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...
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp