race another Ironman. Instead, by finishing reasonably well in a 70.3, the last few remaining points could be collected in a race that’s easier on the body. I’m not sure that the current KPR fulfills that goal, to me it looks more as if the 70.3 points also increase the cutoff points and therefore encourages even more racing.

At the time that the KPR was introduced, the 70.3 series wasn’t as well established as it is now, and being able to get Kona points in 70.3s was probably an extra benefit for the 70.3 series. I don’t think that this is necessary any longer: The 70.3 series is attractive by itself and manages to attract a lot of interest without any cross-promotion from IMs.

One issue that the 2013 KPR changes addressed was the relative merit of 70.3s and IMs. In the old system, a P-1000 IM was hardly any more „valuable“ that a P-750 or P-500 70.3. After the changes, all IMs have more points that every 70.3 (the only exception is the 70.3 championship as a P-3000 race). Therefore, winning an IM is more valuable than racing well in a 70.3 – as it should be for Kona qualifying.

I don’t really see a problem with 70.3s counting towards Kona qualifying. As far as I can see, the influence on the cutoff number by adding 70.3s into the KPR is relatively small if you limit the number of 70.3s. In addition, if you reduce the number of IMs counting for Kona qualifying, you also have to reduce the number of 70.3s. My suggestion would be to reduce the number of 70.3s from three (as it is today) to one or two (depending on weather two or three IMs count for Kona qualifying). In order to not reduce the number of races counting for Kona too much, I’d suggest points from two IMs plus one additional 70.3 or three IMs plus two additional 70.3s.

My assessment: A reduction of the number of races should be seriously considered to limit over-racing, but 70.3 should remain a part of Kona qualifying.

This blog post is just a quick rehash of two issues that I have written about in the past: Number of slots for Women, and qualifying in August.

Last summer, Rachel Joyce wrote an article on witsup.com arguing for equal Kona slots between men and women. The issue has been picked up by others, and I put together a blog post with some supporting data. However, WTC has not made any changes in the number of slots. My view on this issue hasn’t changed at all, I think that the weird differences in Kona qualifying between men and women (women need at least 1.000 more points to qualify) just add one more argument for offering the same number of Kona slots for men and women.

August qualifying is another issue that has been on my mind for quite some time. My first post on this issue dates back to October 2011. The data I analyze in that post shows that the shorter the period of no IMs before Kona, the worse your performance, and a rest period of more than three months is best. This means that even racing an IM in July is not good for your Kona performance, and a race in August is even worse. (This is consistent with the observation that if you raced well in the Ironman Frankfurt or Challenge Roth, you can’t expect much in Kona.) Therefore, I strongly argue against August qualifying as a strategy for those that want to do well in Kona, and I also think that WTC should not encourage it. I understand that there are business reasons for offering August races, but I can’t really see why the August races can’t be the first ones of the new qualifying year. At the very minimum, racing multiple Ironman races for the last few Kona points slots shouldn’t really be possible – these athletes don’t have a decent chance for a good Kona race.

My assessment: My position on these issues is clear, but I haven’t seen any signs that WTC is considering changes in these areas.

In an earlier post I suggested (as have others) to reduce the number of races that qualify for Kona. Among other things, this will have an impact on those races that are no longer relevant for Pro Kona qualifying. A reduction in the number of qualifying races has to include a discussion of what happens to the „non-Kona races“.

One possible scenario is that these races do not have a Pro race at all. (I don’t think that’s a good idea, but I’ll go into that later on.) The conventional wisdom seems to be that these races can’t survive in the long run. I disagree: The majority of age group racers are certainly in the sport because of the lure of Kona and Kona’s Pro races and stories. But I don’t think that the choice of a race is much influenced by the actual pro field that’s racing. At least for me, considerations such as the location or date of the race play a much bigger factor – and the quality of the race experience that can be expected. I’d say that as long as WTC offers a great race experience, they have a strong „sales proposition” – even without offering a great Pro race. I’m optimistic that the IM Maryland data will strengthen my position, and I’m sure that some races will drop their Pro category.

But I think it would be a bad decision to drop the Pro field from all non-Kona races. The Pro field has grown much deeper than can be handled by ten or fifteen WTC races. Where would they race? I’m sure that Challenge and others would be happy to pick up these racers – WTC would just be strengthening the profile of their own competition.

So the non-Kona races should at least offer a Pro category. If prize money gets redistributed from smaller races to the Kona races (and no additional money gets earmarked for pro purses), it will be next to impossible to offer even the smallest IM prize purse we have today (25.000$ total for men and women, paying six deep down to 750$). Still, there should be some prize money for the top finishers (after all, racing for money is the definition of a professional athlete).

In addition to prize money, there have to be some other advantages to racing in the Pro category of non-Kona races. Brandon Marsh suggests that you collect points that help decide who gets a slot in the bigger, qualifying races. You could further formalize that, and the non-Kona races could form a „feeder series“ with a separate points system, maybe also an extra prize money pool that gets awarded at the end of the season and a better paying „season finale race”.

Another argument that I frequently hear is that sponsor bonuses for winning an IM (or placing on the podium) are an important part of the money athletes make from sponsor contracts. I find it hard to believe that a sponsor that is willing to put money into Ironman athletes isn’t aware of the difference between say a Regional Championship and a new IM with a small field. Still, there is no harm in calling races „Ironman“ regardless of whether they qualify Pros for Kona or not and therefore at least give the athletes the ability to collect a bonus for winning an IM, even if that particular IM is a 4th tier non-Kona race.

I also think these smaller races could offer additional chances for participating Pros to increase their stature. Pro panels, meet the Pros, little talks etc. could help Pros show that they are excellent ambassadors for themselves and the companies that sponsor them. Other than to provide a location for these things and some announcements, this shouldn’t be too much work for the race organizers, and not cost any money, while providing good value for the Pros.

My assessment: Most non-Kona races will continue to offer a Pro category, but they will have to work with Pro athletes to provide benefits in addition to shrinking prize purses.