Has anyone else had this thought in your head from the moment it was announced, only to have it get louder as time has gone on? I'm not one to stir the pot for the sake of it, but usually people are more hesitant to share thoughts which oppose the norm and I genuinely wonder where others stand on this. Here's what my thoughts revolve around:
1. Weakened pro fields - this is the LIV/PGA Tour dynamic that golf experienced. Literally the IM world championship this year will be a seriously weakened field, as LCB the defending champ has said she will not go. And let's be real - if T100 wasn't an option, she would absolutely go race in Nice this year. She wouldn't not go defend her title and sit at home because of that technical bike course. lots of the controversy about LIV was that the money behind it had ethical questions/concerns. T100 is NOT that in terms of the money so the comparisons between T100 and LIV are not all 100% valid. But, the fact that pros are choosing between T100 and Ironman events is not good for strength of pro fields, and i think that's a detriment to the sport's overall community. just as that dynamic was with golf. we don't get to see the best battle the best when they should be doing so. And for every argument that says T100 and the new IM pro series gives new opportunities for rising pros, there is an argument that the T100 is only truly benefitting the elite top-level pros. And it perhaps subjects pros to injury risks by just making it all too tempting to overextend yourself and race too much, or race when you shouldn't because of a niggle or sickness or whatever the case may be. Lets not forget, in the end, LIV and PGA Tour made a deal where they merged. Golf essentially agreed this is not good for the sport, so let's un-do it. and they did.
2. Weird identity - so PTO is now an age group thing? Are they competing with IM, or trying to become it? PTO stands for professional triathletes organization, and now they're putting on age group events? it sounds like PTO/T100 has no idea what it wants to be long term. I think PTO stuff was better when it was the 3 pro only races per year, done really well with all the best athletes there. Now, it's 7 (or 8? who knows at this point what will happen), with diluted fields because they made pros pick and choose between them and Ironman. and they're piggy backing one of their races onto one of, if not THE, best most famous non-WTC races in the world (alcatraz). We all hammer WTC for sticking their noses into good independent races, and while they haven't outright bought the race, PTO/T100 is sticking their nose into arguably the most famous non IM race in the world (perhaps outside of Challenge Roth, but this could be up for debate). we've also already had two instances with both the current IM world champions (LCB and laidlow) where they said things that were interpreted to be anti-Ironman. They both clarified/walked back their comments but it speaks to this weird divergence between PTO and Ironman, that in my opinion does not need to exist, and only exists because T100 has put athletes in that unpleasant position.
3. lack of organization - the world final still has no location. las vegas and dubai don't even have open registration right now. san francisco, they "cheated" and just piggy backed on escape from alcatraz to run their "age group" race. at some point we have to be talking more vocally about how much of a you-know-what show this whole tour is. Paula findlay had some interesting takes on the last TTL pod episode, but in summary said ironman events are more fun and enjoyable than a T100 race from the pro perspective too.
Don't get me wrong. I want pros to have viable financial opportunities. I believe pros are hugely important for our sport and our community and I want them to succeed as athletes and people. But I guess my point comes down to this: Are we saying, that if we consider the total T100 dollar amount (contracts, race purses, year-end winnings, all totaled) available as a pie available to distribute to pros somehow...that this "tour" is the best thing that can be done?? I say the answer to that question is a resounding no.
I may sound like one of those people who is just resistant to change. Maybe that's true. But maybe not. I love IMWC in Nice. I loved last couple years with the 3 PTO opens which truly were spectacles and didn't cause pros to choose between PTO or IM for the whole season or create the issues described above. I LOVE what PTO has done for the sport last couple years. I'm not saying throw PTO in the garbage can. I'm not saying that we shouldn't improve and increase opportunities for pros of all levels, and find a way to grow our sport and our collective enjoyment of it. But the T100 Tour is stupid. Anyone else? I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Again I just want to get a sense of whether I'm nuts, and the only one who thinks this.
1. Weakened pro fields - this is the LIV/PGA Tour dynamic that golf experienced. Literally the IM world championship this year will be a seriously weakened field, as LCB the defending champ has said she will not go. And let's be real - if T100 wasn't an option, she would absolutely go race in Nice this year. She wouldn't not go defend her title and sit at home because of that technical bike course. lots of the controversy about LIV was that the money behind it had ethical questions/concerns. T100 is NOT that in terms of the money so the comparisons between T100 and LIV are not all 100% valid. But, the fact that pros are choosing between T100 and Ironman events is not good for strength of pro fields, and i think that's a detriment to the sport's overall community. just as that dynamic was with golf. we don't get to see the best battle the best when they should be doing so. And for every argument that says T100 and the new IM pro series gives new opportunities for rising pros, there is an argument that the T100 is only truly benefitting the elite top-level pros. And it perhaps subjects pros to injury risks by just making it all too tempting to overextend yourself and race too much, or race when you shouldn't because of a niggle or sickness or whatever the case may be. Lets not forget, in the end, LIV and PGA Tour made a deal where they merged. Golf essentially agreed this is not good for the sport, so let's un-do it. and they did.
2. Weird identity - so PTO is now an age group thing? Are they competing with IM, or trying to become it? PTO stands for professional triathletes organization, and now they're putting on age group events? it sounds like PTO/T100 has no idea what it wants to be long term. I think PTO stuff was better when it was the 3 pro only races per year, done really well with all the best athletes there. Now, it's 7 (or 8? who knows at this point what will happen), with diluted fields because they made pros pick and choose between them and Ironman. and they're piggy backing one of their races onto one of, if not THE, best most famous non-WTC races in the world (alcatraz). We all hammer WTC for sticking their noses into good independent races, and while they haven't outright bought the race, PTO/T100 is sticking their nose into arguably the most famous non IM race in the world (perhaps outside of Challenge Roth, but this could be up for debate). we've also already had two instances with both the current IM world champions (LCB and laidlow) where they said things that were interpreted to be anti-Ironman. They both clarified/walked back their comments but it speaks to this weird divergence between PTO and Ironman, that in my opinion does not need to exist, and only exists because T100 has put athletes in that unpleasant position.
3. lack of organization - the world final still has no location. las vegas and dubai don't even have open registration right now. san francisco, they "cheated" and just piggy backed on escape from alcatraz to run their "age group" race. at some point we have to be talking more vocally about how much of a you-know-what show this whole tour is. Paula findlay had some interesting takes on the last TTL pod episode, but in summary said ironman events are more fun and enjoyable than a T100 race from the pro perspective too.
Don't get me wrong. I want pros to have viable financial opportunities. I believe pros are hugely important for our sport and our community and I want them to succeed as athletes and people. But I guess my point comes down to this: Are we saying, that if we consider the total T100 dollar amount (contracts, race purses, year-end winnings, all totaled) available as a pie available to distribute to pros somehow...that this "tour" is the best thing that can be done?? I say the answer to that question is a resounding no.
I may sound like one of those people who is just resistant to change. Maybe that's true. But maybe not. I love IMWC in Nice. I loved last couple years with the 3 PTO opens which truly were spectacles and didn't cause pros to choose between PTO or IM for the whole season or create the issues described above. I LOVE what PTO has done for the sport last couple years. I'm not saying throw PTO in the garbage can. I'm not saying that we shouldn't improve and increase opportunities for pros of all levels, and find a way to grow our sport and our collective enjoyment of it. But the T100 Tour is stupid. Anyone else? I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Again I just want to get a sense of whether I'm nuts, and the only one who thinks this.