Better for who? Only the women who have missed the cutoff, not those already qualified. Theory being they all would have raced differently given 50 slots vs 35 if that was the original plan. And all the top 50 needed to say yes. Why would those who planned their season under one set of rules and qualify agree to change things 2 months out from Kona to help others?
Women who have raced late in the year to slide into the top 35 might not like letting women in 49th place with fresh legs get to Kona. The reality is "how many of the women in 36-50th place are really prize money threats at Kona.
If the women turned down the offer for equal slots for men and women, shame on them. Sorry, but we’ve been fighting for equal treatment of men and women in this sport since Erin Baker stood up for equal prize money back in 1990 (and rightfully so). I think it was wrong for WTC to have less women slots at Kona than men. But hey, if the women pros want to bicker among themselves and not take the even number of slots on offer for Kona this year, then they probably don’t deserve 50 slots. Seems like a few women who are in the top 35 are being more selfish about their Kona finish position (likely not in the money anyway) than thinking about what helps in the long run.
At least that is what i am reading into it. Then you wonder why pros get hammered for not being able to articulate their value, when they can’t even agree to take something that is good for the overall pro field. It seems they care about “me” more (in the moment) than “us” (over time). At some point in the future turning away a better framework due to ones selfish needs today is certain to backfire when measured against the future “selfish needs”. A bigger pie for any market is always better. The pie might be more prize money, more Kona slots whatever, but bigger is always going to be better over time.
Surely more women on the start line would be better. More opportunity for exposure for their sponsors etc… experience on the championship course. etc…
It is hard to say for sure why they didn’t go for it. Overwhelmingly, the vote from the women solicited was not this year. The details put forth for additional slots were that there needed to be a majority consensus from the first round of qualifiers, and that consensus was not this year. There was also a rider on the vote. And that rider was that if equal slots were voted, the women would participate in a one-day event focusing on women’s issues. The same can not be said for the men who qualified for Kona, there is no special request for them.
Do I think that more-equal slots would have sent the right message? Yes, absolutely. I had to ask myself how the racing habits of the girls who qualified in the first round, or even the second round might have changed if the goal posts were moved. I could only find 1, maybe 2, women who would NOT have had to race the last weekend of July qualifying. But, I am not a female, so I don’t get a vote. I I also don’t think that it’s necessarily fair to say, you can vote on these spots, but we’ve got you for a day sometime in the year. I can agree that yeah that provides ‘value’ but at the same time it’s not required of the men.
So there was no “moving of the goal posts.” The women were given the opportunity to choose for themselves whether or not they wanted the goal posts moved this year. As a whole, they decided they did not want that.
Thanks Jordan.
Out of interest, why didnt they go for it?
Surely more women on the start line would be better. More opportunity for exposure for their sponsors etc… experience on the championship course. etc…
I agree with you. But I think the general logic followed Jack’s thinking - it wasn’t “fair” to the women who followed the system all year to make the change. I think the idea was also that the remaining slots would have been handed out more arbitrarily. Some athletes said that they would have raced less if they had only had to be top-50 rather than top-35. Other athletes - further outside the cut for 35 - might have raced more.
Jordan, thanks for the insight, always good to get information from somebody that actually knows a story, as opposed to the rounds of speculation that usually happen here. That said, do you think this means that for next year they will expand the field of women? Hard to imagine anybody objecting to it as long as it is laid out now.
It’s possible, but more complicated now. The long term policy was always going to be a bigger issue - with consideration of the pro men, the RD, etc. It should be announced pretty soon though.
That’s a pretty harsh take on it. Another perspective is that they were patient and far-sighted, and believed that changing the rules mid-season was not inherently fair, and that waiting for next year for equal slots is the best all around solution.
