One thing that I have noticed in the results of IM races is that the female pro results trail off faster than the men's, with fewer "contenders" at a given race.
The gap between the top flight and second tier pros appears to be larger than in the men's category.

For this reason I think that increasing the number of Kona slots for women might actually lower participation in WTC races from top level pros by virtue of them only having to race once or twice to secure a place at Kona. This would free up more of their season to focus on non WTC races that interest them or have a good purse.
I'm all for equality, and personally would like to see more pro slots in both categories at Kona, but I'm not sure that adding more female slots would alter the race outcome. All the women who can win money there are already qualifying.

A better step forward would be to pay prize money deeper in to the field at WTC races, this is what would encourage more pros to race.
As it stands many pros put all their eggs in very few baskets, I believe that this is because it's the only way some of them will win any cash at all. Paying the field deeper would encourage pros to take more chances and would increase the incentive for more people to commit to the pro lifestyle.

Edit: But as you said, the bottom line for WTC appears to be exactly that - the financial bottom line.
Their interest is in getting more and more AGers to pay £400 to line up at one of their races, they would get rid of the pro system entirely if they felt that doing so wouldn't harm AGer participation

If you have say 50 of each gender rather than 35, the top guys will still have enough points to go race at challenge race. The people from 20-35 have to keep racing WTC to be assured enough points. Now if you extend it to 50, then those in 20-35 are "safer" but the people from 35-70 need to race a lot more WTC to squeeze into the top 50. So really expanding to 50 for the pro women would just make another layer of pro women race WTC races more frequently with the hope of going to Kona whereas the middle group might get a reprieve, as the top girls do now.

Personally as I said on the front page, I think it is totally absurd that the women don't have the same number of slots as men. If it is a world championship grant them equal opportunity. It send the wrong message to the rest of the world and certainly to teenage athletes who look up to the pro women and then they get the message, "your idols really aren't good enough to deserve the same number of slots as men. The men pros are somehow better and deserving of more opportunity to get to Kona". That's really sad in this day and age. See my numerous posts on the two front page articles. I feel strongly on this topic having had the chance to coach teenage athletes, and also having gone to school at Royal Military College of Canada in the 80's where we started the triathlon program in 1986. We introduced a lot of women to the sport and one of our peers made it to the Sydney Olympics too. I think as male leaders we can do a lot to provide opportunities for all. Look who is running WTC? Not that many women in the top exec positions like any company. They can do better on this topic.

Look who posted on the front page on the two articles on this topic? Not a single woman has posted as of 8:50 AM EST on 17 Feb. Don't you guys think that is telling? Guys make the rules for women and guys influence what they get to do, because even though women may want more they don't want to step into the middle of the fight between the different camps.

One of the big opportunities for triathlon remains women's participation. Look at marathons and running races. The tide has shifted from the 70's and we now have many races with more women than men. This is the market we can draw from....they got their marathon done and now want to try a sprint tri....then an olympic....and so on.

Equal number of pro women sends the right signal to the world, and paring down the men's field to make that happen makes a lot of men feel penalized to give the women parity. That again creates the wrong environment for peer acceptance.

I can't lay claims to this idea (credit goes to Halvard), but think about this:

Say they decide to reduce slots to an equal 30/30. This opens up 25 slots on the pier for AGers. WTC then decides that these will be "normal" AG slots. This represents roughly $21K worth of additional entry fees for the WC.

But wait! With those 25 new slots, they could then open up a new IM in North America or other strategic market that has a high likelihood of selling out. For the sake of the example, let's say that this is in the US.

2800 slots x $750 = new $2,100,000 in revenue.

I doubt that it would result in more prize money being paid out across the 70.3/140.6 series, so that'd probably head straight into the profit coffers.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Playing devils advocate here...

If you make the number of pro slots the same will you not then have backlash because you do not give amateur KQ slots out in the same 50:50 fashion?

I understand that there is more participation in the men's side for both pros and amateurs but making it "easier" for a female pro to qualify in relation to the number of female pros compared to a female amateur to qualify in relation to the number of female amateurs seems also unfair?

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

Great point!

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

In the interest of full disclosure: I am one of the signatories of the Women For Tri open letter.

