Analysis

This is a slightly updated excerpt from my free 2014 TriRating Report which has a lot more information and data on the 2014 season. You can still download it for free!

In other sports – such as golf – the main way of ranking athletes is by the amount of prize money they make. This year, I have extended my list: The 2013 list was limited only to WTC races, this year I also include Challenge and other notable longer races. Therefore, I have an overall money list and a few lists with money only from certain events.

Overall Money List

First, here is an overview of the races I have included in my money list:

Type	Description	Total Prize Money	# of Athletes
Ironman	Full-distance WTC races (not including Kona)	$ 2.032.500	316
Kona	Ironman World Championship (Kona)	$ 650.000	20
70.3 Champs	70.3 World Championship (Mt. Tremblant)	$ 250.000	20
Challenge	Full-distance Challenge races (including Roth)	$ 482.450	107
Bahrain	Challenge Bahrain	$ 440.000	20
Other	MetaMan, Dubai, Embrun	$ 430.000	38
Sum	All included races	$ 4.284.950	415

The next table shows the Top 20 athletes – both from the men and women – that have earned the most prize money in the 2014 calendar year from all the races listed above:

#	Name	Gender	Total
1	Kienle, Sebastian	M	$145.000
2	Carfrae, Mirinda	F	$140.000
3	Ryf, Daniela	F	$125.000
4	Joyce, Rachel	F	$101.000
5	Raelert, Michael	M	$100.000
5	Frederiksen, Helle	F	$100.000
7	Swallow, Jodie	F	$78.000
8	Frodeno, Jan	M	$67.500
9	Hoffman, Ben	M	$65.000
10	Crawford, Gina	F	$64.500
11	Steffen, Caroline	F	$56.500
12	Hauschildt, Melissa	F	$55.000
13	Brown, Cameron	M	$52.500
14	Dreitz, Andreas	M	$50.000
15	Frommhold, Nils	M	$49.500
16	Gomez, Javier	M	$45.000
16	Butterfield, Tyler	M	$45.000
18	Kessler, Meredith	F	$43.000
19	Gross, Sara	F	$40.000
20	Potts, Andy	M	$37.500

For comparison, the ITU had a prize purse of $ 2.2 million in 2014. Their top earners are Javier Gomez (about $180.000) and Gwen Jorgensen (about $192.000).

Ironman Money List

Here are the Top 15 money earners from Ironman races (not including Kona):

#	Name	Gender	Ironman	Total	Overall Rank
1	Gross, Sara	F	$40.000	$40.000	19
2	Alonso McKernan, Clemente	M	$31.000	$31.000	25
3	Kessler, Meredith	F	$30.000	$43.000	18
3	Corbin, Linsey	F	$30.000	$30.000	27
5	Williamson, Kelly	F	$27.500	$27.500	32
6	Abraham, Corinne	F	$26.750	$26.750	34
7	Kienle, Sebastian	M	$25.000	$145.000	1
7	Steffen, Caroline	F	$25.000	$56.500	11
7	Bockel, Dirk	M	$25.000	$26.500	35
7	Tollakson, TJ	M	$25.000	$25.000	40
11	Brown, Cameron	M	$22.500	$52.500	13
11	Wee, Bree	F	$22.500	$22.500	46
11	Ferreira, Amber	F	$22.500	$22.500	46
11	Braendli, Simone	F	$22.500	$22.500	46
15	Weiss, Michael	M	$21.500	$21.500	49

WTC Money List

Here are the Top 15 money earners from WTC races (including Kona and the 70.3 Champs):

