Skip to content

Ironman Coeur d’Alene 2014 (June 29th) – Startlist

For the longest time, TriLounge was publishing start lists for the Professional Ironman-distance races. In late May however, the owner Kevin Koresky decided to shut down the site. I’m very sorry that Kevin is no longer able to provide this great service which I was using quite a lot in the last years. I hope to be able to pick up some of the slack and will publish the start lists here on trirating.com as soon as I have found them – starting with the list for Coeur d’Alene (this post) and – in the next day or so – the lists for IM Austria, IM France and Challenge Atlantic City. (Of course, I will continue to post my longer „Predictions“ posts closer to the race with additional information on the race and participants.)

Male Race Participants

Bib Name Nation Age
1 Ben Hoffman USA 30
2 Andy Potts USA 37
3 Victor Zyemtsev USA 41
4 Matthew Russell USA 31
5 Maik Twelsiek GER
6 Pedro Gomes POR 30
7 Nathan Birdsall USA
8 Rick Floyd USA
9 Derek Garcia USA
10 Thomas Gerlach USA 33
11 Christopher Bagg USA
12 Matt Hanson USA
13 Brent Mcburney USA
14 Dantley Young USA
15 Patrick Wheeler USA

Female Race Participants

Bib Name Nation Age
26 Heather Wurtele CAN 34
27 Kelly Williamson USA
28 Stephanie Jones USA
29 Cathleen Knutson USA
30 Kara Lapoint USA
31 Lindsay Ludlow USA
32 Olesya Prystayko UKR
33 Jessica Smith USA
34 Jennie Hansen USA 29
35 Ali Black USA

Ironman Cairns 2014 – Analyzing Results

Race Conditions

From a time-based perspective, Cairns continues to be a relatively average course: With an adjustment of 5:41 for 2014 the rating hardly changed (now: 5:25). As usual, a slow swim (-2:52, almost as slow as the Kona swim) was followed by a quicker bike and an average run. 

Male Race Results

Cameron Brown became the oldest male winner of an Ironman race by battling down Tim Van Berkel on the run. It appears that Cam and Tim also secured a Kona slot. Peter Robertson was with them at the start of the run, but even his good 2:58 marathon wasn’t a match for Cam’s 2:44.

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time Diff to expected
1 Cameron Brown NZL 00:55:16 04:36:20 02:44:54 08:20:15 -03:08
2 Tim Van Berkel AUS 00:52:11 04:39:35 02:48:15 08:23:23 -10:27
3 Peter Robertson AUS 00:50:34 04:41:13 02:58:08 08:33:26 -01:22
4 Matt Burton AUS 00:55:18 04:36:13 02:59:41 08:35:19 -17:18
5 Jarmo Hast FIN 00:53:15 04:43:07 03:00:58 08:41:24 -05:47
6 Courtney Ogden AUS 00:52:14 04:39:59 03:11:22 08:47:48 06:30
7 Luke Martin AUS 00:55:23 04:50:32 03:01:18 08:50:58 n/a
8 Carl Read NZL 00:55:20 04:58:39 02:59:18 08:57:29 05:15
9 Brodie Madgwick NZL 00:55:12 05:21:57 03:06:29 09:28:43 00:46
  Jimmy Johnsen DEN 00:55:20     DNF  
  Jason Shortis AUS 00:58:40 04:53:29   DNF  
  Casey Munro AUS 00:50:30 05:01:05   DNF  

Female Race Results

Liz Blatchford started her title-defense (and Kona validation) with a fantastic swim, but lost some time on the bike (apparently also getting a penalty). Melanie Burke posted the fastest bike split and continued to run well, but she couldn’t match Lizzie’s race best 3:06 run. Asa Lundstrom snatched up the last place on the podium and valuable KPR points to secure a Kona slot.

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time Diff to expected
1 Liz Blatchford GBR 00:52:47 05:13:09 03:06:57 09:16:58 05:42
2 Melanie Burke NZL 01:06:23 05:00:37 03:12:00 09:22:53 -25:11
3 Asa Lundstroem SWE 01:04:41 05:08:06 03:09:03 09:25:56 -10:40
4 Wendy Mcalpine AUS 01:01:10 05:15:28 03:29:19 09:51:03 n/a
5 Katy Duffield AUS 01:01:14 05:25:13 03:22:21 09:52:47 n/a
6 Hillary Biscay USA 00:56:40 05:19:17 03:42:36 10:03:25 -00:39
7 Larisa Marsh NZL 01:03:55 05:22:33 03:34:25 10:04:52 03:46
  Keiko Tanaka JPN 00:57:38 05:42:02   DNF  
  Rebecca Hoschke AUS 01:03:48 05:18:51   DNF  

KPR Thoughts (9) – KPR as a Ranking System

This post adresses a consequence of my suggested qualifying system with a mix of direct and points slots: The use of the KPR as a Ranking System.

When the KPR was introduced, it’s stated reason for existence was to decide which athletes get a Kona slot. However, WTC and some parts of the triathlon press were also pushing its use as a Ranking System, for example by assigning the bib numbers in Kona based on the position in the KPR.

However, I don’t think the KPR is a good Ranking System:

  • The „most important position“ in the KPR is whether you are over or under the cutoff line. This is what almost all athletes are focused on.
  • Hardly anyone is really interested whether you are placed 8th or 21st.
  • The only other position of some interest may be the #1 spot – and that spot is mostly decided after the 70.3 Championships and Kona. Last year, no one was able to challenge Leanda Cave (having won both races), this year Sebastian Kienle is almost assured the #1 spot (after winning 70.3 champs and placing 3rd in Kona).

There are a couple of elements that would have to be addressed in order to create a ranking system:

  • Athletes don’t race very often during one year, therefore a ranking system would have to include results from more than one year.
  • Even though WTC has most of the IM-distance races, there are other races that should be included in a Ranking System. This certainly includes Challenge races, maybe also off-distance races such as the ITU long distance championships or Abu Dhabi.
  • In order to rank „the best athletes“, some factors would have to be weighted differently than for Kona qualifying (e.g. number of races, inclusion of 70.3s, how to deal with bad results).

As an example of an alternate ranking system, my own TriRating uses a totally different approach than the KPR:

  • based on time instead of placing
  • based on all results of an athlete (with older races having less of an influence into the overall rating)
  • all races have the same weight

It is much more „stable“ than the KPR and – while certainly not perfect – probably a better ranking system.

It might be a good task for the ITU to develop a good ranking system that has a chance to be universally accepted. But the way the long-distance racing scene is fragmented between WTC, Challenge, other smaller races and the ITU, I can’t see any one organization to step up to this challenge.

My assessment: The KPR is not a good system for an overall ranking, but I can’t see a universally accepted alternative to evolve. I will certainly try to improve my own Rating System and hope that its use will increase.

KPR Thoughts (8) – Elements of a modified Kona Qualifying System

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!

KPR Thoughts (7) – Which and how many races should count for Kona qualifying?

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.

Select your currency
EUR Euro

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

Close