Skip to content

IM Mont Tremblant 2013 – Predictions

Update: Leslie LaMacchia notified me on Twitter (thanks!) that Daniel Fontana will try to get some more KPR points, and that Clemente Alonso and Logan Franks will not be racing. I’ve added Daniel who is the new front-runner (the athlete with the best rating, even if my odds favor Victor Zyemtsev) and crossed out Logan and Clemente. 

 

Previous Year’s TOP 3

Male Race Results

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time
1 Romain Guillaume FRA 00:51:22 04:35:17 03:09:09 08:40:48
2 Alejandro Santamaria ESP 00:57:17 04:52:23 02:52:35 08:46:58
3 Matthew Russell USA 01:02:34 04:47:11 02:53:29 08:48:12

Female Race Results

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time
1 Jessie Donavan USA 01:07:33 05:06:31 03:11:35 09:30:46
2 Uli Bromme USA 01:04:38 05:14:35 03:17:32 09:42:45
3 Rachel Kiers CAN 01:01:40 05:08:46 03:33:55 09:49:49

Course Records

Leg Gender Record Athlete Date
Total overall 08:40:48 Romain Guillaume 2012-08-18
Swim overall 00:51:22 Romain Guillaume 2012-08-18
Bike overall 04:35:17 Romain Guillaume 2012-08-18
Run overall 02:52:35 Alejandro Santamaria 2012-08-18
Total female 09:30:46 Jessie Donavan 2012-08-18
Swim female 00:57:10 Marie Danais 2012-08-18
Bike female 05:06:31 Jessie Donavan 2012-08-18
Run female 03:11:35 Jessie Donavan 2012-08-18

Course Rating

The Course Rating for IM Mont Tremblant is 10:49.

Race Adjustments for IM Mont Tremblant

Year Adjustment Swim Adj. Bike Adj. Run Adj. # of Athletes Rating Swim Rating Bike Rating Run Rating
2012 10:49 -01:08 05:52 07:25 12 10:49 -01:08 05:52 07:25

KPR points and Price Money

IM Mont Tremblant has 4000 KPR points for the winner. It has a total price purse of 125k$.

Male Race Participants

Last year’s winner, Romain Guillaume is back to defend his title, but he is only seeded #17 as there are a lot of other, faster athletes:

Rank Name Nation Expected Time Rating Rank Swim Rating Bike Rating Run Rating
1 Clemente Alonso-McKernan ESP 08:22:20 08:32:37 20 00:47:40 04:46:51 02:52:06
(1) Daniel Fontana ITA 08:25:21 08:35:41 32 00:48:32 04:42:43 03:00:31
2 Paul Amey GBR 08:29:37 08:40:02 47 00:49:50 04:44:55 03:03:23
3 Victor Zyemtsev USA 08:30:50 08:41:17 54 00:50:26 04:46:36 03:00:01
4 Jozsef Major HUN 08:36:04 08:46:37 77 00:57:28 04:42:23 03:01:23
5 Stefan Schmid GER 08:36:36 08:47:10 79 00:53:43 04:47:33 03:03:08
6 Matty Reed USA 08:36:52 08:47:26 82 00:47:25 04:48:29 03:07:07
7 Luke Bell AUS 08:37:10 08:47:45 82 00:47:57 04:41:28 03:15:36
8 Bert Jammaer BEL 08:37:52 08:48:28 90 00:49:34 04:46:50 03:06:32
9 Paul Ambrose GBR 08:38:37 08:49:14 93 00:48:24 04:39:03 03:15:08
10 Daniel Halksworth GBR 08:38:44 08:49:21 98 00:47:36 04:48:19 03:08:08
11 Alejandro Santamaria ESP 08:40:42 08:51:21 107 00:54:37 04:53:11 03:00:24
12 Swen Sundberg GER 08:43:15 08:53:57 116 00:52:08 04:44:19 03:17:16
13 Trevor Delsaut FRA 08:44:19 08:55:02 125 00:54:57 04:52:58 03:00:50
14 Brandon Marsh USA 08:45:20 08:56:05 133 00:47:27 04:50:04 03:12:17
15 Dominik Berger AUT 08:51:39 09:02:32 171 00:48:28 04:51:42 03:21:21
16 Mike Schifferle SUI 08:52:27 09:03:20 177 01:00:26 04:51:24 03:06:49
17 Romain Guillaume FRA 08:55:49 09:06:47 195 00:49:07 04:44:13 03:21:02
18 Nigel Gray CAN 08:58:05 09:09:05 209 00:55:29 04:50:27 03:18:36
19 Simon Cochrane NZL 09:00:58 09:12:02 229 00:52:43 05:05:00 03:09:32
20 Bryan Rhodes NZL 09:07:45 09:18:57 273 00:47:48 04:56:02 03:23:40
21 Logan Franks USA 09:36:23 09:48:10 450 01:02:00 05:08:02 03:27:56
22 Jerome Bresson CAN 09:48:03 10:00:05 511 01:02:44 05:00:12 03:48:37
23 Arland Macasieb PHL 09:56:43 10:08:55 552 01:02:43 05:20:01 03:38:54
24 Brendan Naef CAN 11:29:58 11:44:05 696 00:57:24 05:09:08 05:39:20
Greg Kopecky USA n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Michael Louys BEL n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Adam Jones CAN n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Sean Bechtel CAN n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated

Female Race Participants

Rank Name Nation Expected Time Rating Swim Rating Bike Rating Run Rating Rank
1 Mary Beth Ellis USA 09:04:49 09:15:58 00:51:13 05:08:31 03:12:52 7
2 Rebekah Keat AUS 09:13:26 09:24:45 00:52:37 05:12:20 03:15:10 14
3 Erika Csomor HUN 09:17:48 09:29:13 00:57:34 05:14:53 03:12:20 21
4 Joanna Lawn NZL 09:22:14 09:33:44 00:53:58 05:15:06 03:20:25 31
5 Jessie Donavan USA 09:23:40 09:35:12 01:07:11 05:08:19 03:17:15 35
6 Jennie Hansen USA 09:27:53 09:39:30 01:05:50 05:16:13 03:11:54 46
7 Kim Schwabenbauer USA 09:29:53 09:41:32 01:03:21 05:17:29 03:21:31 53
8 Haley Chura USA 09:29:56 09:41:35 00:48:31 05:19:33 03:34:26 53
9 Sarah Piampiano USA 09:36:07 09:47:54 01:00:50 05:23:48 03:22:43 71
10 Bree Wee USA 09:37:07 09:48:55 00:53:25 05:17:13 03:31:02 73
11 Keiko Tanaka JAP 09:37:10 09:48:58 00:54:21 05:26:56 03:23:47 74
12 Christine Anderson USA 09:47:20 09:59:21 00:54:45 05:28:21 03:33:11 104
13 Jessica Smith USA 09:53:48 10:05:57 00:53:38 05:25:50 03:45:08 124
14 Hillary Biscay USA 09:57:15 10:09:28 00:52:21 05:33:53 03:37:41 134
15 Olesya Prystayko UKR 09:57:31 10:09:44 00:58:38 05:27:14 03:40:30 135
16 Nina Pekerman ISR 09:59:26 10:11:42 00:58:33 05:31:02 03:37:21 141
17 April Gellatly USA 10:02:01 10:14:20 00:56:48 05:29:44 03:40:56 148
18 Marie Danais CAN 10:23:35 10:36:20 00:57:17 05:43:58 03:45:50 198
19 Annie Gervais CAN 10:28:07 10:40:58 01:06:29 05:28:53 03:57:14 207
Molly Roohi USA n/a unrated unrated unrated unrated n/a
Morgin Chaffin USA n/a unrated unrated unrated unrated n/a
Amanda Kourtz USA n/a unrated unrated unrated unrated n/a