#	Name	Gender	Ironman	Total	Overall Rank
1	Kienle, Sebastian	M	$145.000	$145.000	1
2	Ryf, Daniela	F	$125.000	$125.000	3
3	Carfrae, Mirinda	F	$120.000	$140.000	2
4	Frodeno, Jan	M	$67.500	$67.500	8
5	Hoffman, Ben	M	$65.000	$65.000	9
6	Swallow, Jodie	F	$50.000	$78.000	7
7	Gomez, Javier	M	$45.000	$45.000	16
8	Steffen, Caroline	F	$44.000	$56.500	11
9	Joyce, Rachel	F	$40.000	$101.000	4
10	Kessler, Meredith	F	$40.000	$43.000	18
11	Gross, Sara	F	$40.000	$40.000	19
12	Frommhold, Nils	M	$38.500	$49.500	15
13	Potts, Andy	M	$37.500	$37.500	20
14	Ellis, Mary Beth	F	$33.000	$33.000	21
15	Aernouts, Bart	M	$31.500	$31.500	24

Money List from Challenge and other Races

After also adding Embrue, here are the Top 18 money earners from non-WTC races :

#	Name	Gender	Non-WTC Total	Challenge	Bahrain	Other	Total
1	Raelert, Michael	M	$100.000		$100.000		$100.000
1	Frederiksen, Helle	F	$100.000		$100.000		$100.000
3	Joyce, Rachel	F	$61.000	$11.000	$50.000		$101.000
4	Dreitz, Andreas	M	$50.000		$50.000		$50.000
5	Hauschildt, Melissa	F	$47.000		$7.000	$40.000	$55.000
6	Butterfield, Tyler	M	$40.000			$40.000	$45.000
7	Crawford, Gina	F	$37.000	$7.000		$30.000	$64.500
8	Zamora, Marcel	M	$32.500			$32.500	$37.500
9	Brown, Cameron	M	$30.000			$30.000	$52.500
10	Swallow, Jodie	F	$28.000		$25.000	$3.000	$78.000
10	Croneborg, Fredrik	M	$28.000	$18.000		$10.000	$32.000
12	McNeice, Dylan	M	$26.000	$26.000			$28.500
13	Reed, Timothy	M	$25.000		$25.000		$31.000
14	Mullan, Eimear	M	$23.400		$23.400		$31.400
15	Carfrae, Mirinda	F	$20.000	$20.000			$140.000
15	Bracht, Timo	M	$20.000	$20.000			$25.000
17	Skipworth, Todd	F	$19.500			$19.500	$19.500
18	Van Vlerken, Yvonne	F	$19.000	$4.000		$15.000	$26.000

One of the ongoing issues in Ironman racing is the disparity between Pro men and Pro women slots in Kona (50 for men, 35 for women). The main argument for the different number of slots is that there are a lot more men than women racing. Roughly, there is a relation of 2 men to 1 women that has been pretty much unchanged in recent years.

However, women’s races are often more exciting than the men’s race. In one of my older posts on this issue I’ve presented data indicating that the racing at the front of the women’s race is probably even closer than on the men’s side. Arguments for that include the number of lead changes on the run, or the time difference among athletes on the podium.

However, the decision by WTC not to increase the number of women’s Kona slots seems to be based on the perception that men’s field is „deeper“ than the women’s field. This post has a look at this claim and tries to provide data.

Suggestions for Measuring Depth Of Field

There have been a few „proofs“ that the men’s field is deeper than women’s. However, they don’t hold up to closer scrutiny.

Kona 2014

I’ve heard Kona 2014 mentioned as anecdotal evidence that the women’s field was lacking strength. The observation was that by the time the field reached Kawaihae, 30 men were still in the race. At the same point in the women’s race, there were only ten contenders left.

Of course, using an arbitrary point in a single race is neither convincing nor statistically significant. There are tons of counterexamples, take for example Kona 2014 (the same race) about 30k into the run. At that time, the men’s race was practically decided with Sebastian Kienle 10 minutes ahead of the rest of the field, while there were at least three women with a chance to win the race (Daniela Ryf, Rachel Joyce and Mirinda Carfrae).

KPR Points at #50

Another argument that is used very often is the number of KPR points at #50. Here’s the data from 2014 (not using Automatic Qualifiers):

• Schildknecht 3.915 vs. Bazlen 3.595

There is only a 320 points difference, probably smaller than some proponents of this argument make it sound. Also, the difference is a consequence of #50 being interesting for the men and not interesting for the women. We can easily refute the argument that this shows a lack of depth for the women by looking at #35:

• Jurkiewicz 4.280 vs. Wee 5.040

While Bree has a lot more points than Jeremy, I don’t think that this shows that the men’s field is less deep than the women’s field – it just shows that #35 is interesting for the women and not for the men.

