Thorsten

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.

This is the next post in my series of thoughts on different aspects of the KPR. This will be a pretty short one – discussing when the KPR will change.

In the recent interview with Bob Babbitt, Andrew Messick said that changes are being discussed but no final decisions have been made. This could mean two different things:

• Discussion is almost finished, and changes will be announced shortly and take effect for Kona 2015 qualifying.
• The discussion will take a while, and changes won’t take effect for Kona 2015 qualifying.

My guess is that we’re looking at the longer timeframe, which means that Kona 2015 qualifying will be governed by the same rules that we saw this year. I have two reasons for this:

1. WTC has usually given the rules at least two seasons before changing them again. We’ve just seen pretty big changes last year – and the full effect of these changes can’t really be assessed before the end of qualifying. By then, the rules for the next season would have to be in place.
2. Changes to the KPR effect a large and diverse group: Just think of the different interests of athletes and race directors, top Pros and those struggling to make a living from triathlon, and the different regional interests of the individual races and communities involved. The lack of any specific plans indicates that these groups have not been informed yet.

In my opinion, changes to the system should be made for 2016 qualifying after a long and open discussion between all interested groups.

My assessment: In the absence of any clear statements by WTC, both scenarios are possible. Still it’s more likely we will see only minor changes for 2015.