Just read it. No real comment at his time since I've yet to do an IM. I do agree that IM training is no guarantee of a long and healthy life. In fact, in some individuals it may possibly even have a negative effect.

No good for CCF. I don't think I have the speed necessary to qualify at a 1/2 distance event. Not that I do at the full distance yet, but I think I will in the next few years.

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

I actually see a couple problems.

First if you move the qualifing down to half distance I seriously doubt those viaing for a slot are going to train any less than they would if they were trying to qualify at the full distance. Maybe differently but not less. The only difference woudl be the effect of the actual race distance. In this case doing a 1/2 and a full in one year vs 2 fulls. Not much of difference, IMHO.

Second as you pointed out just because you can do a fast half doesn't mean you can do a fast full, thus it's probable that in some, maybe many cases, you'll not have the most "qualified" individuals qualifing.

I do agree that doing many races a year may lead to some level of breakdown. But of course don't we see this in any sport at any distance, especially at the elite level? In order to be competitive you have to push your body. Whether that is at world class 10K level or world class IM level. No expert but I suspect history is littered with 10K runners that pushed to hard to often and exploded, probably just as many, maybe more than IM'rs.

~Matt

i don't know what i think, but i'm sure joe boness would object.

[reply]i don't know what i think, but i'm sure joe boness would object.[/reply]

Yeah, but Support Crew might not!!! :)

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

I agree with you. A half is a completely different race. A full is not just twice the distance, it's at least four times the effort. Maybe a half could qualify you only if you already have a full under your belt. Or how about this: Full IM races will qualify you for Kona if they're more than nine (or whatever number you care to use) months prior to Kona. Otherwise, they'll qualify you for the following year's Kona.

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.

How 'bout this:

In order to race any full Ironman, you must qualify at a 70.3 event (with a larger percentage making the cut.) This would boost the attendance at the HIM's, and put the full IM a step closer to the pinnacle of achievement of triathlon. The Kona slots would still come from the full IM series, but in the process both races benefit immensely.

I know it doesn't address the health issue at hand, but it would be a great way to boost the popularity of the 70.3 series and make the Ironman even more special.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I actually think the idea the qualifing date is 12+ months prior is a better approach. So If you did IMLP this year you would qualify for Kona 2007. That way if you felt you needed more recovery you could take it.

None the less once you got into the cycle two years you'd end up with the same situation with people racing to qualify for Kona a year out and then racing this year because they qualified last year. However this would be more of a "Choice" than by force of schedule.

~Matt

I believe the Boston Marathon handles it in similar fashion, with a one-year deferment.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W

I suggested something a while back similar to this, qualifying for an IM with a 1/2IM to help cut down on what is becoming (or already is) overcrowding at IM events in North America. Basic response was that they'd never give up the potential lost revenue.

On similar lines, I can't see them making the 1/2 IM events the only qualifiers for Kona. Part of the reason there is all the sponsorship at the full events is because the pros are there racing them in hopes of getting a Kona slot. Yes, there are the cash prizes as well, but the ultimate goal for any pro is going to be Kona (and the even bigger cash prizes). I would think a sponsor would be reluctant to continue if the pro field started dropping off.

Perhaps, as a compromise to Dan's proposal, it could be the age groupers that qualify at the 1/2 distance, while the pros still need to qualify at a full distance event. Still, as others have stated, there is a huge difference between a 1/2 and full IM.

Chris

---

--
"I do not hurt on the bike, I punish."

I agree totally with what Dan says and disagree in general to the comments posted on this thread to date.

Until 1999, when Ironman LP was introduced, all the qualifiers in the continental US were from Olympic and Half Ironman tris, aside from the few slots at Vineman and the now defunct World's Toughest Tri in South Lake Tahoe CA. Aside from that, the international qualifiers were all Ironmans: IMC, Ironman Europe in Roth, Ironman OZ, IMNZ and Ironman Japan.

Years ago, Mark Allen said that doing more than 1 Ironman a year was not a good idea, so I listened to him and I've only done one a year, 12 of the last 14 years. I think that in general doing Ironmans is not particularly healthy (just like smoking, don't ask a smoker to refrain from risky behaviour) and doing more than one a year at the pointy end of any age group competition is asking a lot from the human body.