Time Differences

As an example of many similar lines of argument, Andrew Starykowicz has posted a detailed look at the time differences between the TopX in men’s and women’s fields. His data shows that the men’s races are much „tighter“ than the women’s races:

However, this ignores the fact that the women’s fields are smaller and that a smaller field leads to larger gaps between the finishers. To simplify a bit, if the women’s field is half as large as the men’s field, this leads to time differences twice as large (e.g. if the male have a difference at #10 of 9,5%, the expected female difference would be in the order of 19% instead of the observed 11%). So rather than show that the women’s fields are less competitive, the larger difference is more a sign of the smaller fields.

Races with Small Women’s Fields

Each season, there is at least won Pro race that has a very small women’s Pro field. In 2013 IM France had only five starters, in 2014 IM Wales had only two. Of course it’s always bad if prize money goes unclaimed (France paid 8 deep, Wales 6 deep), but I think that this is again a consequence of the lower number of women racing: There are too many races for the smaller women’s field. I have suggested in my post on the Registration Procedures that WTC should keep Pros informed about the number of athletes that have already suggested for a race so that these very low numbers can be avoided.

My Suggestion

It’s actually surprisingly hard to come up with a measurement for the depth of the field, considering the different field sizes and different finishing times. A way that I suggest are Relative Finish Distribution Charts („REFIDCHs“). A Relative Finish Distribution Chart shows the percentage of finishers for different percentages of the winner’s time. Here’s the chart for the men’s Kona finishers from 2011 to 2014 (the years that the KPR has been used to determine the fields):

On the horizontal axis we see the relative finishing time (for example 105% means that the time equivalent to 105% of the winners time in a given year). On the vertical axis the chart shows the part of the field that has finished faster than the time on the x-asis. (For example, roughly 35% of the athletes finished within 105% of the winner’s time.)

REFIDCHs can be used to visualize the depth of the field. A „deep“ field will finish pretty close to the winner, resulting in a very steep graph. A „less deep“ field will have a flatter curve, showing that more athletes have finished further away from the winner. So if the women in Kona were less competitive, they would have a flatter curve, one that would be to the right of the men’s graph.

So let’s add the women’s distribution:

The two graphs have a very similar shape – if there is a difference, the women’s graph is to the left of the men’s graph, indicating a slightly deeper women’s field.

Let’s control for the influence of the different field sizes. One could argue that the smaller women’s field cuts away the slower end of the field. (Anecdotally, this isn’t the case: Some women that missed Kona this year included athletes such as Amy Marsh, Angela Naeth, Rebekah Keat, Laura Bennett or Eimear Mullan that could have placed well in Kona.) This is pretty hard to factor into the data, so I’ve done the next best thing by removing the men’s qualifiers in #35 to #50 from the results. (For 2014, this would have affected such well-placed finishers as 2nd Ben Hoffman, 6th Nils Frommhold or 10th Romain Guillaume.) Adding in a third graph for the „reduced Men’s field“ produces the following chart:

While reducing the men’s field has led to a steeper graph (indicating that more athletes would have been cut from the „slower“ end of the field), the graphs are still very close together, crossing each other at various points. Using this chart, there is no indication that the women’s field is any less competitive or deep than the men’s field or even the reduced men’s field.

Conclusion

I couldn’t find any data that supports the claim that the depth of the women’s field is any worse than the men’s field. (If you have other suggestions, please let me know!) While the lower number of athletes leads to bigger gaps in the Ironman races across the globe, at least the women that made it to Kona are as competitive as their male counterparts. In my eyes, the women’s race in Kona would be even more exciting than it already is if there were 50 Pro slots for the women.

Last year I wrote a post on procedures around Pro registration for Ironman races. In it, I have made a few suggestions for improvements and wanted to check on the progress.

