So when you do conquer the marathon in Hawaii do you move on and set another goal or just keep trying to KQ and try to out do your PB there? You’ve knocked out the big three, Boston, Kona and 70.3 WC. What’ll be next?

Triathlon to me is very unique in that at least for LC, the leader of the sport is an private company, not an governing body. I don't know how many sports that is truly the case, where governing bodies essential bow to a private company. That's how powerful it is, and not saying that's bad. I'm just saying that when they have a gravy train like Kona, they have zero incentive to move it. But that's a different discussion than the "fairness" of having WC at same location every year (which is what I was mentioning earlier).

^^THIS

To say that Kona is a World Championship is completely arbitrary, but everyone buys into it. The only official WCs are those sanctioned by ITU.

Another private equity firm could start their own WC in a different location... if only they had a few billion $ to spend... On another note, it would be just as valid for any old local triathlon to call themselves a World Championship. Aside from attendance, history, and prestige, what makes their claim any less valid?

Ironman IS NOT triathlon. Triathlon is much more than Ironman. I would urge those who agree with the OP to consider an alternative to promote some healthy competition so WTC is not the only game in town forever.

Ah, but it's not really that Kona is so important or so awful. It's just that (some) people really are that stupid.

Don't get me wrong, I know relatively little about Kona. I also don't care very much about Kona. I'm at a loss to understand why so many others do. The thing is, outside of Slowtwitch, I only know one triathlete with any aspirations to Kona. And I know quite a few triathletes. Slowtwitch is an echo chamber. Don't go thinking that Slowtwitch sensibilities represent the masses. Or do they? Certainly not the masses I know.

Those who obsess over Kona Ironman, Boston Marathon, or some other idolised event, are idiots with no sense of perspective. They tend to be the same people who repeatedly refer to themselves as a type A personality.

I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that these people are using these events as a proxy for the lack of some real substance in their life. More TV, more consumerism, more social media = more need for something that seems substantial and valuable. Many turn to a tough sporting event. The more "iconic" the better.

To say something like "Kona is more than a triathlon, it is triathlon" is to insult all non-insane triathletes. I enjoy triathlon. I'll continue to do so regardless of what happens year to year at Kona. It's not on my radar except for the occasional thread on ST. Let's move on, shall we........

I harbored a lot of these same feelings. I wrote some - but not all - in an editorial on this site back in 2011. In 2012, though, I got bit by the Kona bug, in large part because - at that point - I had come to a "what else is there?"

This is where I think the real challenge within the sport of triathlon of triathlon-as-elite-sport and triathlon-as-professional-sport starts to diverge. And this is really something that is largely unique to the pros. Any discussion of Kona needs to be split between pros and AGers. This split became even more marked when the KPR was introduced, because then the whole "KPR chase" for qualification really changed the nature of the race for pros as compared with AG slots.

Beyond that, of course, exists the dichotomy that's always existed - that Kona represents, in many ways, the dividing line between the "haves" and "have nots" in the pro ranks. Though I think a large part of this is self-fulfilling prophecy. Most pros I talk to say that your world changes once you are a top-10 in Kona. But most sponsors I talk to disagree and say only a podium performance really changes things, and really only a win will totally change how you are regarded. In this sense, I do think many pros go to Kona thinking that a good - but not great - result will get them a lot more than it likely actually will in practice, from a business standpoint.

But the business argument about Kona is - and pretty much always has been - a poor one. But this is where the business-v-elite-sport part becomes a challenge. The "smart" business decision for almost every pro is to not go to Kona. But if you are a highly competitive elite athlete, where else would you want to race?

I've been to Kona four times. I should have only gone twice - 2012 & 2015. But I do not have regrets about going in 2013 & 2016, because I think I went for the right reasons. Those were the years that - on balance (in particular 2016) - made me realize that it wasn't a race that I needed to do again. A career in professional sport is not always about making the "safe" decision. It wasn't my decision to race Kona in any of those years that I regret. It was more the decisions that I made in the lead up to Kona. And if Kona wasn't such a hard race, it wouldn't have exposed that bad decision making process. And that's less about "I can use this information to have a better race in Kona next time." It's much more about "I can use this information to make better decisions in general. Both as an athlete and beyond."