In my opinion, you're equating two different things to one another. The number of slots available to FPRO's is finite and defined at 35 slots at this point. Meanwhile, if more women participate in the AG ranks, the number of slots available at a given race grows to accommodate as a percentage of the field.

I understand the proportionality argument. However, in my opinion, it gives the impression that women are somehow less valuable to the sport as fewer female professionals are allowed to compete at the World Championships. Even if this is unintentional, it sends the message that WTC does not value the female athlete as much as the male athlete.

As we say in training, there are two ways to build something: by pushing it up from the bottom, and pulling it up from the top. There needs to be equality at the professional level as well as looking for organic, grassroots methods of making triathlon more accessible to female participants.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

If the number of slots allocated becomes equivalent (assuming the unequal distribution of those vying for those slots continues), one of the following must be true:
1) The AG method of distribution is unfair
2) The pro distribution is unfair.

I don't hear too many complaints about the way the AG slots are handed out other than people would like for there to be more overall, but the idea of doling them out proportionally seems to be a generally accepted practice. So, why not give 80 slots (pick a number here) to the pros and divide them up. if there are 500 pro women and 500 pro men, then the slots are split 50/50. If it's 700 men and 300 women, then they're split 70/30. But to give an equivalent number of slots when the number of contestants fighting for those slots is significantly different has never made any sense to me.

In my mind equality isn't about having equal numbers, it's about having equivalent representation. If 90% of the pros are women, then 90% of the WC slots should go to women and vice versa. After all should California and Rhode Island have the same number of electoral college votes? If not, why not? Is it unfair that they don't? Isn't that showing inequality to Rhode Island? Is Rhode Island valued any less or made to feel inferior to California due to this? No, but if all states were given "equality" and all had the same value in the election, I think there would be a great deal of inequality as the votes of those in the more populous states have just become devalued.

---

____________________________________________________

http://triathletelife.wordpress.com/

If you look at overall slots on the pier in Kona that number is finite as well and that overall figure (in relation to amateurs) is split by participation level but then the finite number of pro slots on the pier is split by some different method.

I think you can compare the two and at the moment it is similarly distributed (assuming that IM participation is 3/8ths female) but if you change to 50:50 it would not be...

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

You're using the wrong governmental analogy. The great compromise is known as Congress: House of Representatives based on population, Senate is equal distribution to all states.

There isn't a true compromise available here. And equivalent representation merely reinforces the lack of females currently choosing to race long course. In my opinion, that requires both equal slots at the pinnacle of the sport for men and women, and an effort to make tri more accessible to not just women, but all athletes. We need to get out of the habit on telling people they need a wetsuit, or a $5000 bike, or the new 920, etc. to race. But generally, those barriers are higher for women (see, e.g., the running store staffed exclusively by males and the intimidation factor associated with it.) I digress.

Honestly, I'd like to see WTC move to a time standard for KQ-eligibility, then determine entrants based on the fastest X% of the field. Then have equality for pro's. But in the absence of that, I ask for equal spots at the top.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

First off - Life is not fair.

Every-person makes their decisions based on the facts at hand. No one is forcing people to race at WTC events. If they were being forced to then there is a very valid argument that the allocation should be based on something that is not or does not appear to be arbitrary.

If the FPRO (and MPRO) don't like what WTC is doing, they could have supported REV3 better when they had great pay-outs or support Challenge/Rev3 now and not race WTC.

A % marker would be best in my opinion.

At any given race the AG winners time (or some historical AG winners average time) + x% should be used.

You would then get only the competitive entrants to Kona, fewer KQ's at older age groups just because they showed up to race and a fairer way to get the best of the best at Kona.

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

Often, sponsors will only pay bonus for WTC races and Kona, unless the athlete is very good at negotiating with their sponsors for events not under the IM branding. Which is a whole other can of worms...

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Agreed. Life isn't fair. However, if we were totally accepting of that fact, then there would be nothing to discuss here. Perhaps that's your point, but I'm not sure.

But, life is also about overcoming those barriers. We can try to work to improve the system or we can leave it broken. I don't believe it's necessarily perfect as is, but I do believe that making it arbitrarily 50:50 regardless of field size is just as problematic as the current system as it doesn't entice men to enter b/c they are just entering an already overpopulated field and their chance of going to Kona is even less than it is now. So, we've traded the problem from women (according to the arguments presented above) to men.

