You are using your values to judge why a pro may want to race Kona. It is not about making money for many of them. Plenty of them have masters degrees and PhD's in a variety of occupations and could make 6 to 7 figures with their drive and intellect. It is the same reason why a minor league player would love to get called up to play on the 40 man roster for the September drive for the MLB playoffs. They just want to play in the big leagues....they may sit on the bench the entire time and may never get called up again, but just for few few games maybe putting on the Yankee pin stripes might be a life goal fulfilled.

But this is supposed to be the World Championships right? If you go to the race and finish over half an hour after the winner has finished, then are you really adding to the field?

You're suggesting that there are pros that want to race Kona just for the experience, but that shouldn't be what racing as a pro is about.

I'm not questioning anyone's motivation to make it to Kona. I'm questioning the compensation for said athletes once they get there.

My stance is that I'm all in favor of handing the pros however many slots they want to have. Hell, let each and every card carrying WTC professional race Kona for all I care (the top 50 get a slot on the pier and the rest park their bikes down the street and let them fight for a chance just to be on the pier). Your MLB analogy is a good one in my favor, since the moment the minor leaguer gets called up, he immediately gets a pay raise just for riding the bench. He made it to the show, here- have some more money just for making it. Pro KQers get the privilege of playing the game without any expectation of compensation. And, we want to add more of those non-compensated athletes? In terms of treating professional athletes like professional athletes (regardless of gender), they (both the athlete and the WTC) need to believe that each and every pro that's earned a spot at Kona provides something of value to their race and should be compensated. This should be true regardless of what the athlete does in their other life.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

[\quote] Pro women do not represent only the numbers of women racing age group triathlon. They represent women overall from all around the world. Last time I checked the female global population was pretty well 50%. The fact that less women race in triathlon has deep links to society's bias against women even having the opportunity to do sport and that is even in developed societies, forget about developing societies (for example my mother never had the opportunity to learn to ride a bike simply because she was a girl, but legend had it that she cleaned up at every track event as a school girl....but I digress).

WTC needs to show leadership that its marquis event is a shining beacon for women worldwide...not just women triathletes, not just women athletes, but all women. When women worldwide see what Chrissy Wellington or Mirinda Carfrae or back in the day PNF and Erin Baker could do, they can make the leap, "hey, if they can do it, so can we, so can our daughters, our nieces, our grandkids".

Cutting the pro men's field down, only creates some level of animosity among men that they got the short end to make things equal with women. Upping the women's total firstly sets the right message from Ironman globally, while at the same time, not alienating a bunch of men who get screwed over in the name of making things equal for women.[/quote]
I guess this is where I disagree and sort of agree. I am not sure that Pro women represent all women in sport...As I woman I am inspired by Carfrae, Wellington, Haskins, the Emma's etc but I am more likely to actually participate because of Sally down the street. Perhaps this n=1 is not representative, but I think driving woman to sport at the lower levels is the first step and unfortunately this may not equal the same initiatives as the need for equality for the female pros. You are right - Men are on fire about this topic, but has anyone looked at the differences in motivating factors for men and women?

I would venture that there are some women who are motivated by the pointy end of the spear, but the deep seeded inequality that you are speaking about does not change because of the 1% - those people are unattainable for most of us and many women are intimidated to the point where they will not participate because they could never dream of running a sub 3 hour marathon alone much less at the end of Kona! Your daughters, sisters, mothers, etc are perhaps more likely to be motivated by their friends, neighbors, brothers, dad's encouraging them that even if they doggy paddle, ride a banana seat, and walk - they cross that like as a triathlete. There are two issues here - women in general in sport; and equality for PRO women in sport. My personal opinion is that while overlap exists the may each have unique solutions.

I do agree that if WTC were to send a message regarding equality that would be HUGE for sport in general and ironman specifically. I do think they need to be leaders in the industry. They should also do the most testing, deeper payouts, etc.