When I qualified for Hawaii the first 2 times, I passed cause I did not want to put my body through more than one in a year (I qualfied at IMC). Since then, I did a few half Ironman qualifiers and did not qualify and did several Ironmans too with the intent on going to kona if I qualified and doing more than one in that year, but I have never managed to qualify again.

I welcome the concept of more half Ironman qualifiers...then again, I am better at shorter racing than Ironmans.

I think eventually they'll have to do this anyway. Otherwise they will just have to keep adding slots to new IM races and giving fewer and fewer slots to each race.

What you'll end up with is IM races that qualify for Kona and those that don't. In order to get into the qualifing IM races you'd have to qualify in a Half IM....actually that would be kinda cool. It would also be a good opportunity to institute the 12+ break between the IM races.

So you'd qualify at the HIM, within the next 12 months you'd race the Full and then 12+ months later you'd race at Kona if you qualified at the full.

~Matt

Doesn't boston allow an either or situation. Something like any race in the prior 18 months? I thought a friend of mine qualified a couple fo months prior to Boston and he was trying to decide whether to do it the following year or wait a year.

Could be mistaken though.

~Matt

[reply]I agree with you. A half is a completely different race. A full is not just twice the distance, it's at least four times the effort. Maybe a half could qualify you only if you already have a full under your belt. Or how about this: Full IM races will qualify you for Kona if they're more than nine (or whatever number you care to use) months prior to Kona. Otherwise, they'll qualify you for the following year's Kona.[/reply]

That time frame seems like a good idea to me. We had a similar discussion when Lessing DNFed in Kona after qualifying 7 weeks prior in Canada. I say make Canada a qual race for the next year. Also, give people at IMLP the choice. They can take a spot for either the current year or the next. Yes, this might create a problem if, say, in 2006 everyone took the 2007 slot, and then everyone in 2007 also took the 2007 slot. But that is highly unlikely to happen, and if it did it would add less than 100 people to the kona field in that year. So no biggie at all.

So then the latest qual race that has to be for the current year is Coeur d' Alene, which I believe is 15 weeks out from Kona.

-C

---

------------------------------------------------------------
Any run that doesn't include pooping in someone's front yard is a win.

It could be managed like a Disney FastPass (tm). Once you've entered an IM, you can't enter another one within 12 mos. Something like that.

---

Proud member of FISHTWITCH: doing a bit more than fish exercise now.

Dan's logic is pretty solid; the other benefit of spreading the slots to the halfs is to make the cost of a Kona campaign more in the range of a wider selection of the population.

The chances you'd be within driving distance of a Kona qualifier would increase and you could scale your training (and equipment) as (or if) you qualified thus lowering the investment in terms of time committed at the start of your campaign.

I wonder if Dan is on the payroll to do this kind of test marketing for IMNA or if he just can't stop himself from trying to improve and grow this sport?

---

Mr. Uncaptured External Costs

Fossil carbon is planetary poison.

In 1990 at IMC you had the option to go for Kona 1991. Starting 1991, everyone had to race Kona the same year.

To the poster that said most pros do Ironman North America races to get into Kona, I would laregely disagree. Most are tier 2 pros there to earn a paycheque. Most who podium at IMNA races have little hope of making it to the top 10 in Kona.

Kona top 10

1. Faris (already qualified for Kona the previous year but also did Arizona)
2. Cam Brown (already qualified for Kona the previous year)
3. Peter Reid (already qualified for Kona the previous year)
4. Rutger Beke (already qualified for Kona the previous year, won Monaco Half Ironman in Sep)
5. Cam Widoff (already qualified for Kona the previous year)
6. Chris MacCormack (qual at Ironman Oz and did not race any IMNA, but kicked ass at Roth)
7. Raynard Tissink (won IMCDA)
8. Tom Soderdahl (don't know where he qualified but has been Kona top 15 before)
9. Francisco Pontano (...which radar screen was this dude on...certainly not at IMNA events)
10. Stephan Vukovic (3rd at IMC where he got a hawaii slot)

So as we can see, the key to doing well at Kona is (in general) to avoid a mid summer IMNA race, or better yet, qualify the previous year.