Winning Odds

Male Race Participants

  • Clemente Alonso-McKernan: 25% (3-1)
  • Victor Zyemtsev: 17% (5-1)
  • Paul Ambrose: 17% (5-1)
  • Paul Amey: 16% (5-1)
  • Luke Bell: 13% (6-1)
  • Bert Jammaer: 2% (42-1)
  • Jozsef Major: 2% (43-1)
  • Trevor Delsaut: 2% (49-1)
  • Victor Zyemtsev: 24% (3-1)
  • Paul Ambrose: 20% (4-1)
  • Paul Amey: 17% (5-1)
  • Luke Bell: 16% (5-1)
  • Daniel Fontana: 10% (9-1)
  • Bert Jammaer: 3% (36-1)
  • Jozsef Major: 3% (36-1)
  • Trevor Delsaut: 3% (37-1)

Female Race Participants

  • Mary Beth Ellis: 53% (1-1)
  • Rebekah Keat: 18% (4-1)
  • Erika Csomor: 14% (6-1)
  • Jessie Donavan: 7% (12-1)
  • Joanna Lawn: 5% (18-1)

IM Sweden 2013 – Predictions

Previous Year’s TOP 3

Male Race Results

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time
1 Jan Raphael GER 00:48:32 04:26:32 02:45:44 08:04:01
2 Dorian Wagner GER 00:48:38 04:26:31 02:49:49 08:08:06
3 Horst Reichel GER 00:48:16 04:27:09 02:51:00 08:10:12

Female Race Results

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time
1 Asa Lundström SWE 01:00:17 04:51:45 03:18:19 09:13:27
2 Dana Wagner GER 00:58:55 04:48:47 03:31:30 09:22:32
3 Emi Sakai JPN 01:04:48 04:53:38 03:31:05 09:34:36

Course Records

Last year was the first time that Kalmar was an official Ironman, so all the course records are from 2012:

Leg Gender Record Athlete Date
Total overall 08:04:01 Jan Raphael 2012-08-18
Swim overall 00:48:15 Andi Boecherer 2012-08-18
Bike overall 04:24:20 Karl-Johan Danielsson 2012-08-18
Run overall 02:45:44 Jan Raphael 2012-08-18
Total female 09:13:27 Asa Lundström 2012-08-18
Swim female 00:55:03 Rebekka Essmüller 2012-08-18
Bike female 04:48:42 Helene Malmkvist 2012-08-18
Run female 03:18:19 Asa Lundström 2012-08-18

Course Rating

So far, IM Sweden is the fastest course in my database with a Course Rating of 28:42.

Race Adjustments for IM Sweden

Year Adjustment Swim Adj. Bike Adj. Run Adj. # of Athletes Rating Swim Rating Bike Rating Run Rating
2012 28:42 00:10 21:54 07:53 25 28:42 00:10 21:54 07:53

Based on the numbers, I have some doubts that the bike course was accurate in 2012 – it’ll be interesting to see if the times are going to be as fast again this year. (Therefore, the predicted times – based on the 2012 course – should be taken with a grain of salt.)

KPR points and Price Money

IM Sweden has 2000 KPR points for the winner. It has a total price purse of 50k$.

Male Race Participants

Rank Name Nation Expected Time Rating Rank Swim Rating Bike Rating Run Rating
1 David Plese SVN 08:12:08 08:39:46 46 00:54:30 04:42:45 03:00:56
2 Jarmo Hast FIN 08:15:20 08:43:08 65 00:49:59 04:50:23 03:00:03
3 Anton Blokhin UKR 08:18:00 08:45:57 73 00:48:31 04:50:46 03:03:30
4 Karl-Johan Danielsson SWE 08:19:39 08:47:42 82 00:48:53 04:44:38 03:12:06
5 Pedro Gomes POR 08:19:43 08:47:46 84 00:52:44 04:52:47 03:09:15
6 Christophe Bastie FRA 08:22:12 08:50:23 104 00:53:19 04:44:31 03:08:16
7 Jonas Djurback SWE 08:25:24 08:53:46 116 00:49:35 04:52:39 03:07:10
8 Andrey Lyatskiy RUS 08:33:04 09:01:52 164 00:48:28 04:58:43 03:12:40
9 Andi Fuchs AUT 08:36:34 09:05:34 187 00:57:17 04:50:38 03:14:26
10 David Naesvik SWE 08:37:59 09:07:04 196 00:54:53 04:48:32 03:20:10
11 Rinalds Sluckis LAT 08:38:42 09:07:49 200 00:55:54 04:50:39 03:17:55
12 Greg Close USA 08:42:18 09:11:37 227 00:56:47 05:01:56 03:13:00
13 Paul Hawkins GBR 08:50:16 09:20:02 279 00:58:30 05:28:51 03:20:23
14 Jonas Colting SWE 08:50:33 09:20:20 283 00:50:00 04:53:24 03:29:55
15 Ivan Alvarez Gomez ESP 08:50:43 09:20:31 288 00:56:07 05:10:58 03:12:41
16 Fredrik Carlen SWE 08:52:30 09:22:24 301 00:54:56 04:58:27 03:23:01
17 Joni Pinosto FIN 08:59:33 09:29:50 334 00:57:56 05:02:32 03:23:28
18 Stefano Paoli ITA 09:06:00 09:36:39 380 00:53:55 04:57:40 03:41:33
19 Manuel Wyss SWI 09:06:08 09:36:48 382 00:53:08 05:13:21 03:24:03
20 Martin Cain GBR 09:09:58 09:40:50 402 00:57:56 05:08:22 03:27:22
21 Steven Osborne GBR 09:18:09 09:49:29 458 00:57:55 05:29:45 03:19:29
22 Heinrich Sickl AUT 09:19:11 09:50:34 462 00:56:02 05:05:16 03:35:53
23 Ludovic Le Guellec FRA 09:26:50 09:58:39 504 00:58:42 05:17:49 03:37:23
24 Josef Krivanek CZE 09:29:06 10:01:03 516 01:00:30 05:13:59 03:42:18
25 Hirotsugu Kuwabara JAP 09:35:43 10:08:02 550 00:51:59 05:22:54 03:48:58
26 Ivan Kharin RUS 09:43:24 10:16:09 583 01:08:16 05:09:48 03:28:51
27 Ari Saukko FIN 09:50:49 10:23:59 615 00:58:03 05:04:26 04:16:32
28 Andrej Palinsky SVK 10:22:21 10:57:17 672 01:15:47 05:17:46 04:16:49
29 Marek Nemcik SVK 11:15:21 11:53:16 697 01:11:15 05:57:22 04:37:21
Morten Truelsen n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Yves Moubayed GER n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Lennart Moberg SWE n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Stefan Eichheimer GER n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Jonas Bergkvist SWE n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Pontus Lindberg SWE n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Jojje Borssén n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Harri Sokk n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated
Andreas Linden SWE n/a unrated n/a unrated unrated unrated

Female Race Participants

I’m not sure if Jodie Swallow is going to race in Sweden or if she entered in case she needs more Kona points. If she does race, she is the clear favorite.

