Obviously, all of the pros were talking about this at the awards banquet today. The common theme that I gathered was the sense that we all turned ourselves inside out on the day only to seemingly have our performances immediately belittled by so many who weren't there. The bike was 177km. They had the permits for a 180km course, but that would have required a u-turn on the flyover, which if someone would have missed it would have been catastrophic. This was the same course as last year, I assumed they got the permits for all years under their contract at once to avoid the issue they had in 2016 but did not verify this. The marathon course was certified twice on friday. I think Scott said the first reading was spot on and the second was 100 yards long. Take a quick look at the "how short is IMTX thread" to get an understanding of some of the frustrations. The reports start at 5 miles short, then the report jumps to 8 miles short. And of course there was no way the run was legit...
Of course I think this is just fine for the NA Champoinship for the pros...but I've won it 3x now so probably a bit bias. It comes down to what do you want from a regional championship? Ocean swims in choppy water will favor swimmers, courses with huge climbs and wicked descents would favor cyclists, courses like Texas will lead to fast times...but does that mean they aren't good for a championship race? We currently have 5 very different course profiles for regional championships. Pros will chose the best course that suits their strengths. Why is that a bad thing? Look at how many different countries were represented on the start list for both SA and NA. If you were only allowed to race in your country's regional championship, I could possibly see an argument. But since we have the ability to choose the races that suit our strengths and schedules, I think it is actually better for the sport. I have always said the sport needs the best people putting it on the line to keep the popularity of the pro field. Without exciting races, the pros field in the sport will die. We need that for our careers to survive. I think the current situation with such different course profiles actually increases the competition for each race...at least at the front end of them. Yes, it would be great if there was more of a gap between the men start and the women start...and an even larger gap between the pro women and the AGers. That is a tough balance with the rolling start now and only having permits through midnight. But the same problem exists in Kona.
I am admittedly out of touch with what the NA championship means for age groupers. More Kona slots, but also more athletes racing, so don't really see a difference. But I don't know enough about it to make an informed opinion on this one. I will say that there are going to be issues breaking the groups up on any course with this many participants. There were some big groups out there...but no worse than Kona IMO...
Canuck1 wrote:
Impressive run and full respect for what you did irrespective of some distances questions. Good luck in kona. Get off the bike with Lange and that would be fun to watch.
On IMTX, do you think this is the right type of course for the NA Championship for pros and/or age groupers? You will have seen some of the negative feedback already and I will respect if you do not want to have a voice in that but as the race winner your thoughts would be of great interest.
Seems the women's pro race was impacted perhaps moreso than the mens as were many of the women's age groups with some unfortunate draft packs of age group men.
Not to derail the thread and I applaud your effort but your view from the pointy end of what was likely the only clean part of the race would be interesting to many of us.