In Reply To:

i don't know what i think, but i'm sure joe boness would object.

Yeah, but Support Crew might not!!! :)


You mean I don't get 5 vacations a year?

Seriously, I believe Dan has a point. Not so much that I believe multiple IM are bad for your health, but that the average Age Grouper should not be REQUIRED to do an IM to qualify for Kona. It does take a toll on the budget and time.

Why can't IM slots be available at BOTH IM and 1/2 IM events. As stated by others, there can be a big difference in ones racing ability in a 1/2 compared to a Full. Why not let the athlete have a choice on the distance?

As for multiple IM being unhealthy for an athlete. I think the jury is still out on that one. Using examples of top athletes who have heart problems, Joe Bonness included, it is too easy to say it is the racing that causes it. Its very likely these individuals would have the same problems, maybe even sooner, without an active lifestyle. In Joe's case there is a very strong genetic component. He likely would have A-Fib with or without multiple IM.

On a personal note. Joe's A-Fib was not triggered by close races, but by a too tight wet suit fit. The compression on his chest combined with a sudden swim start was the culprit. By changing to a better fitting suit and starting a little easier he seems to have the A-Fib under control, (for now) and made it through 4 IM without a recurrence.

---

Support Crew
This information contained herein has been assembled for your assistance and convenience. It is believed to be reliable, however, its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. All opinions shown are subject to change without notice.

---

clm
Nashville, TN
https://twitter.com/ironclm | http://ironclm.typepad.com

Perhaps it is not the multiple Ironman races, but it is the self inflicted self destructive behaviour that we type A athletes engage in through a prolonged period of time through multiple Ironmans without heeding the signs that say "back off from that 8th 3 hour run in 10 weeks" that is what might do us in.

I'm not saying that this is the case for Joe by any means.

I do know personally from my own experience and from friends of mine who are competitive age grouper types, that we have a tough time backing off. For me, the easiest solution is to avoid the temptation by not registering for more than 1 Ironman per year. Which just means that I go from pushing a bunch of 18-27 hour training weeks to a more manageable 12-20 hours for half Ironman or shorter (of course, this volume is more in line with what most people are doing for Ironman anyway but I guess this is the point that Dan might be trying to make)

Thanks Cathy. So aside from Macca, Vukovic and Tissink, no one in the top 10 raced an Ironman after mid April.

Food for thougth and if it works for the pros who have better genetics and better training, and "recovery infrastructure" (ie not working 9-5 or whatever), then it says something to the rest of us.

From Dan's article:
"the average Ironman competitor -- age-group competitor, mind you -- swims 12,000 yards per week, bikes 230 miles a week, and runs 48 miles a week. He or she does this for seven months prior to an Ironman"

I can't believe the "average" triathlete would do that kind of training for 7 months and finish mid pack. It would take a lot of training to get to where you could even put in a week like that. That would be like 4 swim workouts, 13 hours on the bike, and 7 hours running, so about 24 hours per week. I finish better than mid pack/mid age group and I've never hit ANY of those numbers in a week, much less all of them. I do about half that for 3 months prior to the race and get fat and lazy the rest of the year.

In Australia - it was - and I am assuming still is - necessary to qualify for Ironman Australia (not sure of IMWA) - by successful completion of one of several half IM races around the country - within a certain time - corresponding to your age group.



Then and only then - could you race IM Oz.

Not a bad idea - but does it translate well to the US/

Not at all.

Can you imagine the resistance, mutiny and rioting that would occur if this was put in place?

I do not think it would solve any problems - you would have WAY overcrowded 70.3 races - safety would be compromised more than it already is - and you would still end up with full IM races nationwide - based purely and simply on physical mass - the number of people racing will ensure that not only with the 70.3 races fill - but so too will the full IM races because just THAT many people will qualify.

The problem is - there would never be enough HIM races conducted on an annualized basis, to meet the demand placed upon it to fill the full IM slots.

Needless to say - WTC has a pretty good thing going now - demand exceeds supply - IM and 70.3 races are going to fill up/sell out regardless.

As for two or more races in a year - Dan has some valid points - however I think it is a purely personal thing - some people can do it effectively - others cannot.

We all know where we personally fit within this range and should be considerate of this in selecting races and race frequency every year.