Rank Name Nation Expected Time Rating Swim Rating Bike Rating Run Rating Rank
1 Jodie Swallow GBR 08:48:12 09:17:51 00:48:07 04:57:34 03:30:52 10
2 Daniela Saemmler GER 09:00:41 09:31:02 00:54:11 05:11:32 03:21:39 23
3 Eva Nystroem Swe 09:06:03 09:36:42 01:01:46 05:11:08 03:21:46 39
4 Britta Martin NZL 09:07:12 09:37:55 01:00:47 05:10:43 03:19:20 41
5 Camilla Lindholm SWE 09:21:42 09:53:14 01:07:51 05:20:23 03:18:12 86
6 Stephanie Jones USA 09:25:07 09:56:50 01:05:44 05:19:50 03:25:51 97
7 Dana Wagner GER 09:27:17 09:59:08 01:01:09 05:25:37 03:35:01 103
8 Kristin Lie NOR 09:32:30 10:04:38 01:11:11 05:17:17 03:31:02 120
9 Maria Lemeseva RUS 09:33:35 10:05:47 01:05:04 05:29:11 03:28:01 122
10 Helene Pallesen DEN 09:43:39 10:16:25 01:09:01 05:41:14 03:22:06 158
11 Jana Candrova CZE 09:47:31 10:20:30 01:03:33 unrated 03:38:13 171
12 Simona Vykoukalova CZE 09:58:03 10:31:37 01:08:26 05:41:29 03:36:23 192
13 Conny Dauben GER 10:21:28 10:56:21 01:08:22 05:45:02 03:59:31 227
14 Zsuzsanna Harsanyi HUN 10:26:56 11:02:08 01:04:07 05:58:48 03:51:28 234
Louise Rundqvist n/a unrated unrated unrated unrated n/a
Emma Graaf n/a unrated unrated unrated unrated n/a
Steffi Steinberg GER n/a unrated unrated unrated unrated n/a

Winning Odds

Male Race Participants

  • Jarmo Hast: 26% (3-1)
  • Pedro Gomes: 19% (4-1)
  • David Plese: 16% (5-1)
  • Anton Blokhin: 15% (5-1)
  • Jonas Djurback: 14% (6-1)
  • Christophe Bastie: 9% (10-1)

Female Race Participants

  • Jodie Swallow: 37% (2-1)
  • Britta Martin: 28% (3-1)
  • Eva Nystroem: 14% (6-1)
  • Daniela Saemmler: 10% (9-1)
  • Stephanie Jones: 7% (14-1)
  • Camilla Lindholm: 4% (23-1)

Should women get more Kona Pro slots?

After WTC has announced the changes on the Pro qualification system for 2014 (see my post on the KPR changes and their impact), a discussion about the number of Kona slots for the Pro women has started. (Most notably, Rachel Joyce made a case for equal slots in her article on witsup.com about the new KPR system, and the issue has been picked up by a number of others.) I hope that by adding some numbers I can help to further the discussion of this issue.

The case for 35 women slots

WTC is offering 50 slots for the professional men and 35 for the professional women. The main argument for this imbalance is that there are fewer professional women racing. This is in fact the case. Here are a few numbers:

  • In Ironman races (2013 qualifying season up to end of July), women athletes constitute 38% of the professional finishes (or roughly 3 out of 8).
  • There is a similar breakdown in the athletes ranked in the KPR system: There are 580 male and 308 female athletes ranked (35% female, close to 1 in 3 or about twice as many men as women).
  • Jay Prasuhn cites another number in his article on the KPR: “The male-to-female percentage of athletes competing in Ironman and 70.3 events globally is at 67 percent to 33 percent.” (This probably refers to all athletes, pros and age groupers.)

Three different data points, all coming in at a similar result. 

Compared to this ratio, the number of slots (35 for the women compared to 50 for the men) seems reasonable (41% of slots). (Note: WTC has increased the number of slots for women from 30 to 35 for Kona 2013, but hasn’t changed that number when they tweaked the KPR system for 2014.)

The arguments for more slots

Even if the number of pro athletes is different between men and women, there are a few arguments why the number of slots should be the same:

  1. “Closed Shop”
  2. Comparable Sharp End
  3. Equality
  4. Why not?

I’ll have a closer look at these arguments and some of the supporting data.

“Closed Shop”

Rachel gives a succinct explanation:

[T]his makes Kona a bit of a “closed shop” for women. … If we assume that the top 10 in Kona will in all probability get there again the following year, that means there are only 25 other spots open for the following year whereas men still have another 40 spots up for grab.

