I think it means that for top performers (many of whom get WC slots) there are additional benefits to being AWA. I don't think it implies YET that there will be a road to Kona/70.3 WC via a points system. Personally I'd rather a points system because then we don't have the larger age groups getting the stick by having every age group getting one slot minimum per race. With a points systems, the age group slot totals over all the races would more closely represent the participant totals over all races. But if you're in any of the over represented age groups today, then the current system is much better.

Dev

I have no doubt that they will move the Kona slots to more of a points based system and I can't say that I like it.

But, in this context I think they are referring or trying to make the everyday AWA (frequent flyer) feel like more of an elite athlete. Using AWA and Kona or "world championship" in the same sentence makes AWA worth a fair amount more.

More people AWA status = more money. Sports is a business, and that is something that I realize and have no problem with at all.

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Training/Racing Log - http://www.earthdaykid.com/blog --- Old Training/Racing Log - http://colinlaughery.blogspot.com

Agreed.

I'm sure it's coming, but I think they will be more overt about it.

Yep, this makes sense. I see the context in which they were referring to it now; saying that being at the top has a lot more perks than just KQ. Which is smart by them as in my age group M30-34 its not uncommon to have 250 starters. Simple math says top 10% is 25 people per race vs. the top 7-8 who get Kona slots.

My two cents is this change will suck for the athletes, and reward WTC. I'm not a fan because I don't want to race a WTC event 4x a year, and don't think I can afford to either. Not being able to commit to 4 races kills my chances. I also think it diminishes Kona spots, rewarding those who can race more often.

Don't want to derail the thread here; I know this topic has been discussed at length in the past, just thought slipping the world championship line in the article was interesting.

AWA ranks you according to your top 3 races only.

I think it's an obvious business step for WTC. This way they can reward those who do more of their races vs someone who wins their age group in one race, gets their slot and then races Rev3 or Challenge for their other races.

This is going to be totally unfair for people in countries like New Zealand with a limited number of ironman branded races.

Child, please! Taupo, Port Macquarie, Melborne & Cairns are all relatively close. Even Western Oz isn't that far of a trip. That's 4-5 races that you can easily get to from NZ.

Hey I think you guys have got this all wrong. I was checking out my rankings and noticed that in the FAQ Ironman pretty clearly states that the AWA program is NOT a kona qualifier. Why do you guys think that it is? http://www.ironman.com/...thlete/faq.aspx#faq1

Most people are thinking - and probably rightly so - that WTC will move to a points based qualification system in the near future.

Hasn't happened yet, but with cornering the pros' schedules with a point system, and slowly introducing points for age groupers - it's probably just a matter of time. Why "allow" people to only do 2 Ironman branded events (qualifier and kona), when you can coerce them into doing 3-5?!

They're primarily interested in making money above all else, so this move would make sense.

Personally, having missed kona last year by about a minute in an age group with only one slot, I'm not opposed to a points system. As it stands now, qualification can be pretty random depending on whether or not pro-level competitors show up, and how many roll downs there are.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

I don't like the age groups with a low proportion of racers getting a disproportionately high number of qualifiers at the expense of the large ones...and I am saying this as a person in a large one who will be in a much smaller one in the next year, so it is not like it will help me much even though I choose to do many WTC races per year. As Fulla said, it would hammer someone living far from many WTC races. Right now, as you said, if one ex pro level person shows up, it is a crap shoot for the next tier of racers. In a points system, guys like Ken Glah will get a slot for sure, but the next few tiers of athletes have a better chance even if they are in a race with a few former pro caliber guys, because you are competing with the entire world, not just the guy in your event. At the same time, the system of allocation of points does need some tweaking. Current version rewards Ironman racing in tourist mode a lot more than 70.3 at the pointy end (5000 pts based for IM, 3000 points base for 70.3). I appreciate that you can do more 70.3's than IM's but really fast guys doing 70.3 but zero IM's get hammered in the points systems which is a linear percent of the winner. I'd rather see points awarded to the the top 10 like: 5000, 4900, 4800 down to 4000 for 10th place and then the rest get a percent of the 10th place finisher's time. That way top 10 positions get some differentiation and I feel it should be that way. And maybe it in a linear proportion down to 1 hour behind, then 2 hours behind is is 75% of the linear amount and 3 hours behing it is 60%. This way a 13 hour finisher (say 3 hours behind 10th place in 10 hours) in an IM is starting 3000 points and while that seems less, it is still just as high as a 70.3 winner

Fixed that for you.