I can name 2 without even looking … Naeth & Marsh … top ten contenders (even though Naeth may be injured) that pushes 2 established qualifiers out of the money mix (but in the future we need thoe two in the race for the competition factor)
Brandon (and Jordan) cover the issue well
For the sport why do we need it NOW? … and it’s obvious for those that it effects most (not you, me or ST) but the top 50-70 ladies it came out as a no. … Moving the goalposts now isn’t great for those who set their season up a certain way AND for those that have altered their season at this point to race at say Wisco / Tahoe / Chatt / Wales / Mallorca / Barcelona / Malyasia etc. … lets give things time and within 6 weeks we will be looking at more than 35 women in Kona or 2015 and we’ll be on the right track.
In the end, if their were people who wanted more than 35 women in Kona they should have started their campaign last summer (who knows maybe they did) not this summer … we are going to get “there” as a sport but we need to be diligent and patient to address different issues intelligently and with patience.
I’ll probably regret this but in a sport with a male to female ration of 4 and sometime 5 to 1 why should there be the same number of women as men in the Kona field? Isn’t that letting less than “world champion quality” racers compete in the race? I guess there is no harm in doing it but I am sure there are costs and resources that could go to age groupers that those 15 women would get.
That all being said if it were the other way around and it was a female dominated sport I’d expect to be treated the same way as a man. The dominate gender would have more competition thus would require a larger field of contenders. Outside the context of triathlon I completely agree that female sports are not often given the same amount of attention as the male sport equivalent. Call it misogynistic but at the end of the day I think its fair to have 35 slots for the competitive field of women and 50 for men in a sport that’s male dominated.
If you didn’t read my post above, please do. To draw a polarizing picture. “Well you are a woman, you can vote, but then you have to clean the polling location for us.” Does having an event that allows the women pros to focus on women’s issues in sport provide value, absolutely. Does having the men do something as well provide value, absolutely. But, it shouldn’t be a requirement ‘if’ additional Kona spots are added. And, if it is required, then there should be some compensation.
If they truly felt like additional spots are/were warranted, then it is as simple as saying we’ve added the spots.
Dave pointed out two of the women who would have qualified for Kona had the goal posts been moved at the last minute. Amy and Angela. And, LisaH as well as several more obviously. Bek Keat maybe. I honestly do not think that the racing habits of anyone would have changed based on the late addition of Kona spots for the women. That was the question that I wondered aloud in the walls of our house. Some of the women will disagree with my comment, but I really don’t think that racing habits, commitments, sacrifices, etc. would have changed much for those who were on the bubble or close to making it.
I understand your sentiment, but I don’t think participation ratios are the best way to answer the question. I think looking at the depth of field at the front is a better way. Here’s what happened at Kona in 2013:
35 females started, 53 males.
The 20th place female finished within 8% of the female winner’s time (which was a course record).
The 20th place male finished within 6% of the male winner’s time.
The 27th place female (last one to finish) was within 11% of the female winner’s time.
The 27th place male was within 9% of the male winner’s time.
The last male to finish (41st) finished within 24% of the winner’s time.
8 women DNF’d (22%), and 12 men (22%).
Based on these numbers, I’d argue that the quality of the men’s field was no deeper than the women’s field. Which to me justifies expanding the women’s field to match the men’s.
I understand your sentiment, but I don’t think participation ratios are the best way to answer the question. I think looking at the depth of field at the front is a better way. Here’s what happened at Kona in 2013:
35 females started, 53 males.
The 20th place female finished within 8% of the female winner’s time (which was a course record).
The 20th place male finished within 6% of the male winner’s time.
The 27th place female (last one to finish) was within 11% of the female winner’s time.
The 27th place male was within 9% of the male winner’s time.
The last male to finish (41st) finished within 24% of the winner’s time.
8 women DNF’d (22%), and 12 men (22%).
Based on these numbers, I’d argue that the quality of the men’s field was no deeper than the women’s field. Which to me justifies expanding the women’s field to match the men’s.