Suggestions from Last Year

Here is a quick overview of the changes I suggested:

1. Information on how many athletes have already registered for a race
2. Standard registration deadline of four weeks
3. Easily available start lists after end of registration
4. Stricter withdrawal process

Let’s have a closer look at what happened with each of these suggestions.

Registration Levels

I am not aware of any information that is made available to Pro athletes (or the triathlon press) that indicates how many athletes have registered for a race. If this information had been available, it might have helped to prevent the really small Pro fields (most notably IM Wales which only had two Pro women). From what I heard, some more athletes were interesting to start in Wales after the start list was published, but were declined as the registration deadline had already passed.

As I have suggested last year, I don’t think that putting out the information has to be complicated: A monthly email newsletter by Pro Services to the athletes could just note the current number of athletes registered for the races in the next months, and athletes could adjust their plans accordingly.

Registration Deadline

For most races, a registration deadline of three weeks was used (and in some cases, strictly enforced). I think that almost all Pro athletes are aware that they have to plan their races in time. Except for a few licensed races, I don’t really see this as an issue an more – a three week deadline seems to be standard and accepted.

Start Lists

Ironman has made big steps forward in making start lists available: They have a standard location on their website for Pro start lists (Results – Pro Athletes, then Event Registration – Pro Start Lists). A big thumbs up!

However, there are still some improvements that should be made for the 2015 season:

• While it’s been working well for North American and Asia/Pacific races, it was hard to get timely and up-to-date information for European races.
• The start list should be available within days after the registration deadline, but there were a lot of cases when it takes much longer.

Withdrawals

This is the area where more progress should to be made. Quite often, athletes that have announced on social media that they won’t be starting are still on the start list – apparently because Pro Registration has not been notified. It seems to me that the sanctions that Ironman has in place (basically starting at losing 500 KPR points) are not sufficient to ensure that all athletes that won’t start properly notify Pro Registration services.

Also, the information about withdrawals should be reflected in the published start lists. At this point, it is not apparent when start lists are updated and where the updates have occurred. I think two simple changes could help here:

• On Ironman.com, note the date that the list was last changed in addition to the race name (so instead of „Ironman Lake Placid“ it should be „Ironman Lake Placid (updated June 10th)“)
• In the list, cross out athletes that won’t start, and note late additions in a special way (e.g. color or by adding „LA“ at their bib).

Overall

I think that Ironman Pro Registration has put a lot of work into improving the information that is available. In addition, I’m thankful that Paula and Heather are alway very helpful and quick in answering my requests. (From what I heard, they are also great in answering questions from Pros and the triathlon press.) However, I think there is still room for improvement in the information that is publicly available, and I hope that this will also make their job a bit easier by reducing the number of requests they have to handle.

One of the changes in the 2015 KPR rules address the issue of validation. (You can ready more about the 2015 KPR and receive updates about the qualifying situation by subscribing to the 2015 KPR Observer.) In one of my earlier posts, I have written about my thoughts on validation.

Before going into a detailed discussion of validation let me state that I’m not judging the athlete’s choices nor do I want to imply that some choices are likely in the future. I merely use what has happened in the past or what might happen in the future in order to give examples for specific situations. 

Increased Requirements for Returning Champions

In short validation defines a minimum requirement of finishing at least one Ironman race outside of Kona in order to be eligible for a Kona slot. Most often, the term „validation” used as a requirement for past champions to get a non-points slot: They get an automatic entry (called „five year exemption“ in the KPR rules) for five years after winner Kona. In the 2014 season, there have been two incidents when deciding champions decided to race an Ironman without going for the win:

• Mirinda Carfre validated at IM Florida (three weeks after Kona) by finishing 23rd in 9:48, including a 3:34 run.
• After missing IM Texas because of an injury, Pete Jacobs validated at IM Switzerland (a week after Challenge Roth) by finishing 15th in 11:42, including a 5:37 bike and a 4:56 marathon. (Pete wrote about his reasons in an open letter to Ironman CEO.)

