texafornia wrote:
I think what Jordan says applies here - There are so many age groupers, nobody's asking for parity. And age groupers don't really get any benefit from going. It
costs us money. It's a slippery slope argument that doesn't exist. But with the pros, the slot count is much fewer and people's livelihoods depend on it. To have the
pro numbers not be equal is quantifyingly damaging to a gender.
I think you're wrong here. And on this particular point - "And age groupers don't really get any benefit from going." - you are REALLY wrong. You do know that people tattoo themselves with the logo of this company? I've heard countless stories at races and elsewhere of, "well I wasn't going to ever qualify, so I'm on my way to 12 Ironmans so I can get in through the legacy program." If you discount how important Kona is to age groupers on a relative basis, you are sorely mistaken. I'd actually say that - assuming that being a professional actually means earning your living from sport - the whole idea of 5Q is crazy. Why add another 15 slots of people who won't get paid. That is totally irrational. It's precisely because Kona does NOT impact people's livelihoods that this whole topic is so emotional. Emotion is a huge part of this. The allure of Kona is significant here. And that emotional side is at least as strong for age-groupers. If you think that age-groupers somehow care about Kona less because they are not pros, you couldn't be more wrong. And that's a massively important part of what is going on here.
This is part of what I was trying to say in my admittedly too long post. For 80% (well, slightly less; it'd be 80% if slots were equal) of the pro field, it costs money too. And it's debatable how much money someone really makes outside of the top-5. Because there's opportunity cost; 6-10 makes good money, but not better money than winning an Ironman, which is what kind of performance you need to turn in to get 6-10. So, really, for all except the top-5 on either side, Kona costs money. I'd say it's a wash for 6-10. Still, there's no debating that 10 men and 10 women get paid. That's it. And NOBODY has a bonus for "qualifying."
It's also really hard to say that people's livelihoods depend on it. I think that Steve Johnson (coach on here) made the case about how important it is for his coaching business that he qualifies. I'd say it's at least as important to him as it is for many of the pros, the majority of whom will derive no benefit (monetarily or otherwise) from going to Kona.
I also think you underestimate the age-group opposition to pro equality, simply because people who are opposed to it don't really do so publicly. Now, as I said before, I'm not saying that's right. But I think - I know - that there is more opposition to the idea of 5Q than what you may see.
Basically, YOU don't think it's a slippery slope because YOU are not asking for parity. But don't think that means "nobody" is asking for it. People are crazy about what they will do to get to Kona. Haven't you learned that year after year from watching the broadcast.
Whether you want to admit it or not, this is a real issue - what you do with age groupers if pros go to strict equality. I think the only way to solve it is by making the pro race dramatically more distinct - far fewer slots and also a race where everyone gets paid. I think the overlap of pros and age-groupers at the bottom half of the field is a big part of why this argument actually does exist. With 50 pros of each gender, 40 of whom aren't getting paid, I think it's a real challenge to say that - on the age-group side - you are just going to stick with proportional equality. It's especially problematic when the arguments for 5Q apply equally well - if not better - to the age-group field: it's the "right" thing, it's "good for the sport," it will promote women's participation, etc. You need to get away from those and shift to arguments like, "we want it to be a true championship at the highest levels of the sport that showcases the absolute pinnacle of what Ironman racing is." You do that with a small championship race where everyone gets paid. That argument supports that approach. But, crucially, it also supports continuing proportional equality on the age-group side.
Pro sports are rarely about morality. If you make the moral argument, you open pandora's box. Better to focus on the spectacle aspect of it.
This is why I think it's folly for some of the 5Q supporters to reference Title IX. Title IX was - crucially, in my opinion - about amateur athletics.
There's no conscientiable way to support a disparate application of morality. That's pretty much at the heart of the 5Q movement. The problem with that approach is that it very clearly does open up the discussion of how do you then defend proportional equality on the age-group side. You can't.
If double-standards are wrong, then they are wrong. You can't say that double standards for men/women are morally wrong but they are right for pro/age-group. I think you have to at least admit that's not clear cut. In other words, even if you don't have trouble with that double standard, you have to admit that it is a double standard, which is precisely what you have been railing against all along.
That's why I said that the primary issue is really "how many pros should be in Kona." You have to figure out how big (or small) that number can be before you open yourself up to striking down one double standard simply to enforce a different one.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp