What is not your opinion anymore?
I thought you were talking about the split location, and not about women slots. Of course with women IM is trying something new for various reasons, including to help grow the sport in the long term. Why does that bother you?

They've just enlarged the selection criteria and they can of course do it. It's still more selection than signing up for the open water swimming event for FINA masters world championship (to name an example of a world championship with no selection criteria or qualifying time).

lets try in a different way: do you think they will keep this new women quali system also in 2025 when they go back to Kona?

They may or may not. How does that matter? If there's more demand they'll widen, if there's less they'll restrict it. With the current enlarged system they likely have enough flexibility to do either with accurate placement of slots.

Keep in mind how much slots roll down may not even be a performance indicator for Ironman. They likely care more about if they sell them at all, sell them to new people who get tied to the sport for the long term and inspire new people to take on the challenge.

There's no doubt IM is going through a transition phase. The old solution worked for a while and they've outgrown that and now they're trying to find a new balance.

It feels like you're trying to convince me of something.
You value a WC run a certain way and I accept that and respect that. I believe that tying the WC to Kona restricts our sport and makes it less inclusive (a WC shouldn't always require 36h flights to an expensive resort at -12 time zone). The examples from other sports show that rotating WC and wider qualifying standards is the norm (I obviously haven't listed them, there's all variations of grey, you can do your own research if you care).

Ironman is clearly trying to keep a compromise between the advantages of keeping Kona and of moving out of it.

yes, but...

I agree with you, Ironman WC athletes are all amazing, at first, they are the "best athletes who want to race", and all of them have finished at least one ironman first (ok, now not all).

you would agree also, that they have reduced the value of the WC, this is the reason because the roll down increased to the point that not all slot were given, and they have extend the qualification rules.

is Ironman WC a incredible event, even with new rule? YES. An Ironman with more than 2000 women is a incredible event, and good news for the sport, but...

as far as they devaluate the requirement to race (but increasing the price), they also reduce the interest and the "feeling" that it worth, that not all can, that it is a price that you need to earn.... if you think that any can finish a race and take the slot, if you think that you can earn this slot also another year, so you prefer to wait for another year... and so on...

and we would see in Nice WC 2025, that is like Nice WC 2023 but "without the novelty side"

As you know IM wasn't born in Kona and there isn't anything intrinsic with Kona. Given enough time, promotion and media content IM can probably rebuild that aura anywhere.

I get it that some people are motivated by the "exclusivity", I really do, but I and many others am not.

IM is clearly compromising with the split location thing right now. Trying to keep a foot in each shoe between exclusivity and growing the sport.

I won't pretend that I don't get a mini ego boost when the topic that I've raced Kona comes up when making acquaintances. But most people in the real world can hardly tell the difference between a marathon and a 5k so all of what we are talking about is nuances to the general public. When explaining what an Ironman is to a non-triathlete, there would be no difference between saying the real numbers, half of it or 10x more. It's all mind bogglingly impossible in their mind.

In truth, if I'm racing a WC I care about the experience and that I'm racing against the best in the world who showed up so that I can see how I stack up. I don't want it to be constrained by who can afford it or who can afford enough days of heat and time zone acclimation in a remote ocean island.

I also care much more that the sport grows and more people get into an active lifestyle for life.

By the way, the old slot allocation process wasn't without its quirks. As a European you only needed to travel to the right races to qualify (typically races in America, preferably if the 'championships' with double slots).

Plissken: "it has to be super challenging [to qualify]" - Why? This annual race put on by Ironman offers the opportunity for the best to race one another and for the remaining 80% to participate (and tell others they have). The race itself is 'super-challenging'.
Marco: "It doesn't reflect how WC are organised in most sports" Absolutely, I agree. The amateur racing at the IMWC is just like many other individual sports masters 'world championships' (though most of those are organised and sanctioned by the world governing body for that sport, not a commercial organisation, and the entry fees are a magnitude less).
For commercial reasons IM have included the 18-35 age groups but the competitions within those age groups do not discover the world champions: they reveal the best on the day of those (who can afford the high cost cf sensible venue) and who don't wish to race the actual best (in the pro field) for a variety of reasons (and that's fine).
Ivan: "you would agree also, that they have reduced the value of the WC" " . they devaluate the requirement to race"
No I don't agree. You are applying your judgements of "value" which are erroneous (or at least other judgement criteria are equally valid).
Ivan: "[IM] also reduce the interest and the "feeling" that it's] worth [it]"
Reduction of interest? Remains to be seen. I predict that more athletes will toe the line in Nice than did at Kona: is that a measure of "interest"? The different avenues for being allowed to pay silly money to start an IMWC maybe reflect a sensible variety of approaches particularly for women (and others have pointed out the randomness of hoping the IM an athlete has chosen doesn't turn out to be abnormally competitive and you don't get a slot).
Ivan: "the "feeling" that it's worth, that not all can, that it is a price that you need to earn..."
Again this is you applying your template of what the IMWC should be: you seek to put in barriers to participation and value exclusivity (so that you and those with that mindset can brag about it? - why care otherwise?)
This event is a World Championships (Pros) with a racing festival/world masters competition blistered on.
For the festival there is a limit to the space available so there needs to be some rationing mechanism. But each of the rationing options have advantages and disadvantages: the previous exclusive 'earn slots' mechanism was just one with ups and downsides.

I wasn't there for the slot allocation but I've been told they didn't roll down much from someone who was there.

It's also my understanding the Taupo slots for the 70.3 rolled down a lot for specific age groups (men and women) and not much at all for others.

many people dream to race in Hawaii, and there is only one way to race Ironman Hawaii.
not so many people value the "plus" of Ironman WC Nice than Ironman Nice.

to race a Ironman WC means: to race 2 Ironman in same year, mostly in 2-4months. Most Ironman means an expensive travel.

It is not my feeling, it is a fact: there is much more roll down for Ironman Nice WC thant it was for Ironman Hawaii.


BR

"but I've been told they didn't roll down much from someone who was there" ....

Hard to believe it (or not sure what "much" stands for) , but I'd like to accept that I'm wrong :) , because there were 50 slots for 175 finishers .

I don't know what it means specifically either as that person didn't take notes but I also don't know why you find it hard to believe.

Nice is a very convenient location for Europeans and if you've just attended a race in Portugal in early autumn surely you must find a WC race in Nice a year after quite convenient also.
Also, Messick has been quoted to say that all the women slots went in IM Italy and Barcelona and that they've seen better uptake since after the Nice WC this year. I guess people liked what they saw?

Besides, 50/175 is about 28%. It may seem a lot compared to past IM standards but it's not a lot in absolute terms. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable. UCI Masters Granfondo have automatic qualification for the top 25% of every race. The FINA open water event has no qualification system at all. Age group marathon world has automatic qualifying times but with rolldowns on a ranking system. And the World triathlon AG races have a qualification system that varies a lot in standards depending on the national federation.

Part of the reason IM struggled with the Nice slots for men was also because they had to assign a lot of slots in half of the usual time. Some races had literally hundreds of slots.
And yes there's other reasons and I perfectly understand that many men are still more driven by the idea of racing Kona than Nice atm.

28% doesn't seem a lot , is huge! Compare it to 3% (?) on mens side.

That means a bit more than 1 out of 4 accepted the slot .
Prove it and I will believe it.

Look , there was a time when 70.3 IM Worlds was held in Clearwater ...I´ve raced 70.3 Monaco (Worlds qualifier) , almost no one wanted the slots.
Maybe times have changed but from the feedback I have from many triathletes in Europe , it doesn't look like all the slots that they will offer will be taken. And in case this happens , it will be because the slots have rolled a lot , even they rolled a lot for Kona 2023!!!

Someone posted detailed notes of the IM CA slots rolldown which was the exact same weekend and had 60 slots.
It would make sense for Portugal to have better uptake than California - being in the same continent as Nice - and having less slots.

There were 505 female athletes in IM CA.
Thats 3 times more than Portugal.
Obviously it makes it easy to fill the 60 slots.

About the better uptake , I'm not sure, maybe traveling to another continent , and a new race venue, is more appealing for an American than for a European.
Of course it's cheaper and faster to reach for Europeans but how many of them would travel to Nice in October when you can do the same race in June for half the price if you are not a competitive AGer?

Marco , I just read in another thread that in IM CA F40-44 rolled to 26th and 45-49 to anybody present.
https://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ronman_Changes_Women’s_World_Championship_Qualification_Process_P8030002-2/

So "didn't roll much" ?

I know its a bit off topic, but this is why I believe that if they're going to hold something (or part of something) outside Kona, they need to rotate the event. If you can go to Nice on your own all other years, then the allure of a WC on a different date comes down to whether you want to specifically do a WC or not - as opposed to an opportunity to race in a new venue.

The comparison, obviously, is the 70.3 WC. I can race in Lahti anytime I want (albeit on a different course - kudos to them for switching it up), but I didn't know Lahti or the race existed until they announced they were holding the WC there. So part of the allure is that I'm using it as an excuse to go somewhere new.

If we broaden our horizons, we don't even need to keep the WC specifically to existing IM venues. You could double most 70.3 courses, and leverage the volunteer base there as well - create a whole new race just for that year.

I was talking about Portugal - not CA.

If you've looked at the thread about IM CA rolldown there you would have seen that most slots were actually taken by the first athletes and it was only a few slots that rolled down deep. It's not like they were uniformly distributed through participants.

This is actually the same pattern that IM races with a lot of slots (such as regional championships) would have had pre 2020 for men. The first slots were all taken and then when slots start rolling down they occasionally roll down deep because a lot of people just assume they won't get it so they don't even show up. Then it's up to whoever is there.

A woman hoping for a slot can't really rely on the rolldown. Yes they occasionally roll down deep but it may not roll down at all.

The picture that some people are painting is almost that any woman who wants to go can go. It's not actually what we are seeing even if the occasional AG gets the "whoever wants to go in this AG" call.

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

2 reasons why it wasn't IM Lanzarote:

1. IM Lanzarote is a licensed event, it's not owned by IM corp.
2. Lanzarote island has a very similar landscape to Kona, and once they needed to sell something new, they wanted something different (course & conditions aren't that similar though)

thx for poinint out number 1, which I did not know (but I guess a solution could be found, IM should have the money)...
as for point 2 I think it should have been a strength point. My guess is that most AGers that try to gain a Kona slot, if they have to move from Kona for a WC, woudl have liked something similar.

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.