---

Pink? Maybe. Maybe not. You decide.

Maybe its just me, but 3 WTC races in one year is a lot. I'm doing 2 this year, but have never previously done more than 1. I do, however, know people that do 3-5 WTC races a year, though mostly 70.3's

---

Proud Member of Chris McDonald's 2018 Big Sexy Race Team "That which doesn't kill me, will only make me stronger"
Blog-Twitter-Instagram-Race Reports - 2018 Races: IM Florida 70.3, IM Raleigh 70.3, IM 70.3 World Championships - South Africa, IM North Carolina 70.3

Yeah I agree. Currently the points don't fall off nearly quick enough. I also think counting up to three ironmans is a little crazy. Basically if you end up doing 3 mediocre races, you get to go to Kona and have an even more mediocre race. It seems like one IM and two 70.3's would make a lot more sense.

It would also make sense to have points not be calendar year based, but roll over in August/Sept like the pros.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

The OP mentioned 4 WTC events because the assumption is that you will need to race 3 times in order to qualify for the 4th (Championship) event. Asking people to sign up for 4 events each year is too much in my opinion.

---

What I do: http://app.strava.com/athletes/345699

With some of the age groups you're complaining about, it's pretty tough to be continuing to race at all, which IMO puts a different light on the situation.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Yeah, I don't see a point system helping some of the under represented AG'a better if the requirement is to do more races and the associated costs. And really this would make qualifying available as two distinct strategies. Race 1-2 WTC events and finish in the very top of the AG in both, or race 3-4 and hope the aggregate results and point puts you over the top. And if you try the first plan, what if you end up short, need another race, and they are sold out? The pro's can jump into any race, not so for an AG'er .

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

Go race Ironman Louisville if you haven't gotten enough points yet.
ETA: They will say "sorry poor planning on your part". No different than if you were racing a local series for points and you planned on XYZ races to fulfill your needs and didn't have a back up plan in case race Y you crashed out of, or flatted or had a death in the family. Tough luck is likely the response you'll get.


They can use their race exchange program as well if you wanted to say you didn't want to sign up for a race that you may not need. They pretty much will have every excuse covered, I believe.

---

------------------
@brooksdoughtie
USAT-L2,Y&J; USAC-L2
http://www.aomultisport.com

Oh, I have no doubt they can equivocate sufficiently to justify a points system, and I see the economic benefit, but I don't care for the idea in regards to my own racing.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

Maybe this is the beginning of a points qualification though I tend to think that it's not. Just seems too complicated for a company like WTC to pull off. But if it makes them more money I guess but I just see too many moving parts for them to pull it off without an outrage.
But speaking of outrage, isn't this just like the ironman access program only for fast people? Special lines, gear, priority sign ups to popular races......

If they do go with points, I agree they need to tweak the system. I have zero interest in doing 3 ironmans in a year to get a slot, and that's probably what you'll have to do because they pay more points and people will chase those points, especially if you're a guy on the bubble of qualifying. I think it would be better to go with one ironman and two 70.3s. Or maybe a system where only one ironman race counts as 5000 points and any others you do are on a 3000 point scale. Something like that.

Just a point of clarification. I wouldn't expect that racing a 70.3 gets you anything toward a 140.6 WC. Likewise, I wouldn't expect points from a 140.6 gets you into a 70.3 WC. These are two different categories of racing.

---

What I do: http://app.strava.com/athletes/345699

I can see not counting 140.6 points for 70.3 worlds, but I can see counting 70.3 points toward Kona. If they went to a points system for Kona that required several ironmans you can count me out. That could have you doing 3-4 ironmans in a year if you qualify. I don't have any interest in racing that many ironmans in a year, partly because I don't think it's healthy.

But that's just my opinion. I'm sure some people would be happy to do 5+ ironmans in a year if it got them to Kona.

The pro points system uses 70.3 points towards Kona. You can currently qualify at several 70.3's for Kona as an age grouper. It seems logical to expect them to continue that in some capacity - especially because expecting people to race 4 ironmans in one year is freaking insane. But I guess I wouldn't put it past WTC.

---

___________________
Twitter | Kancman | Blog

Got it. But what if I have no intention of doing a 140.6 and just want to shoot for a 70.3 WC slot by doing only 70.3 events? Wouldn't some guy doing a 140.6 event get more points than me? If that 140.6 guy just misses a Kona slot, could he move down and take my 70.3 WC slot?

All hypothetical, but fun to model this stuff.

---

What I do: http://app.strava.com/athletes/345699