---

____________________________________________________

http://triathletelife.wordpress.com/

I realize by typing this I am opening myself to be a huge target....but...

As an A.G. female athlete, I have never looked at the pro ranks, proportions at Kona, how fast the times trail off, etc to drive my participation in an event or sport. Perhaps this is unusual, but I am not so sure. It seems to me, the events that are driving women (in large numbers) to triathlon are events like the Danskin tri's. Supportive, fun environments that most on this forum would not even consider a 'real' race (swim angels anyone?). I am sure that Kona and WTC (as well as Challenge), do drive a segment of female athletes to the sport, but in my work and the women I speak with they are not looking to do iron-distance races, they want to feel like a triathlete and they don't want to be put down by other women (which actually happens a lot at big name/brand races).

Pro-Women do deserve equal representation. I don't feel I have the ability to speak as to what that looks like for them, I am not in the ranks, will never be in the ranks and don't desire to attempt to make a living that way. I do wonder if there is a fallacy of argument however that the unequal distribution at the top means that women (in general) are getting the message that we are less valuable. Down here is the A.G. ranks, we do have proportional spots, we have 'fans' that think we are pretty cool just for toeing the line, and as a general rule, I wonder how many woman can name more than 5 or at most 10 female iron distance pros. I am not sure these are the things we keep up on, does that mean we don't care? Not necessarily, but at the end of the day, sports stats are not all that interesting to some women. They want to be celebrated for running 3 miles without walking.

One final thought before I get flamed - with all the doping allegations coming out one thing for me that would make me much more interested in following the pro ranks closely would be if women stepped up and said enough is enough. We will race 30 Kona slots, BUT WTC has to create a bio-passport for every athlete. Stand up women and show what clean racing looks like, show the men/AG/sponsors that clean sport is important and if they won't do anything about it, the women will. The cynic in me wonders how many spots could be filled (in either gender) if this were done.

---

________________________________________________
Don't Just Live, Thrive!
Thrive Kinematics Physical Therapy - http://www.facebook.com/...8178667572974?ref=hl

I think your post is pretty well spot on, especially with the line "they are not looking to do iron-distance races, they want to feel like a triathlete."

In re: "sends the message:" that's something I have heard from athletes in my community as to part of the reason why they have selected alternative races.

I think long-course triathlon isn't ever going to experience the same demo mix as what running is seeing right now. But I do think there are ways to tap it, and you've spoken to one of the key issues. I think equal numbers of spots is one small but important piece of that puzzle.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Although Boston has used it for years, the issue with a time standard is that Florida does not have the same topology as Idaho. This gets exaggerated in long-course tri simply because of the duration of the race and would lead to crazy demand at flat'n'fast courses. See the field sizes at the Chicago or London marathons for a taste. Either that or courses get watered down...equalized? leveled?...to 2-5 loops with 1-2 moderate hills per lap.
...although that would be one way to really regionalize the racing, since all the courses would be identical.

It really would be triathlon breaking new ground in women's sports to offer true equality. How best to drive growth is very chicken-and-egg and there aren't a lot of good examples for top-down growth in women's sports...maybe you could look at the US women's national soccer team as a real-world example of a driver of growth in the sport at all levels. Women's tennis?...but they still only play 3 sets and don't have equal pay. The Olympics?...near-equal in medal count, but certainly not in all-nation representation or in equal pay-out (driven by the nations, of course). Running and road races have certainly been mostly bottom-up, although following a very few top performers (I remember Suzy Favor causing a boom in Wisconsin back in the day).

I think it's definitely worth a shot to set them at equal numbers and see what happens over 5-10 years. If WTC can't fill the slots, they lose little since they don't pay down to the numbers under discussion anyway.

What's everyone's opinion of the biggest "over-achievement" by a low seed at Kona has been over the years? Has a 50th seed finished top ten? Has a true 12th seed won? Maybe we can pull some stats into this and pareto an answer...

I believe Ben Hoffman was in the 40s before his 2nd place this year. Snuck in the first round of qualification, then got bumped down in total KPR by the final standings were set.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

Sorry, maybe I might not have been clear but when I said use a specific time I meant that the specific time be based on the AG winner of that race.