This theoretical observation is backed up by the data for the July qualifiers:

  • For the men, there are 21 athletes that finished in Kona 2012, and 22 “new” athletes (51%).
  • For the women, the numbers are 18 Kona finishers and 12 new athletes (40%).

Comparable Sharp End

The idea of this argument is that the total number of athletes may be different, but that the “density” of the top athletes (say the top 50 that might be potential Kona racers) is comparable between men and women. I’ll have a look at this theory from a few different angles.

KPR points

  • Comparing the KPR numbers of the top ranked male and female athletes, the females have more points up to about #35. For example at #28 the difference is about 700 points. 
  • After that, the male athletes have only a few more points until a clear separation occurs at about #70.

My interpretation of this data (taken from my post “Do Women have to race more often than men to qualify for Kona“): There is a discernible draw to qualifying for Kona, and athletes close to the cutoff carefully choose their races in order to maximize points. This occurs both for men and women and I can’t really see a gender difference here.

Time difference between top finishers

I’ve put together a list of the finishing times of this seasons Ironman races and have observed the following:

  • The top 3 in a women’s race are usually closer together than the men. (The median time difference between 1-2 and 1-3 are 5 minutes and 11 minutes for the women versus 7 minutes and 12 minutes for the men.)
  • After that the men are a bit closer together (for 1-4/1-5/1-6 we have 14/18/22 minutes for the men and 16/22/26 for the women). 
  • Even so, the women’s differences are a lot smaller than what could be expected from the “raw” number of athletes. (Half as many athletes usually implies that the time difference should be twice as large.)
  • In a women’s race, we also see more changes in the lead between T2 and the finish (in the women’s races, the winner was not leading after the bike in 17 races, in the men’s the lead changed in only 12 races).

To sum up, a women’s race can be more exciting that a men’s race. However, if you want to properly follow the race, this requires a “clean” women’s race and similar coverage which is another issue that should be addressed by WTC and race organizers.

Difference between top TTR rated athletes

My own rating system (“Thorsten’s Triathlon Rating” or TTR) takes all professional finishes over the Ironman distance into account (not just WTC races, and also over a longer period of time than the KPR which just looks at the current season). Here is a graph that show the relative difference (in %) to the top ranked athlete (Andreas Raelert for the men, Mirinda Carefrae for the women):

TimeDiffToNo1

Again, we have a very small difference. The drop is about the same up to #20. After that, the men’s drop off is a bit slower than for the women, but nowhere close to what would be expected by the fewer number of female athletes. (For the data geeks: The slope between #30 and #95 of the men’s curve is about 0.055 percent per spot, that number for the women is 0.087 percent per spot. The relation between these is a factor of 1.58 instead of the expected number of about 2.)

Equality

Rachel has a clear point of view on this:

We count for half of the world’s population.  We should want to see triathlon be an equal sport in future generations.  What message are we sending out to kids taking up the sport with this disparity?

I would like to add two observations to this:

  • The prize money is the same for men and women.
  • Adding more Kona slots for the women would make racing as a female pro more attractive, and it should help attract more pro women to WTC races.

Why not?

It’s hard to image that it’s not possible to accommodate 15 more athletes on the Kona pier. After all WTC manages to provide a number of slots to new races on the Ironman calendar (recent examples include Japan, Lake Tahoe, Boulder and Copenhagen).

My opinion

I think the data that I presented here gives a strong indication that just looking at the number of professional athletes does not paint the full picture of the state of professional women’s Ironman racing. Personally, I’d be glad if WTC offers more women the chance to race as a professional in Kona.

Impact of KPR changes for 2014

WTC has announced some changes to the Pro qualifying system for Kona (known as Kona Pro Ranking or KPR). This post has a closer look at the changes and the impacts for Kona qualification.