I do agree that I'm probably too much of a head-case to have ever really thrived in Kona. It's a race where you have to believe you can do well in the face of overwhelming odds that you will not, something that's never been my strong suit. I've always had more reasons why I shouldn't have done well. I'm too pragmatic, though that's served me plenty well in other areas of my life and career as well. But I only had a bad swim there once...

Society has always had an overwhelming blindspot with regards to survivorship bias. We never hear the stories of those who are chewed up by the process that rewards those who make it. But so what? Would we listen even if we heard those stories? Probably not. We tend to learn best by doing and experiencing lessons - even really obvious ones like, "you probably won't do well in Kona (or any other highly-competitive-event)."

I do agree with the cliche that, "the definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over." But I also think life is about more than only picking the battles you know you can win...

Rappstar wrote:

Kilian seems to be pretty consistent, no?

I'd have to go back and look as I don't follow Ultra close enough, but isn't Anton Krupicka having issues with consistency? But Kilian would be like a Frodo or a Crowie, right? and Kiley pointed out in his message that those guys are awesome to spectate, but there's everyone else. Does making a 100 mile race like Hardrock, Leadville, Western States, as the goal and benchmark for legitimacy, does it have a negative effect on the sport?

edit: I'll reach out to Gary David, sociology professor at Bentley who does (did?) cohost the Elevation Trail podcast for his thoughts, as he's done Boston, IMLP and Ultra races and thinks a lot about this stuff.

To say that Kona is a World Championship is completely arbitrary, but everyone buys into it. The only official WCs are those sanctioned by ITU.

Another private equity firm could start their own WC in a different location... if only they had a few billion $ to spend... On another note, it would be just as valid for any old local triathlon to call themselves a World Championship. Aside from attendance, history, and prestige, what makes their claim any less valid?

But, it seems that no athlete can be consistent at the 100 mile distance. That distance seems to have a similar effect in terms of minimizing accomplishments at shorter distances while destroying the pros

Wow what a really sad post. Where was Ironman conceived and first run? Oh that's right the home of Ironman Hawaii. Anywhere else an Ironman should almost be considered easy. Yes the conditions are tough but everyone knows it and it is what makes it such a special race going to battle the heat and wind. People that play their big story on Instagram how heroic they are and get bought back to size deserve everything thing they get. Of course anyone giving so much to a race and fails to reach expectation should be disappointed. The expo is nothing exciting with many companies pushing cheap deals to make revenue and like Rudy have the appearance of how good their stuff is by everyone using it. The same can be said about Ironman as a sport as it more often than not leaves me disappointed because I expected to get more out of myself the same as I do at Kona. I want to have that super fast Ironman where I feel I conquered the course and I want to have the same for Kona but I almost see them as different events due to the fact how much harder Kona is. My only gripe is people do put it on too much of a pedestal that they are racing there and many people pump their ego.

Drafting is a separate story at every race especially with a mass start.

I also think it's important to make a distinction between the old Ironman and the new WTC. IMO, things changed when they switched to the KPR point system ~2010. Even worse when the Chinese company bought them last year. When I go to a Rev3 race, or a local sprint, the races have a nice feel to them. Most are about the athlete and their experience. WTC gives you a distinctly different feel. It's good for their bottom line, but bad for the long term growth potential of the sport. They have a stranglehold on the sport, and really, their trademark lawyers are the only reason they've continued to dominate. They succeed not because of triathletes, but because of non-triathletes who only know about Ironman and Kona. The Rev3 tattoo carries no weight when bragging at the water cooler.

He's coming at it from a pro prospective and the old/new WTC was the days where WTC never had a "points standings" for pros to qualify. Of course that all happened the same time Rev3 and other race companies were creating much better pro specific pay structures. So to solve that, WTC created the current setup that basically required you to race more WTC events and less other pro paying events.

ETA: Which is weird in that I've wondered why WTC didn't go that route with AG'ers as well to qualify for Kona. Points really are only used for rankings but not Kona spots.

If you are implying that the first Ironman Hawaii was at Kona they you would be wrong. From 1978 to 1980 it was on Oahu.