What a weekend for racing, looks like just about anyone who was anyone did some race somewhere this weekend. It had to be a good one for the pros for sure. Looking at the front page results, I saw these:
Chrissie Wellington (GBR) 4:07:49
Pip Taylor (AUS) 4:24:29
Linsey Corbin (USA) 4:25:58
So for some pros it was not so good, and even for the 2nd and 3rd here, they barley made the Chrissie cut to take home a check… I still do not like that 8% rule, and I’m sure that the girls in this race were not too stoked either. Just by the skin of their teeth did Pip and Lindsey even get paid for their efforts, and the rest, forget about it. If the run course was not short they both probably could have been on the other side of the bubble too. Just does not seem right…
That is my point, and I recognize some of the women that did not get their money. For the life of me I do not see how this is going to make Ironman fields any stronger. Look at all the races this weekend, so many choices. And I bet that those 2 ladies that just squeeked in will be looking elsewhere from Chrissie’s next race…How are we going to know when Chrissie has a great race when there is no one there to race her anymore? I guess if she cracks the top 10 men I guess, but somehow that does not seem right that she has to race the men at any of the Ironman events.
So for some pros it was not so good, and even for the 2nd and 3rd here, they barley made the Chrissie cut to take home a check… I still do not like that 8% rule,
I don’t really like the rule, but don’t think its working too badly. Heck the 2nd and 3rd places got more money, so it worked fine for them. After 3rd it was a mix of AG and pros. It didn’t look like the pro field was too deep after third.
I’d love to see an interview with some pro womon who didn’t get paid and see what they think. Are they really “pros” in the sense that this is how they make their living or are they amateurs who are taking advantage of the easier entry rules and lower cost of entry given to pros?
It was a good weekend in some respects - the sport continues to grow and expand. In other ways it’s illustrative of what I think is a bit of a problem in the sport right now - too many races and the pro fields, particularly the women, stretch too thin in too many different races.
Wouldn’t it be better with fewer races, bigger purses, deeper race fields and overall more competitive races?
It was a good weekend in some respects - the sport continues to grow and expand. In other ways it’s illustrative of what I think is a bit of a problem in the sport right now - too many races and the pro fields, particularly the women, stretch too thin in too many different races.
Wouldn’t it be better with fewer races, bigger purses, deeper race fields and overall more competitive races?
Just a thought.
With fewer races, it would be even more difficult for age groupers to enter and compete than it is now. Alternatively, if some races weren’t open to pros, they would loose allure and the democracy of this sport that allows anyone to pit themselves against the top pros on the same playing field.
Who would decide which races would be open to pros? Who would inform the race directors that their race would no longer be open for pro competition? Would you want that job?
Who would decide which races would be open to pros? Who would inform the race directors that their race would no longer be open for pro competition? Would you want that job?
No one needs to have that job. It’s simple - put enough money on the table, and the pros should come running to your event.
Who would decide which races would be open to pros? Who would inform the race directors that their race would no longer be open for pro competition? Would you want that job?
No one needs to have that job. It’s simple - put enough money on the table, and the pros should come running to your event.
I didn’t address bigger purses, only your suggestion for fewer races. Of course bigger purses would attract more pros. Where to get more money is the question.
I didn’t address bigger purses, only your suggestion for fewer races. Of course bigger purses would attract more pros. Where to get more money is the question
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don’t mean fewer races over all, just fewer races with a Pro focus and a purse. This is something the WTC could do right now with both the Ironman and 70.3 races. Almost all the events sell-out with AG spots and costs are all covered. So what they do is pick 5 - 6 events within those series of races and pool all the Pro money into those races.
I didn’t address bigger purses, only your suggestion for fewer races. Of course bigger purses would attract more pros. Where to get more money is the question
Perhaps I should have been clearer. I don’t mean fewer races over all, just fewer races with a Pro focus and a purse. This is something the WTC could do right now with both the Ironman and 70.3 races. Almost all the events sell-out with AG spots and costs are all covered. So what they do is pick 5 - 6 events within those series of races and pool all the Pro money into those races.
OK, you tell the RDs of, and all the competitors in, those races that get squeezed out, that there will be no prize purses for pros in their race.
Why would that be a big deal? They’ve done it in the past and it didn’t seem to make a big difference to the AGers. If they made every other race either a mens or a womans race, each event would have a meaningful pro race.
Why would that be a big deal? They’ve done it in the past and it didn’t seem to make a big difference to the AGers. If they made every other race either a mens or a womans race, each event would have a meaningful pro race.
