I never understood why they bothered hosting an IM with such a boring effink course. Make people work! Climb olde stage, run up the dirt path on boulder canyon road, somethin...

---

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5

If I didn't already have an IM on the schedule I would probably sign up.

Umm, permitting? Also I can promise you it's not like Dave, the RD, wants to make a "boring" bike course. We can sit here and yell about adding Flag, Sunshine, St. Vrain, blah blah blah but they aren't happening. You need OKs from an awfully lot of groups and people to make that happen, much less the kind of clientele that wants to do that kind of riding. And from what I have seen over the years, and has been exhausted on ST, most athletes don't want to have to work that hard.

"I don't want to work that hard in an IM"

-_-

And it's apparently struggling. Just saying..

---

"The person on top of the mountain didn't fall there." - unkown

also rule 5

yup and there is that!

Steve, your Boulder and IMAZ bike times were pretty close this year, was your power similar?

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |

Yes - power was quite similar...but setups/fit were entirely different for the two races.

---

_________________________________
Steve Johnson
DARK HORSE TRIATHLON |

Can you share the link?

The run course is worse than the bike course. I think its interesting that rather than trying to fix what's wrong with the race (the course) they resort to a gimmick like raffling kona slots to try to bump registration.

---

Dimond Bikes Superfan

Not that I am arguing with you, but I am curious as what you mean by the run course being "worse" than the bike course? If you mean much harder, then yes I will agree with you. For reference, look at all of the athletes that very literally run about 3:00 flat at races like AZ or even in Kona, yet barely break 3:18 or so at Boulder.

So my question to you would be what is your preferred and realistic run course?

I have personally raced IM Boulder all 3 years mainly just because I live here. That's enough for me and am moving on to other races, but I still don't really understand good alternatives that actually make legitimate sense for the run course. Taking over a path is a lot easier to sell to Boulder City Counsel than shutting down more roads.

First two winners announced:
https://www.facebook.com/IronmanBoulder/

WTC just published the participant list for Boulder (~950? not exact count but close enough to know the promotion didn't work that well...) and i found 9 of 10 slot winners on the list. The only name not on the list who was one of the surprise visits, Beth Hunt I think. Perhaps she registered with another surname but even if not, 9 of 10 doesn't sound right if they considered post cards as I would bet they received more cards than registrants. I know we aren't surprised but I wonder how this looks for their 'no lottery' ruling.

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

I'd bet they didn't get very many postcards. Other than here I never heard about the postcard option anywhere else - either online or in the triathlon community in my area.

I know they got at least 1

Calling the class action lawyers....

Make that 2

FWIW - 10 slots also on offer for registering for IM Australia.

Lighten up, Francis

Everyone who registered for Boulder got entered in the lottery whether they were interested in Kona or not. So, you've got 950 lottery entrants and 9/10 lottery winners from those 950. Statistically, one can assume there was in the ballpark of 100 postcard entrants then. And this sounds about right considering very few people likely knew of this option; probably only slowtwitch readers.

The real question is, has this lottery served any purpose to WTC? They've given away precious Kona slots that they could have given auctioned off or allocated to AGs. What did they get in return? Did this lottery drive up registration numbers? Hard to argue that it did.

Well, they didn't know until they tried. Going forward, I doubt you will see any more similar promotions.

KNY would you mind explaining how you came up with 100 for mailed in ballots, just curious.

Also I notice that Australia does not offer the 'no purchase necessary' option.

hadukla said there were 950 registrants and 9 of 10 lottery winners were registrants. So, if statistical odds held in the lottery (far from a guarantee, just ask the Orlando Magic), then one can deduce there were in the neighborhood of 100 non-registrant lottery entrants, ie postcard submissions.

Thanks (head down emoji as I shuffle back to basic reading and math skills class).

The cynical side of me thinks they threw away those postcards as they were received. No revenue=no chance :)

Follow-up that person he visited whose name I couldn't find, turns out he says innthe video that she was in fact registered making it 10 for 10. I could believe that most people didn't bother to read the bottom fine print for no purchase necessary and from this very thread, even many STers weren't too thrilled at the revival of the lottery so i could see 100ish.

Australia lottery is apparently being run by a different legal entity so that allows it to be a true lottery, it seems

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

Ok, if all 10 lottery winners came from the 950 registrant pool then odds are that there were 68 or fewer postcards in the lottery.

(950/(950+x))^10 = 0.5 resolves to x = 68.