Ironman CEO Andrew Messick expressed his frustration in the way that some champions have fulfilled their validation in an interview with Slowtwitch:

Last weekend one of our former world champions validated for Kona ..  that athlete went 11:42 with a 51 minute swim, 5 hour and 37 minute bike and a 4:56 run. [Messick was referencing 2012 Ironman World Champion Pete Jacobs of Australia who was validating his 2014 Kona entry at Ironman Switzerland in Zurich] There was never any doubt that this was simply punching a ticket.

Not surprisingly, the requirements for validation have been increased in the 2015 KPR rules:

Former Pro Athlete Ironman® World Champions .. will be required to validate their entry by racing competitively (as determined by IRONMAN in IRONMAN’s sole discretion) and finishing at least one (1) Ironman®-Branded Kona-Qualifying Race (excluding the 2014 Ironman World Championship) during the 2015 Qualifying Year.

Discussion

The requirements in the KPR rules are not very specific – so I had a look into the Merriam-Webster dictionary for a definition of „competitive“:

• having a strong desire to win or be the best at something
• trying to win a contest or be more successful than others

Going by this definition, validation would require that a returning champion races in order to win (or at minimum to place well). Obviously this is what Ironman would like to see, but clearly not what Rinnie and Pete did. Even if Pete did the best he could do at his specific situation in Switzerland, I can’t see this fit the above definition of „competitive“.

I think the language is only helpful in showing „undesired“ behavior – “not racing competitively“ which should be easy to determine. However, it it not helpful in giving an athlete of what is required of him or her to validate. In the example of Pete who did not have a choice other than to race a week after Roth, what would he have had to do in order to be considered „racing competitively“? And would Rinnie’s performance in Florida have been judged to be competitive? Where is the cutoff? One could try to come up with better criteria than what we have now – maybe be within x% of the winners time, or score at least k number of KPR points. However, Ironman doesn’t seem to plan to give a clearer guidance on what they determine to be competitive.

What about the Points Slots?

There is another issue that has to be discussed: The requirement of „racing competitively“ only applies to returning champions. This leads to two questions: If a returning champion’s performance has not been deemed „competitive“ (and therefore not eligible for an automatic qualifier), is it then still possible to be considered for a points slot? (I can’t see anything in the KPR rules that would prohibit it.) This could theoretically happen if Sebastian Kienle comes into a situation similar to Pete: His 8000 points from winning Kona will be enough to be above the points cutoff. If he „finishes without racing competitively“, he might be denied an automatic qualifier as a returning champion, but nothing would keep him from claiming a points slot. I’m not sure if this makes sense.

In addition, this is effectively putting a higher requirement on returning champions (say Leanda Cave who finished 18th and is currently ranked with not enough points for a slot) than an athlete who has placed well in the last Kona race (say Daniela Ryf who finished 2nd and is currently leading the rankings). Leanda has to „race competitively“ for her automatic qualifier, while Daniela could „just finish“. (Again, I’m not implying that this is likely or that she even thinks about this.)

I expect that this „disparity“ will be addressed in the next KPR rules change: The increased number of candidates that could get a Kona slot without racing competitively is much larger (basically, most of the Top10 men and women should already be safe from a points perspective), so I’m sure there will be a few more cases this season. (We have already seen a potential case last year when Tim O’Donnell used a 33rd place finish in Florida as his „validation“ IM.)

My Personal Opinion

My base position on validation is unchanged since I wrote my thought on it in May: 

I think it is obvious that no-one thinks that a recent Kona winner is not „worthy“ of starting in the Kona Pro field. But if Kona winners could just rock up to Kona, they might have an unfair advantage: By not having to race any IMs, they could be better rested than all the other participants that have to struggle for points to make it to Kona. Therefore, I am (a bit reluctantly) agreeing with the concept of validation.

However, I think that the rules changes made (and those that I expect to follow) are just making things more and more complicated and subjective. Therefore, my suggestion would be to accept any Ironman-distance race as validation. (Pete and Rinnie wouldn’t have had to race an Ironman if their Challenge Roth finish would have counted as validation.) However, I can’t see that Ironman would see this as a viable solution so I think that this will unfortunately continue to be a contentious issue.