---

________________________________________________
Don't Just Live, Thrive!
Thrive Kinematics Physical Therapy - http://www.facebook.com/...8178667572974?ref=hl

You are using your values to judge why a pro may want to race Kona. It is not about making money for many of them.//

No, we are using the value system of professional athletics. And the first line at the top of the page says, you must make more money than you spend. Way down the list may be, do a bucket list race that costs me a 1/2 years pay, but for the most part I think most every pro would like to have a shot at some money at Kona. If it is not about making money, then they really are not pros in the first place, just great AG'ers getting to play a foursome with Tiger, and the other real pros. I do not think this should be the make up of the world champs, just like those good amateurs don't get to play in the Masters.


The pro fields should actually be cut in response to the 10 person payouts there, but as i have explained before, that would not be in WTC's interest. They are using their leverage to suit their needs, not the pros needs, that seems pretty evident. Don't blame them one bit either, they have virtually no opposition to this system. Other things they have enacted have met huge resistance(usually on here by the way) and they have changed. But basically they are getting the pros begging for more slots, and nothing else to go along with it. All wins for them.

I don't think the argument here should be whether it's "easier" for men or women to qualify, I think the argument should be about what helps move our sport forward as a whole. Men and women need to have equal slots, mostly because it's a symbolic gesture for WTC to show that it cares equally about male pros and female pros. Not because male and female participation is 50/50 or the 50th female pro is the same % down from the winners time as the 50th male. It's because we're progressive and it's the right thing to do.

The next question is how many spots should there be. As someone previously said, if you chop the men down to 35 that creates animosity towards women for limiting them for the sake of being "equal". If you increase it to 50, you dilute the field but so what? It won't change who finishes in the top 10, but it will change the amount of exposure the different brands and sponsors get with their athletes in Kona, it might draw in more AGers to care about the pro race at Kona and the races leading up to it to see whether their local pros make the cut. More pros get a KQ bonus payday and maybe can quit their full time jobs to ultimately shoot for that top 10 in kona the next year. As long as the field size stays to a reasonable size for safety and logistics, I think more is better.

Giving pros more "breathing room" is also better overall for the sport, but maybe not WTC's strong hold on the Iron distance. To allow the mid pack pros to race the races they want to, get a few more paydays from Challenge that they wouldn't have gotten from desperately chasing KPR points all season. That would make for a healthier long course tri market than what we have today.

---

http://trainingwheelsrequired.wordpress.com
@KellyNCollier

I guess this is where I disagree and sort of agree. I am not sure that Pro women represent all women in sport...As I woman I am inspired by Carfrae, Wellington, Haskins, the Emma's etc but I am more likely to actually participate because of Sally down the street. Perhaps this n=1 is not representative, but I think driving woman to sport at the lower levels is the first step and unfortunately this may not equal the same initiatives as the need for equality for the female pros. You are right - Men are on fire about this topic, but has anyone looked at the differences in motivating factors for men and women?

I would venture that there are some women who are motivated by the pointy end of the spear, but the deep seeded inequality that you are speaking about does not change because of the 1% - those people are unattainable for most of us and many women are intimidated to the point where they will not participate because they could never dream of running a sub 3 hour marathon alone much less at the end of Kona! Your daughters, sisters, mothers, etc are perhaps more likely to be motivated by their friends, neighbors, brothers, dad's encouraging them that even if they doggy paddle, ride a banana seat, and walk - they cross that like as a triathlete. There are two issues here - women in general in sport; and equality for PRO women in sport. My personal opinion is that while overlap exists the may each have unique solutions.

I do agree that if WTC were to send a message regarding equality that would be HUGE for sport in general and ironman specifically. I do think they need to be leaders in the industry. They should also do the most testing, deeper payouts, etc.[/quote]
As rheisler said further up this thread, you need top down pull and bottom up push. WTC needs to do the top down pull while we at the grass roots do the bottom up push and encourage our women friends and next generation to take up and STAY in sport. WTC generally does well at this point to provide fair opportunities to women. The glaring discrepency is the Kona start line, but it is so important that everything else they do gets someone overshadowed because of the implicit message they send with the 50/35 current split.

Thought about this too. So if we have equal Kona slots for Pro's, would it be fair to argue all AG's get equal slots, or at least equal at the same AG breakdown per M/F?

