This is why we need the points system. After every race, there's always the controversy on how the allocation was done. Points system can't come soon enough.

I missed a Kona slot by one at WI in 2010 and ended up with a roll down. I didn't know exactly how many slots there would be in my AG, but knew I was right on the bubble. After the race, I found a WTC employee and asked if they knew how many Kona slots there were in each age group. They said something about it either being allocated based on # of starters or # of finishers and that I would have to wait until the morning to find out. I found it frustrating they couldn't tell me exactly how it was calculated. I wasn't even convinced the person I talked to was 100% sure. Based on the short conversation with that person, I came away with the impression that it's not even calculated the same way for every race.

I don't care too much how they decide to distribute slots, but it would be nice to know the system.

I get what you are saying, I really do.

However, you say this like you are being magnanimous about it. In truth, you have been to Kona numerous times yourself... and it's simply easier to come across with the point of view you have when you already have been.

I got into this sport in my late 30s and ended up missing Kona by 1 slot and have never gone before. If my AG were given the proportionally correct number of slots per starters, then I qualify this year. I am not asking to change the system, as I get why Kona might be better to allow some other groups that are not M30-49 in, but I am certainly not going to ask to make it harder for people in my AG (age up next year) when we are already getting a disproportionally lower number of slots.

It would have honestly been a bad year for me to go due to a myriad of reasons, but hopefully you can understand a different point of view here from someone in the 'bigger' male age groups, as it sure would be nice to go some day...

---

Founder of THE TRIATHLON COLLECTIVE (Closed Facebook Group). A SBR discussion group without the white noise/trolling!

It's a good question. However, keep in mind that with 75 slots and 2269 athletes, a perfect prorated distribution would result in 1 slot per 30 athletes, so if you end up with one AG getting a slightly more than they deserve and one AG getting slightly less, you could easily end up with a delta of 2 over a delta of 38 athletes.

Here's how the algorithm that optimally prorates while ensuring all AGs receive at least one works. ie, the numbers in red next to the WTC numbers.

1. prorate all AGs. For any AG that receives less than 1, give them exactly 1. All AGs that earn 1 or more, give them 0. They will get their proper slots in steps 2 and 3.
2. Now start over. For all remaining AGs and for all remaining slots, prorate distribute them. In the prorating, drop the decimal. So, if an AG earns 3.78 slots, they get 3.
3. At this point, because of the dropping of the decimal, most but not all slots will have been distributed. So, let's say there were 50 slots to hand out and at this point 47 have been assigned. There are 3 to go. So, you need to figure out what the 3 next most deserving AGs are. So, you start the whole process over again with 51 slots and see which AG would get the next one. Then 52. Then 53. And, now you are done.

This is the mathematically proper way to solve this problem. This problem is not unique to WTC. This problem is encountered in elections as well. There are elections where you have a discrete number of electoral votes to give out to some number of districts, and the electoral votes are to be doled out proportionately while ensuring that all receive a minimum. This is the mathematic optimization to solve the problem.

The way I see it, there are four solutions to the issue, since even if we 'fix' the algorithm, you're still dealing with over/under representation amongst age groups:

1- Substantially increase the number of slots per race (Double?) so that there are fewer 'quirks' in the existing algorithm. This would entail doubling the number of people actually at Kona, so is tough to do. It doesn't solve the problem, but it does make it less of an issue.

2 - Move to a regional championship system, where you have to qualify for the North American championship (etc.), then you qualify for Kona from the regional championships. Here, they can give out 250 regional championship slots per normal race, and then 500 kona slots per championship. This would result in a two-tier qualifying process, and would probably take the average athlete quite a while to qualify for Kona, since you'd have to put back-to-back efforts to qualify, which might not be feasible for everyone.

3 - Implement some sort of points system, like AWA; This would be tough to do, because, again, most IM athletes aren't going to race more than 1-2 races anyway per year. (More OK for pros, I suspect)

4- Make your age group goal posts movable. Here you would simply make your age groups whatever you needed them to be to ensure fair and balanced slot allocation. You could easily have the following age groups, as an example: 18-25, 26-27, 28-34, ... 50-62, etc. There's nothing really saying that each age group at each race has to be exactly 5 years, or that you need the same number of age groups for men as for women. Have a maximum number of ages in a single category (15?) to prevent 65 year olds from competing with 45 year olds in the same gender. Or simply make your age groups 10 years from 50+ onwards.

I'm partial to number 4, but it would make communication a bit tough, since you'd never know which age group you'd be in until you're done. It still has the problem of what to do when there are so many races you're only at 20 slots per race, but at least mostly empty age groups aren't being subsidized by the meaty age groups.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist on this. I don't believe WTC is out to hide something. I think they just have an old Excel spreadsheet that is emailed out to RDs and/or timing companies and no one really knows how it works anymore. I do believe, or certainly hope, the same process is used at every race. It does make sense that the WTC person you talked to couldn't tell you how many slots per AG as they need to know the # starters per AG and they need to wait on the timers to give them that info. And, the WTC person simply types in starter numbers into the spreadsheet and the slot allocation numbers spit out, so it also makes sense he wouldn't know the specifics behind the curtain.

But, yes, there is no reason WTC doesn't expose this "calculator" as a web app, so anyone can plug in the numbers and see the results.

Dev - while I agree wholeheartedly on the notion of encouraging younger people to pursue Ironman (after all, if we don't keep replenishing the ranks, the sport will whither), I do object to the statement that "Sport should really be about young people."