Changes to the KPR

On July 5th, WTC announced changes to the KPR system for the 2014 season (apparently after some discussion with athletes). The changes are:

  • Kona becomes a P-8000 race (instead of P-6000).
  • There are no more P-1000 races, all of these become P-2000 races.
  • The points in each race favor the top racers (i.e. the drop off is much steeper, e.g. in a P-4000 race 6th place get 1.670 points instead of 2.240). This also applies to 70.3 races.

Some things will stay the same:

  • The number of athletes (50 male, 35 female) and cutoff points (end of July and August) are unchanged.
  • The regional championships (currently Melbourne, Frankfurt and Mont Tremblant) stay P-4000 races.
  • Point levels for 70.3 races stay the same. (There are still 4 levels of 70.3 races: P-3000, P-1500, P-750 and P-500 races.)

Impact to KPR qualifying

After running a simulation of the new KPR system, the main impact is that KPR cutoffs move down:

  • For men, the cutoff moves (at #43) from 3.790 down to 2.820 points (a reduction of 25%).
  • For women, the cutoff moves (at #31) from 4.740 down to 3.930 points (a reduction of 17%).

At first this sounds a bit surprising with P-6000 becoming P-8000 and all P-1000 races becoming P-2000 races, but the steeper drop-off results in the total number of KPR points going down. (The total number drops from about 973.000 points to about 807.000 points – a reduction of 17% which is pretty much in line with the KPR cutoff reductions.)

Here are some athletes that would not qualify at the July cutoff:

  • Petr Vabrousek (dropping from #13 with 5840 to #48 with 2655)
  • Balazs Csoke (dropping from #34 with 4060 to #51 with 2565)
  • Thomas Gerlach (dropping from #42 with 3800 to #86 with 1640)
  • Mirjam Weerd (dropping from #18 with 5840 to #34 with 3590)
  • Mareen Hufe (dropping from #23 with 5280 to #36 with 3405)

Instead, some of these athletes would get a spot:

  • Daniel Fontana (moving up from #47 with 3625 to #28 with 3765)
  • Marino Vanhoenacker (moving up from #45 with 3720 to #33 with 3450)
  • Luke Bell (moving up from #78 with 2230 to #37 with 3230)
  • Jennie Hansen (moving up from #38 with 3960 to #25 with 4685)
  • Eimaear Mullan (moving up from #40 with 3910 to #28 with 4350)
  • Rebekah Keat (moving up from #36 with 4160 to #29 with 4000)

If you want to have a closer look at my simulation results, you can download an Excel sheet with the KPR points under the old and new system.

Strategy implications

Here are a few implications for qualifying strategies that I see:

  • after a top 10 in Kona you basically only have to validate (for the men, even a top 13 is probably enough)
  • winners and podium finishers are rewarded (e.g. Marino, Luke Bell, Jennie Hansen, Rebekah Keat – another case that would be avoided now is Mary Beth Ellis having to win three Ironman races in order to qualify for Kona 2011)
  • the changes make it harder for the frequent racers (e.g. Petr Vabrousek, Thomas Gerlach)
  • By sacrificing prize money, you may be able to pick a weaker P-2000 field.

To further nail this down, let’s have a look what is needed to qualify. The July cutoff of 2.820 (men) and 3.930 (women) from up to five results means that an athlete needs on average 564 (men) and 766 points (women). In a P-4000 this corresponds to a 10th and 9th place, in a P-2000 to a 5th and 4th place. (In the old system, you qualified by placing an average 10th or 8th in a P-2000 race.)

It is clear that qualifying by “racing often” is now very hard to accomplish. Instead, athletes have to make sure that they get the majority of points needed to qualify from one very good result. (After winning a P-2000 race, you can probably qualify with a few extra points from 70.3s.)

Where can this lead to?