Monty....you are still using your values....you needed to make money of sport. Others don't neccessarily do this for money (although it would be nice). They are bored of cleaning up age group and want the additional challenge to race with the pros and see if they can improve and make the next step....what's wrong with a bunch of pros investing their own money, getting experience in Kona and then perhaps seeing a line of sight to hit top 10 in the future. They can make plenty of money outside sport, so they are only doing this for the challenge and happen to be pretty good....in time they may also make more money and hit the pointy end as they progress. In other sports, a lot of good amateurs or second tier get to play the real pros...look at the FA Cup in the UK for example (you'll need to dig up the details on how that works).

There are two sides to this. If the only reason to be pro was to make money pretty soon in our sport we would not have pro competition. There is not enough money to really warrant it. The top pros also need some people to beat. So you need people with hopes and dreams and who don't care about money to be cannon fodder for the top guys until suddenly some of them emerge as real contenders.

If you guys used your analogy, we would not have Chrissy Wellington winning in Kona in 2007. No Luc Van Lierde in 1996. No Hellriegel putting the fear of the bike into Mark Allen in 1995. Chrissy was not a "real pro" in her first shot...just an age grouper playing around who won IM Korea and the Alpe d'Huez tri!

To use my logic we would have all those outliers still winning. My true advocacy in this matter is to go back to how it has always been. Have a pro card, you get to race. All this bullshit about the fields being too big, well I see bigger lead groups now than I ever have.

Wut? Sutto put Wellington into Kona knowing full well she could win. He didn't send her there to get a nice tan and cocktails on the beach.

you are still using your values....you needed to make money of sport.
We are using the values of the term 'professional athlete'. See, professional athletes make money off of being an athlete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/.../Professional_sports

Others don't neccessarily do this for money (although it would be nice).
Agreed. We call them amateurs.

what's wrong with a bunch of pros investing their own money, getting experience in Kona and then perhaps seeing a line of sight to hit top 10 in the future.
Nothing wrong at all. They are amazing, hard working, gifted, awesome people. If they want to race for free, go right ahead. Just don't pretend that they are professional athletes.

They can make plenty of money outside sport,
No one's arguing this. They are free to make any amount of money outside of sport that they are capable. This point is not even close to addressing the number of pros, gender or pros, or how much Kona pros could/ should be making off of Kona itself.

so they are only doing this for the challenge and happen to be pretty good.
Now, who's the one speculating as to why other people want to do Kona?

Until triathlon starts treating all of their pros as professional athletes (including the athletes themselves), the number of 'pros' aligning the pier at Kona doesn't seem like the greatest use of our energy/ resources. Any professional athlete who has earned their way to the World Championship deserves to be treated like a professional. Not like someone who could use this as a learning experience or a potential marketing campaign, but a real, honest to goodness professional athlete.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

One thing that I have noticed in the results of IM races is that the female pro results trail off faster than the men's, with fewer "contenders" at a given race.
The gap between the top flight and second tier pros appears to be larger than in the men's category.

I don't disagree with the above.

An interesting observation I made was that in the last couple of years of the old system, the competition in the women's race at Kona, away from the lime-light and the media coverage, from 15 - 30th places roughly was actually fairly deep and competitive!

Point being - it was starting to build up, but then they changed the model and I know that more than a few women who, in the new system knew they would be on-the-bubble or a long shot and had previously been there in Kona, just did not bother even trying to qualify any more.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

But that is what Kona is about for > 90% of age groupers and pros. It is about the experience. Even Rinnie said she doesn't understand why so many pros (who have no chance of placing) want to incur the expense of Kona.
Many just want to go, have the experience, and be able to talk about it for the rest of their lives.

It was only 10 years ago that there were more than 80 pro men and over 50 pro women, I don't see why you couldn't expand both fields to say 65 and 50 or equal at 50-50 or 65 and 65. Given the better or more open start times now.

From a technical or logistical point of view there isn't really an argument anymore. Regarding the equality argument my opinion is that if you look at women in sport historically usually you remove barriers first and then participation/increased competition follows not the other way around.

WTC from my point of view is now looking at flat/neutral growth (at best….my opinion though) , if they want to change that they need to look at events outside of NA and try to increase participation of women from 15-25% of the race to closer to the NA ratio which is more like 1/3.