Very good point and I appreciate that … I guess what I was more leaning towards is making the odds equal not the numbers. So if it’s a 1 - 50 shot at making Kona as a male was it the same odds as a female. I agree however that your numbers don’t lie. I just hate to think that 15 more AGers won’t get a slot when their odds are 1 - 1000 to get in and race the holy mecca of races.
I was in Kona last year for the world championship and remember, but I may be wrong. An age group female had a faster time than the number 10 female pro finisher. This may indicate 2 things. 1) Females are not going pro because there is little money in it or 2) The pro female field is really thin. Does the pro race lose value when the Age groupers are beating the pros. Shouldn’t most of the pros finish before the Age groupers.
Yes, 10th place female was an age grouper. Likewise, the 16th and 20th place men were age groupers.
I think it says more about individuals’ choices about whether to race pro, rather than a reflection on depth of field.
Or to open another can of worms - a 10th place finisher in the female field is more likely to need a supplementary income?
I’ve raised it time again here over the years. And I’m not saying ST is any different to any other media/website - but race updates on the front page very rarely have a female as the initial/leading image that makes the tab, and overall male to female images are usually around the 4:1 ratio. I seem to remember Herbert telling me last time I raised it that it was all related to the images they receive from photographers on course / timelines, which I can understand. But it has to have a bearing on the marketability of the female triathlete & their earning potential.
I’ll probably regret this but in a sport with a male to female ration of 4 and sometime 5 to 1 why should there be the same number of women as men in the Kona field? Isn’t that letting less than “world champion quality” racers compete in the race? I guess there is no harm in doing it but I am sure there are costs and resources that could go to age groupers that those 15 women would get.
That all being said if it were the other way around and it was a female dominated sport I’d expect to be treated the same way as a man. The dominate gender would have more competition thus would require a larger field of contenders. Outside the context of triathlon I completely agree that female sports are not often given the same amount of attention as the male sport equivalent. Call it misogynistic but at the end of the day I think its fair to have 35 slots for the competitive field of women and 50 for men in a sport that’s male dominated.
I don;t think you are the only one that thinks along this line. Age grouper’s Kona slots availability are based on number of participants and allocated accordingly. Women get fewer slots because of fewer participants, I don;t see anything wrong with this. Not sure why pros should be treated differently given that age groupers are the core and foundation of this sport. Equality for the sick of equality is not always that straight forward
Let’s pretend for a moment that Kona is a WC race similar to other sporting events that include female participants as opposed to just in name. Like Track and field. Do they limit the numbers of female competitors base on total participation percentages?
I understand your sentiment, but I don’t think participation ratios are the best way to answer the question. I think looking at the depth of field at the front is a better way. Here’s what happened at Kona in 2013:
35 females started, 53 males.
The 20th place female finished within 8% of the female winner’s time (which was a course record).
The 20th place male finished within 6% of the male winner’s time.
The 27th place female (last one to finish) was within 11% of the female winner’s time.
The 27th place male was within 9% of the male winner’s time.
The last male to finish (41st) finished within 24% of the winner’s time.
8 women DNF’d (22%), and 12 men (22%).
Based on these numbers, I’d argue that the quality of the men’s field was no deeper than the women’s field. Which to me justifies expanding the women’s field to match the men’s.
I wouldn’t call the 2% delta you raise inconsequential. And, why did you choose 20th and 27th place? Do those two data points fit your hypothesis best? Seems kind of random.
Also, instead of saying 20th place was 8% and 6%, and 27th place 11% and 9%, why don’t you pick a percentage from winner and say what places were at those percentages? Ie, 8% off the winner was 20th for men and ?? for women? Show me a graph with “% Delta from Winner” on the X axis and “Place” on the y-axis, with separate lines for male and female, and then a proper assessment can be made of whether the fields are equally deep.
When the female winner’s time was a course record, I think a good argument could be made that a 2% delta is inconsequential.
I suspect 20th place was chosen because it was it’s arguably far enough out to show at least some level of field depth. 27th was chosen because there were only 27 women finishers – couldn’t go beyond that.