  • I expect more strategic “DNF”s: If an athlete is too far behind during the bike, there is not much “business sense” in trying to move from 12th place to 10th place: Still no prize money, and not enough points for qualifying. Instead, it’s probably better to call it a day and try again in the next race.
  • It’ll be interesting to see what happens to the fields in P-2000 races. Originally I thought they would “even out”, but I think that the races with the better prize money (the “old” P-2000 races, typically with a 75k$ prize purse) will continue to attract the better fields – which will make it easier in the old P-1000 races to make some decent points. (As far as I know, most of these races still offer 25k$.) This is a tough choice to make for the professional athletes.
  • There will be even more changes to the start lists in the last few days than we already have. (If there’s a strong field, withdraw; if there is a weak field, try to enter late.) Athletes can register for as many races as they want, and can enter or pull out just a few days before the race without any penalties.

In order to address the last point, I’ve been suggesting for some time that WTC should introduce tighter procedures for registering for and withdrawing from races.

Overall Assessment

In my opinion, the KPR system has been working well in the last years in choosing the best athletes for Kona. (There are always some close calls around the cutoff.) I like the increased focus on the top finishers, but I think this is a minor tweak of the part of the system that has been working pretty well.

However, the main point of contention has not been addressed: The doubts whether the KPR system results in the best Kona race, i.e. the best athletes in their best Kona shape. Some questions that should be discussed:

  • the qualification requirement of one full Ironman race in addition to Kona (some “pathological” cases: Andreas Raelert walking the marathon in Regensburg 2011 to recover from an injury; lots of athletes following their Kona race with a “going through the motions” late-season IM just to validate)
  • qualification races in August (not leaving sufficient time for recovery and a decent Kona build)

I would like to see the discussion around the KPR move to these issues.

IM UK – Analyzing Results

Race Conditions

Ironman UK is a slow course (course rating 1:33), and even with the limited number of athletes it is clear that this year was even slower (adjustment of -5:40). As usual, the slowest part was the bike (adjustment of -12:08), and though there were some quick run times, on average the run was normal with a n adjustment of 2:56.

Male Race Results

Daniel Halksworth posted another good result, battling with Stephen Bayliss on the run and successfully defended his title:

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time Diff to expected
1 Daniel Halksworth GBR 00:43:59 04:56:45 03:01:20 08:45:48 -11:53
2 Stephen Bayliss GBR 00:44:03 04:56:50 03:04:57 08:49:25 -11:14
3 Joe Skipper GBR 00:49:37 05:00:59 02:57:11 08:51:49 03:27
4 Scott Neyedli GBR 00:49:02 05:03:14 02:56:38 08:53:15 -01:20
5 Joel Jameson GBR 00:52:33 05:10:43 02:52:23 08:59:36 -02:28
6 James McCurdy USA 00:49:31 05:02:37 03:06:07 09:02:24 12:19
7 Jens Kaiser GER 00:53:43 05:06:13 03:07:48 09:12:33 06:20
8 Teemu Lemmettylae FIN 00:53:59 05:19:00 02:59:22 09:17:41 12:37
9 James Brown GBR 00:56:05 05:12:50 03:16:13 09:29:24 02:46
10 Martin Cain GBR 00:55:24 05:15:58 03:23:15 09:39:48 -09:12

Female Race Results

On the women’s side, Lucy Gossage proved true to my predictions and lead from start to finish:

Rank Name Nation Swim Bike Run Time Diff to expected
1 Lucy Gossage GBR 00:52:30 05:22:13 03:10:22 09:29:12 -00:48
2 Joanna Carritt GBR 00:55:57 05:40:36 03:24:00 10:05:17 -21:09
3 Amy Forshaw GBR 00:56:27 05:54:21 03:30:15 10:28:27 n/a
4 Bella Bayliss GBR 00:53:48 05:38:38 03:55:49 10:34:34 47:11
5 Laura Bostock GBR 00:58:36 06:31:54 03:49:58 11:27:14 n/a
Select your currency
EUR Euro
USD United States (US) dollar

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