That question doesn’t really follow the posts I’ve made, but I’ll answer like this: I don’t really care how the races are scored or how many are tabulated in a year. AWA is has the potential of rewarding a frequent flyer many more points than an FOP who does 1-2 races per year. That not really a reward for quality, just for spending lots of money to go to races. Someone in the top 20 of an AG in a race is qualitatively much better than someone who finishes in the bottom 25% of an AG, but that BOP who enters 4+ races has a claim to be ranked higher, though in essence, they’ve paid for that ranking.

But, as I said, everyone knows what they pay for.

No one outside of triathlons knows that AWA is a money-grab by IM brand. I applaud IM for it, however, bc they know how to make a buck.

I don't think that taking your top 3 races in a season is exorbitant or a money grab.

AWA is about finishing well consistently. Almost anyone can train 20 weeks and do well in one race and then take 32 weeks off recovering. I think people are discounting what it takes to stay healthy and compete in multiple races throughout the entire race season.

Qualifying for WC is the program for those who don't choose to race multiple times throughout the season.

I like to race and would race multiple races even if the AWA didn't exist. I finished AG top ten in 4 IM branded races last season. Qualifying for WC in 3 of 4 races. While I am gold, I am not at the top of gold. It seems the WC qualifying system is what needs to be adjusted. It's not like you don't have to do anything to achieve gold. If you like to actually compete against others as a hobby, I don't see the problem with AWA.

Kudos to you for achieving gold. Anyone trying to discredit AWA is misdirected. Achieving gold means your Top 3 races yielded Top 1% in your AG. It's a significant measure of sustained success.

As indicated IM isn't making anything from AWA unless you don't race IM brand and only choose to do so to gain AWA status. I've not met or heard of anyone doing it.

The only issues are some athletes will do 1 or 2 races and not 3 by choice. The measuring metric is not even for all participants. There's not much you can do there.

The other issue to me was grouping 140.6 and 70.3 with points weighted towards 140.6 at a max of 5,000 per race versus 3,500 for 70.3. They are pushing 140.6 in this regard.

I preferred when they had overall, 140.6, and 70.3 categories. I compete in 70.3's so I used to look at the 70.3 category as this is the one I raced in. Now they're grouped and people that do 140.6 can gain more points.

I understand the system, but I do wish they had actually not made the changes consolidating to a single overall tier in 2022.

Matt, you need to switch the year to 2021. You are bronze overall and silver in 70.3... unless there is another Matt Pocknell who achieved those results.

The combination of the two makes sense and simplifies the process. The "gold" status benefits are solid and worth having.

Agreed...the points systems make sense and should get more for the full...They should also take the top 3 performances to do the rankings like the US Triathlon does but at least this is start. I was able to win my age group (M60-65) in all three Ironman races I participated in last year including the 70.3 worlds. I do other non branded races as well because it was tough to register for races with all the deferrals and sell outs. I had to go all the way to Portugal to get into a fall Full. Great spot but iffy travelling with Covid going on. This year I am do 3 70.3's and 3 fulls all Ironman branded.