In Florida you might use 8:40 + 2% for M35:39 whereas at IM UK you might use 9:45 + 2% (replace 8:40/9:45 with AG winner time)

And in reference to your quote about women's tennis, Wimbledon (and other Grand Slams) pay the same to women as they do to men despite the women playing 1 or 2 fewer sets. For me, that is equality done wrongly....

---

Blog: http://www.coopstriblog.wordpress.com
Latest blog: Setting Goals. With or Without Gin.
Date: 10/31/2017

Sadly, I don't get the push for more pro men or more pro women at Kona with the prize purse allocation messed up. It boils down to how many people more people who are allowed to have roughly zero chance at any kind of a pay check. I think that if they are going to have something like KPR and have x-number of slots available to Kona for the pros, then they need to have a system in which all of the pros have at least a chance at breaking even for the trip. (For example, Wimbledon gives out cash down to, I believe, 128th place and that's more than the 4th place pro at Kona. Not that triathlon will have the pocket of tennis, but it's still an example of handing out cash to up-and-comers.) Until then, it's just a bunch of starving athletes happy to become even more poor. I wonder how many of the pro KQers have received less than $5k in prize money during a qualifying year. So, if more female pro athletes want to work harder to qualify for something and not eat, have at it. I think it's misplaced energy. Flame on.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

The numbers should be equal. The WTC need to stop being dicks and just make the change.


However, unless you have a legitimate shot at placing top 5, going to Kona as a pro is a waste of time and money, male or female. So the number being 35 or 20 or 50 is irrelevant.

With careful race selection and avoiding the KPR trap, you can make a lot more money as a professional athlete.

One thing I will say on this thread that I said on the front page.

Pro women do not represent only the numbers of women racing age group triathlon. They represent women overall from all around the world. Last time I checked the female global population was pretty well 50%. The fact that less women race in triathlon has deep links to society's bias against women even having the opportunity to do sport and that is even in developed societies, forget about developing societies (for example my mother never had the opportunity to learn to ride a bike simply because she was a girl, but legend had it that she cleaned up at every track event as a school girl....but I digress).

WTC needs to show leadership that its marquis event is a shining beacon for women worldwide...not just women triathletes, not just women athletes, but all women. When women worldwide see what Chrissy Wellington or Mirinda Carfrae or back in the day PNF and Erin Baker could do, they can make the leap, "hey, if they can do it, so can we, so can our daughters, our nieces, our grandkids".

Cutting the pro men's field down, only creates some level of animosity among men that they got the short end to make things equal with women. Upping the women's total firstly sets the right message from Ironman globally, while at the same time, not alienating a bunch of men who get screwed over in the name of making things equal for women.

There should be zero link between the number of women racing pro in Kona and age group participation numbers. If we look at the Olympics for triathlon what did they do back in Sydney in 2000. If I recall correctly there was 50 of each. On the biggest stage on the planet our sport, making its debut were able to send the right message to the world. Ironman/Mr. Messick, you are 15 years behind, and I would almost NEVER give Les McDonald more credit than Ironman for ANYTHING, so I have to be entirely objective whenever I give Les credit, because if there is someone who rubbed me the wrong way with his bully tactics wrt to tri, it was Les.

Why do you hate gender equality?

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

Say they decide to reduce slots to an equal 30/30. This opens up 25 slots on the pier for AGers.//

Ever since there have been about 1600 total athletes at kona, i have been hearing the pier is full. But magically somehow there are now 2100+ bikes on the pier, an increase just about every year they have the race. It is not an either or equation, just look at the history of entries. They will not cut the mens field, that is counter productive to what they are trying to achieve. They will gladly add slots to the womens race, and probably would like to add more to the mens too. Now that there is some serious competition for the LD pros coming into the market, they will need to shore up their pro fields, or they will dwindle and the races will become less relevant. And since the pros have been clueless in all these decisions being made on their behalf, looks like more women will now get to chase worthless points now too, just like the men do. What they have bargained for is equality to make poor decisions as a pro athlete. congratulations.

#StarvingProfessionaTriathletesMatter

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/