Maurice

I find it sad that most of the retired pros, the biggest names in the sport with nothing to lose, are silent on these issues. People like Dave Scott and Paula Newby Fraser have loud megaphones--they could be speaking up and leading the way, and doing it in a way that benefits the sport over the long term.

It's curious that both of them are on the wtc payroll in minor roles; it appears Messick has found a cheap way to buy their silence and assent.

I don't have the in-depth longer term history of the sport that many here do, so I've been asking this question:
Can anyone share stories where these "Legends of Triathlon," like Dave Scott and PNF, have used their fame to lead the sport through troublesome issues? If so, I'd love to hear them so I can find someone else to pick on.

I think the qualifying system and prize distribution is much more important than the number of slots on the start line. I don't think it will make any difference one way or the other if there are 50 women on the start line in kona.

The massive change in the NCAA system was directly related to increases in funding, not increases in available spots on university teams. Without the scholarships, women wouldn't be flocking to NCAA programs.

If they bump the prize money or other financial support systems, that will increase the depth and quality of the pro fields. Adding more spots might be a nice guesture for those that care, but likely won't have any real impact.

It sounds like you're talking about the ambitions of an age grouper and not a pro. A professional racer (this is a race right?) should be in the race with the mindset of winning. They shouldn't race Kona, because "it's a cool experience". They should want to be there, because it's supposed to be the world championship for their sport, and they want to win.

People like Dave Scott and Paula Newby Fraser have loud megaphones--they could be speaking up and leading the way, and doing it in a way that benefits the sport over the long term.

It's curious that both of them are on the wtc payroll in minor roles; it appears Messick has found a cheap way to buy their silence and assent.//

Not sure what Dave's roll is with WTC, but Paula has a full time job with them, and for quite some time. So no minor role, at least for her. And my guess that many of the old guard do not chime in is that the issue has passed them. Look, the current pros are not addressing it and they are the ones affected. If the folks that could move the needle don't care enough to get together and work on their own issues, why would anyone expect others well past this phase to do anything meaningful? Dave was very supportive in our day of the triathlete union, at a time when he did not have to be. He did quite well on his own, but threw his hat into the ring a couple of times to support the unions. I believe Paula too supported these endeavors back in the day, however her agent was dead set against it, and fought tooth and nail to derail it, and eventually did...

Why not cut the men's field? That is exactly what the NCAA has effectively done with Title IX (and huge numbers of scholarships for football)? How many division 1 schools field men's soccer and track teams these days? And just to be clear I don't think cutting men's participation is the right way to go for WTC or the NCAA.

---

JW (on the comback trail)

I don't think there is really a tactical, technical or financial argument against allowing 15 more women on the pier or Qween K. This is about creating equal (or at worst a better…meaning 65-50 split) opportunity and then perhaps increased competition will follow.

It's an idealogical question which WTC isn't taking a stand on….either way…..It's their brand at the end of the day, ultimately they should create a strong position/statement on this issue. Whether I or others agree/disagree.

Maurice

Two of the men's top five at Kona last year (Hoffman #41 and Viennot #38) wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was limited to thirty-five athletes. Two more men in the top ten (Frommhold #44 and Guillaume #48) also wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was thirty-five. So, the size of the qualifying field does have an impact at the front of the race.

Two of the men's top five at Kona last year (Hoffman #41 and Viennot #38) wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was limited to thirty-five athletes. Two more men in the top ten (Frommhold #44 and Guillaume #48) also wouldn't have qualified if the men's field was thirty-five. So, the size of the qualifying field does have an impact at the front of the race. //

But you really cannot say this, or know it. SInce the last qualifier is the same as the first, many folks will not chase extra points if they don't have to. Once you know you will get top 50, then many will just put it on cruise control. If they had to, many of the 30 to 50 would step up their game and qualify. Of course there would be 15 less guys, so someone is going to lose out, but the really good guys would just have to be more WTC committed.

Increase it to 50-50 equal with 10 spots on each side for "wild card opportunities" IE ITU studs etc, provided they Validate ;-)

Maurice

And if they had to race more, or with more effort, to chase points in order to qualify, maybe they wouldn't have placed in the top-ten at Kona.