PaulGico wrote:
Well, Marco you would agree with me this reasoning - which I guess was made by many fellow europeans triathles last year when they did not accept the Nice slot....
"why paying 3x a race in Nice, when there is almost the same race in June at a fraction of the price? just because it is a WC?" I think they should have chosen a new, exclusive place to held the WC outside of Kona. And if they wanted an existing race, I personally think they should have chosen Lanzarote to keep some "Kona" vibes. But probably Nice paid more... just my .02 You're raising a few valid points that are quite a bit more nuanced than what you're saying. You're attributing the difficulties of selling Nice to Men to a single sentence: "when there is almost the same race in June at a fraction of the price? just because it is a WC?"
The reality is more nuanced than that:
IM France vs IM WC in Nice:
- You argument can be made in the other direction. Assuming you've qualified for the race or can if you want to, why race it when it's not a WC and have a lower experience? The entry fee is only a fraction of all the costs of racing abroad, especially if you have to travel to another continent and stay for several days.
- There's no intrinsic value with Kona. The argument that racing Nice in IM France is the same as racing it at the WC means you don't care about racing against the best athletes in your AG or having the WC vibe (parade of nations, side events, etc.). This is fine, not everybody is driven by the same things. There's also an argument that if the WC is taken out of Kona and it's made into an AG only race the interest for it might die out in a few years. Take the WC vibe out of Kona and, except for the swim, it's one of the worst courses on the IM circuit (both bike and run are almost entirely along a highway). So it's difficult to discount the "WC vibe".
- If we take the "race Nice in June" argument to the extreme then one could say that you can visit Kona anytime of the year and pay much less than when the race is held here. Or you can do the Hawaii 70.3 but I have never heard anyone considering Hawaii 70.3 as an alternative. - Lahti had the same issue (70.3 Finland in July, 70.3 WC in August) and had no trouble filling a 6000 people 70.3 WC race. - The point of why keep the full race in Nice even if there's a WC is still a valid one despite all the above. We have to remember that, because the WC is split, it's only the gender having the WC that has the race twice. If Nice was somehow able to have a WC race on two days it makes you wonder if it couldn't become a new final destination for the WC (unlikely imo) and keep the other race as a 70.3. Or get rid of Kona as a WC and have rotating WC starting from 2027 (possible but how likely?). About filling the race in Nice: - It's been quoted by triathlete.com that 92% of athletes who had already qualified for Kona when they made the change chose to defer to Kona and not accept Nice. We can't blame anyone who made that choice, I am pretty sure I would have chosen the same. You've qualified for a specific thing which was changed. Also, the reading between the lines is that Kona might eventually not be the WC. Who knows if Kona 2024 or 2026 is the last Kona WC for men.
- The split announcement arrived at the end of 2022 when the qualifying season had already started and covered several big races, especially in the USA. Also, because the WC in Nice was going to happen in September, it meant that the qualifying season was going to be very very short with IM having to sell all the slots effectively between May and July. In terms of number of races, this was actually very few races.
- In the end Ironman didn't have problems filling the race at the WC Nice and putting on a show.
- There is no doubt that the current situation is a transition so judging the 'success' of the split WC based on the extreme rolldown examples of the past year is both a limited view and missing the point. The goal of IM is growing the sport (and yes making lots of money along the way also) and they are making some clear risky bets to achieve that. We'll have to wait that the situation has normalised to see if it worked and was worth it.
About choosing a new race:
- a race that has never been held before then suddenly having 2.5-3k athletes is a very risky proposition. You need an oiled machine to do that.
About Lanzarote:
- Lanzarote isn't that big of a race. It's about 1000 participants. A WC needs more than double that and we don't know if Lanzarote would be able to have a transition that big.
- Lanzarote isn't very convenient to reach for non-Europeans. They'd have to fly into Spain or the UK and then fly baack to Lanzarote. The advantage of choosing something that isn't Kona is to have a race that is easier to reach. Many Europeans can drive or take the train to Nice. Lanzarote has zero intercontinental flights, Nice has plenty. Nice has direct flights to the west coast of the USA, Africa, Middle East, etc.
- Lanzarote has some similarities to Kona. One of the advantages of changing the WC location is to have a different kind of race that requires a different skillset.