For AGers, some finish an iron distance race in under 9 hours while some make use of the full 17 hours (or beyond, but still finish). I’ve heard a lot of complaints lately that the cutoff is simply too long for a competitive race - often from people that were closed out from registration by the inclusion of “lesser” athletes. Since the IM branded races are in such high demand, I doubt that shaving a couple hours off of the race time would even jog the customer base. But what if you knock off, say, 4 hours, or even 5 hours?
Assuming that the most popular IM events admit around 2200 athletes, what cutoff time would make the race “more competitive” yet still repeatably produce the same number of entrants (ignoring safety and overcrowding)?
My gut says 14 hours would still sell out year after year … but 13 hours may be cutting it close. With the exception of IMFL, the median finish times are typically in the 12:30-13:00 range. While the demand is high, I don’t believe that there is a pool of 2200 additional athletes (with the same median finish time) committed to registering for any of these events.
jackmott – why do the events need to be overcrowded to fund the pro purse? If 2,600 (or 3,500 – whatever IM decides to stretch the field to next) sign up, and i think they would sign up with say a 15 or 14 hour cut-off, wouldn’t that work? Or do you think you couldn’t get that many if the cutoff was lower?
I seriously doubt they’ll do something like that. The IM formula right now is so dialed in it would be foolish for WTC to change anything up. It would be like the NFL changing to a soccer ball. There’s a huge dynamic that can happen (law of unintended consequences) where changes are made and sometimes they can destroy a sport. For example, you shave off 3 hours, it eliminates most of the athletically challenged and special story (i.e. cancer survivors) athletes that seem to define the spirit of the sport. It eliminates the allure of the sport, and puts it in the curling category as far as popularity goes, and I doubt the WTC wants that. This coming for a guy who can do 14 hours no problem.
… often from people that were closed out from registration by the inclusion of “lesser” athletes. …
Is lesser a code word for older athletes? How many of your friends actually tried to register when the registration opened up? There are only a couple of IM where registration is an issue, the rest are pretty easy to get into if you really want to get in.
The IM is no different from any other sought after event. Have you tried to get good seats at the Kentucky Derby, the Indie 500, or even tickets for a baseball game right behind home plate?
thats a good point, we would have to create a formula that includes age, number of working limbs, and compute an acceptable cutoff time
… often from people that were closed out from registration by the inclusion of “lesser” athletes. …
Is lesser a code word for older athletes? How many of these people actually tried to register when the registration opened up? There are only a couple of IM where registration is an issue, the rest are pretty easy to get into if you really want to get in.
If you want to make it more competitive and keep numbers high, why not award medals to only a certain top percentage of the participants. Maybe the top 20% in any age group get a finisher medal, the bottom 80% get a thanks for trying, better luck next year. That will make it competitive! Then it isn’t about just crossing the finish line, it is about crossing it fast enough relative to your competition.
I seriously doubt they’ll do something like that. The IM formula right now is so dialed in it would be foolish for WTC to change anything up. It would be like the NFL changing to a soccer ball. There’s a huge dynamic that can happen (law of unintended consequences) where changes are made and sometimes they can destroy a sport. For example, you shave off 3 hours, it eliminates most of the athletically challenged and special story (i.e. cancer survivors) athletes that seem to define the spirit of the sport. It eliminates the allure of the sport, and puts it in the curling category as far as popularity goes, and I doubt the WTC wants that. This coming for a guy who can do 14 hours no problem.
This is the point of the discussion. The recent tone regarding finishing times has been markedly elitist (even for ST). A shortened version of the OP would be, “What do you think is an appropriate cutoff time (1) as an athlete, and (2) as a promoter?” I think that a lot of people are deluded by the idea that these events are provided as a public service, rather than a for-profit venture. The IM brand has become an institution of both exception and inclusion. The formula includes a 17-hour finish, and that’s not going to change.
There are much harder races that exist off of the WTC circuit and I, for one, am eager to partake in them once I’m prepared for the challenge. The IM brand is a good place to start, but it’s not the end-all/be-all of triathlon, and I would like to see a migration of these remarkably talented athletes to indy races so that they may build their race brands as well.
I think instead of revising the cut off times, they should just make one race really exclusive. Make people “qualify” for this race by finishing near the top of their AG. call it something schnazzy like “world championships” and put it in some exotic location, like, i don’t know, Hawaii. This way, they would still be able to make lots of money from those “lesser” athletes participating, while conning some of the “true” athletes to do multiple IMs a year in order to qualify.
if ironman had paying spectators, the age groupers wouldn’t have to fund the little prize money there is.
i know you are french leaning so the innate truth of certain forms of capitalism escape you though
I thought the french are organising a reasonably successfully little cyclist race around france with no paying spectator (admittedly no AG neither) and decent prize money for the winners
If you want to make it more competitive and keep numbers high, why not award medals to only a certain top percentage of the participants. Maybe the top 20% in any age group get a finisher medal, the bottom 80% get a thanks for trying, better luck next year. That will make it competitive! Then it isn’t about just crossing the finish line, it is about crossing it fast enough relative to your competition.
I usually pass my finisher medal to the kids on the ride home where it will inevitably disappear. I’m convinced that I will find them strewn throughout a pile of Dora toys and Legos once they get older and move on to bigger and better things.
theres lots of paying customers on TV, via advertising =)
if ironman had paying spectators, the age groupers wouldn’t have to fund the little prize money there is.
i know you are french leaning so the innate truth of certain forms of capitalism escape you though
I thought the french are organising a reasonably successfully little cyclist race around france with no paying spectator (admittedly no AG neither) and decent prize money for the winners
Agreed this has been discussed over and over, but again, yes, shorten it, but it has to be age, gender, ability (AWAD), and possibly even course specific. 17hrs for all is arbitrary.