Among the changes to the KPR for 2015 (official text on ironman.com website) is the reduction of number of Ironman races that will count as part of an athlete’s total score for the KPR. In the past (up until 2014), it was possible to use up to five full distance Ironman races for the total score. Starting with the KPR qualifying for Kona 2015, only up to three IMs can be part of the total score. (There can still be up to five scores total, but only up to three can be from IMs, similar to the up to three 70.3 results that can be part of the total.) Here’s a look at the changes in the rankings that this will probably bring. Because the women have fewer slots available, they usually race more often than the men, so I’ll have separate sections for each gender.

Men

Here are the men who qualified for Kona that had more than three IMs in their total KPR score. I have added their total number of Ironman finishes and the number of points they would loose in parentheses.

• 5 IMs: 2 athletes
  Matt Russell (8-1080), Harry Wiltshire (6-1105)
• 4 IMs: 5 athletes
  Daniel Halksworth (4-340), David Plese (4-340), Marek Jaskolka (4-405), Christian Brader (4-305), Justin Daerr (4-230)

Under the new rules, these athletes would have had a lower score. If they wanted to make sure to qualify for Kona, they would have had to race 70.3s for some extra points. 

Among the qualified athletes, Axel Zeebroek raced four IMs this season, but his total score only uses three of these, so his total wouldn’t change under the new rule.

In addition there are athletes that finished more than three IMs but didn’t qualify. As the rule change will only affect those that actually might be interested in a Kona slot, I’m only listing those that scored more than 1.000 points:

• 8 IMs: Petr Vabrousek (3.265)
• 5 IMs: Jonathon Woods (1.385)
• 4 IMs: Kyrill Kotshegarev (3.220), Joshua Rix (1.400), Balazs Csoke (2.090), Thomas Darby (1.890)

Women

Here are the women who qualified for Kona that had more than three IMs in their total KPR score. I have added their total number of Ironman finishes and the number of points they would loose in parentheses.

• 5 IMs: 2 athletes
  Lisa Roberts (5-1125), Jackie Arendt (5-610)
• 4 IMs: 9 athletes
  Elizabeth Lyles (4-960), Amber Ferreira (4-405), Melanie Burke (5-720), Asa Lundstroem (4-720), Kristin Moeller (4-960), Sophie Goos (4-565), Bree Wee (4-720), Jessie Donavan (4-540), Katja Konschak (5-540)

Under the new rules, these athletes would have had a lower score. If they wanted to make sure to qualify for Kona, they would have had to race 70.3s for some extra points. 

Among the qualified athletes, Beth Shutt raced four IMs this season, but her total score only uses three of these, so his total wouldn’t change under the new rule.

In addition there are athletes that finished more than three IMs but didn’t qualify. As the rule change will only affect those that actually might be interested in a Kona slot, I’m only listing those that scored more than 2.000 points:

• 5 IMs: Mareen Hufe (5.165)
• 4 IMs: Ashley Clifford (3.385), Erika Csomor (4.780)

Overall Assessment

Obviously, the impact of the rule change is different for the men and women. 

The impact on the men’s cutoff will be relatively small (only 7 out of 50 qualifying athletes had four or more IMs in their total score). I think that racing under the new rules would have driven them to do more 70.3s, and the changes to their total score would have been in the order of 100 points.

For the women, there is a larger number of athletes that are impacted (11 women out of 35 qualifiers have raced four IMs or more), and the impact on their scores would also have been higher. All of them would have lost 400 points or more, and I’m not sure that they would have been able to fully compensate by racing additional 70.3s. 

To sum up, I think that the men’s cutoff will be lowered by about 100 points and by 400 points for the women by only allowing up to three IM scores.

Of course, there are other changes impacting the cutoff projections. If you want to see my overall projections for the 2015 cutoff and which athletes already have a safe slot, you should subscribe to the 2015 KPR Observer, consisting of an Initial Information Package and ongoing email updates as the season progresses.