Outside of the echo chamber of slowtwitch, it is hard to say whether T100 has had any impact on the triathlon eco system. What has happened with IM Pro Series is larger pro fields and less people hiding for the second and third year of their licenses.
With both T100 and IM Pro Series we have more pros racing more often. So for the triathlon fan (there are very few of us) that’s great. But what moves IM’s needle is race entries. What is an interesting question is if the Pro Series increased race entries or not? T100 is fully pivoting their model to mass participation to support the broadcast product. In hopes of reducing losses. Certainly will give municipalities greater reason to host them and pay those host fees.
Er… the current top 5 Ironman Pro Series ranked women:
PTO ranked #17
PTO ranked #4
PTO ranked #37
PTO ranked #25
PTO ranked #29
Evidently there’s something wrong with one of these rankings if we want the best women in middle and long distance to come out on top.
Unless the Ironman Pro Series ranking has the best long distance racers and the PTO ranking has the best middle distance racers or a mix. But we know the Ironman Pro Series ranking does not have the best long distance racers bar Matthews.
i guess it depends who is we , if we is ironman you would assume thats correct , if we is people that look at the sport more as a whole , like me and the stro bro …
we think overall its good that we have the advance orkilia ironman development pro series, and it works just fine .
the losers are the beginner pros or the continental cup level long course pros in the usa who unlike in europe where there is challenge races and quite a few independent races with prize money , had less races this year to have a chance to make price money.
As long as there is a three Ironman requirement required to score highly in the IM Pro Series, I doubt that the very best male or female pro athletes will show up, especially when Challenge Roth continues to entice highly ranked athletes to race mid season.
Few athletes wish to race two competitive Ironmans prior to the World Championships if they’re really targeting a win/podium in Kona/Nice.
In an interview last week, Matthews stated that racing two extra Ironmans was not likely conducive to a great performance at the WC this year… and that’s why she will not be chasing the Pro Series in 2025.
Well it’s ‘only’ one extra competitive IM (the first one is to earn an IMWCQ).
2024:
Lange: Texas, Roth, Frankfurt and then IMWC
Ditlev: Florida, Roth, and then IMWC
Chevalier: Cozumel, Roth, and then IMWC
Koolhaas: Texas, Frankfurt and then IMWC
And the “few” athletes who didn’t wish to race two competitive Ironmans prior to the World Championships:
Laidlow and Blummenfelt.
Edit to add: Among the “top tier” athletes who wish to race two competitive Ironmans prior to the World Championships" in 2025 (besides the 4 men listed above):
Blummenfelt and Iden, for two, and I expect RvB, Haug, Hering, Sanchez, Bartlett, Visser to too.
I just wanted to quote you here, succinct, to the point, and it made me laugh!!! Some of the word salads that some use here to bolster their arguments can get tiring. And I’m not immune from using them either… (-;
It’s only one extra competitive IM but I think timing is everything… in the list above, Ditlev and Chevalier both raced their third IM distance race AFTER the WC.
Your ‘quote’ (above) was your inference; not reporting what she said.
Matthews was not looking back at her great race in Nice and saying that her two IMs this year (Texas and Vitoria) detracted from her IMWC “this year” against Philipp.
She was looking forward to 2025 and IMWC, next year in Kona. One key difference is that the hot&humid conditions there require a September of proper and time consuming acclimation.
I wonder whether IRONMAN have more dice to throw.
The lead in is always - I hate to be negative…but they always are. And usually doesn’t make much sense. There’s an arrogance to the podcast because TF is an agent so he considers himself an insider, but saying the Pro Series is more exciting because of the winners being more unknown and unpredictable is akin to saying you preferred the Indianapolis, Geneva, Helsinki and Sao Paulo marathons because Boston and London were too easy to pick. Silliness.
Listening to them, with a heavy finger on the → +5sec button, I think they should consider listing the athletes in whom they have a financial interest, so the listener can take that into account.
Anyway, here’s a tri247 article (which feels like they’ve taken text from my comments upthread, but I guess the figures force the same story.
Again, an error has crept in though.
Article says: “. . . it is simplest for Marquandt [sic] – just win the race and be 1 second ahead of Barnaby and he wins the series. As long as he finishes ahead of Barnaby and Høgenhaug and within 8mins 42 seconds of the winner he takes the title.”
Marquardt does have to “just win” - 'cos obviously he won’t.
“it is simplest for Marquardt – just beat Barnaby and he wins the series as long as he finishes within 8mins 42 seconds of the race winner.”
If he is ahead but 8:43 behind the winner, they are tied.
The other ‘battle’ is Hoegenhaug wanting to wrestle third spot (and $85k) off Lange. He needs to finish less than 11:08 adrift of the race winner to go above Lange (#1 is out of reach in practice though not arithmetically; I guess chance of #2 if Marquardt has a massive fail).
Thorsten has just added a simple table to his ‘seedings’, with his ‘on previous form’ predicted points embedded. As well as Wilms to #3, note Berry’s predicted rise to #4. A few DNSs are noted.
“The following table looks at the current Standings of the Ironman Pro Series before Taupo. Then the Expected Time from the Seedings is used to calculate the likely total after Taupo and the resulting likely final position.”