Ironman is as much about pushing boundaries at all ages as it is about outright fast times. During the early years, I doubt that anyone envisioned senior citizens taking up the sport. It was considered barely attainable by the fittest. The perception was that the 'typical' athlete would retire from competitive sports and head to the golf course or the easy chair by the time they hit their 40s. The notion of a 70 year old doing an Ironman was crazy. I remember when 50+ year old Bruce Buchanan broke the 10 hour barrier at Hawaii and that was considered a remarkable achievement at the time. Now, the 50-44 AG record would have won the race outright in the early years and breaking 10 hours as a M50-54 last year would not even place in the Top 20 in that AG.

I would also suggest that the statement "the real sport is about young guys going around 9 hours and the girls that can have a potential to go sub 10 or sub 9:45 and be the next round of pros" also discredits the remarkable achievements of older competitors. Wouldn't you at least consider the accomplishment of a M70-74 competitor going 12:03 or a W80+ finishing in under 17 hrs as equally impressive as a MPro breaking 8:30 or a FPro breaking 9:30?

Ironman is as much a lifestyle as a sport and one that has fully embraces age group racing from its infancy. The cynic may argue that age group racing is merely a ploy by WTC to encourage over-the-hill and affluent individuals to spend their money and that argument certainly has validity. However, age group racing also provides terrific motivation for aging athletes to redefine the notions of aging and physical activity.

So, circling back to Kona slot allocation, transparency would be a great first step for the WTC. So would accessibility to a list of AG qualifiers and roll downs. Is this too much to expect as WTC's clientele? After all, we are the individuals who pay the bills for both the pros and the WTC as a whole.

Brian

Brian and Fred....apologize for not responding. I actually typed up a fairly thoughtful response to both your point between flights on my phone, but I think AT&T dropped my connection at Chicago airport as I was hitting submit.

First to Fred's point, you are correct, my perspective is slanted and if I speak honestly I might speak like you. The reality is it took me from 1991 to 2006 and 13 IM's to qualify for my first shot at Kona. If someone back then said, "take away slots from 40-44 to give them to younger guys", I'd probably say "sheeeeesh, what a rip off, when I was 25-29 that would have been helpful, but I want the fair number of slots for 40-44 because I am in that division NOW and it is actually more stacked than 25-29". So, yes, I see your point.

What if WTC did this...don't reduce slots from any age group. Just remove slots from the lottery and re assign them to 20-29 at the championship races only...basically assign 50 extra slots to those young guys by reducing them from the lottery and give out those 50 slots at the four regional championships only. No one says that lottery deserves that many slots, but one is needed. Could we agree on that? The future of young guys is more important than some random mid life person who lucks into going to Kona without moving a single body part. What do you think about that?

Brian, this is the nice thing about the forum. We get to share different perspectives and enlighten one another on angles which we may not be considering. I never really thought about older gentlemen and ladies pushing the barrier of human performance and thereby setting examples for not only their triathlon peers, but for their peers outside sport. And let me share a story close to home. A few years ago, I brought my then 69 year old mother to the Awards at 70.3 WCs at Vegas. They brought up the women's 65-69 podium. She's not a triathlete, but being a mom, she has some context on what race times are fast. My mom was floored not only by how fast the ladies went, but how awesome and healthy they looked. She said, "Well, if they can do it, maybe I should go to the gym and start doing more exercise". She's been pretty solid since doing some powerwalking/jogging/running and weights most days she is at home to compliment yoga. She said, "Now I understand why you do this!". So it obviously had an effect. So I see your point. I would still lean towards more slots for younger age groups if asked if there was a tie, which age group should get a slot, but now understand your angle.

Personally I THINK that the solution is to open up a second T1 behind the King Kam hotel. This would be for all the lottery, special interest, sponsor, ebay, XC and others who have not qualified for Kona through the traditional front door. They will have a longer run, but still be part of the show. This should open up more space on the pier for the "championship race". Also move the pro transition right onto Palani behind the finish line in front of the King Kam. Don't make the pros run that stupid loop around the pier and get them to go directly to the bikes. Now you opened up 100 more rack spots on the pier.

With all those extra spots make each of the regional championships 125 slot races and then most of this slot allocation math just evens out to matching outright percentage of racers. And, there should be a way to qualify into regional championships through 70.3 racing if you missed general entry. Or your AWA points allow you to enter up to 1 month in advance if you have high enough points....something like that.

As KNY said, the biggest part of WTC value is controlling the road to Kona. They could do a better job in terms of the transparency and fairness and also while the sport grows come up with new models for the KQ process not based on a 90's spreadsheet that worked when every race had 100 slots, but does not work that well at 50 (or even 75) from a fairness perspective.

These are fantastic ideas.

---

--------------------------------------------------------
John Behme
Charlotte, NC

Yes, I think as the sport grows, we need a way to accommodate more people in Kona and return to some races with deeper Kona slots. Very much like pros wanting to be paid deeper, age groupers don't want our prize money (KQ), spread so thin that it becomes totally mis aligned with actual real participation and competitive balance. I think we want the prize distribution to be fair and not entirely impossible to get to. I really do think that expanding Kona T1 onto Palani would be a step and opening up a new T1 behind the King Kam would also allow an expansion of the "non qualifier citizen wave". It would make the championship "waves" the full pier in terms of total athletes allowing for the increase in slots at some major races.