The trouble is that as of right now, you could still race 3x IMs and 2x 70.3s if you wanted to. No one is really going to do it (Wurf maybe?), but its technically possible for someone who has zero points at present to win this thing.
The “lost seconds” method of presenting the same data, works when you’re down to just the WCs or last few races, but doesn’t work at the start of the year when there’s a lot of possible outcomes.
Also, the opposite issue is a problem - Philip isn’t going for Pro series and so it doesn’t matter if she’s scored perfectly so far. Ditto for LCB. And then there are hybrids - Sanders isn’t trying to maximize his pro-series scores (only 2x IM races on the calendar), but he’s still sitting on perfect, and could come top 5-10 if he does well at the WCs, but could technically still race Cairns/Frankfurt in addition to LP. He won’t, but my point is that race calendars can be fluid.
Best just to say who has what points and leave it at that. We all know that while Wurf has the most points, its really Blu who is the favourite to win this thing. Ditto for Reischmann and Matthews.
My premise is that anyone campaigning the IM Pro Series must race the IMWC. If they can’t Q: delete from spreadsheet.
A further premise is that an athlete must score 5 events (given the events still practicably available). Sure a perfect 4 would score 1900 (a 2500 for a 70.3 missing) but who’s doing that?
If an athlete fails to Q for Marbella that’s an effective 500 point hit.
If an athlete races two IMs and 3 x 70.3s that’s an effective 2500 point hit. The obvious potential example is Sanders, With a win in IMLP (good luck there): his final position will reflect that minus 2500 and minus the minutes behind in Nice/Marbella.
One of the nice by products of this scoring system is we get exposure to athletes who we wouldn’t normally focus. It’s increasing our exposure to a broader depth of field. So much of the conversations are about the very tip of the spear, but for the health of the sport we need to be exposed to a deeper field and we need to think about the next level of talent. It’s awesome for Reischmann to get exposure for her career but also for us as fans. I also don’t think anyone thought Marquardt was going to factor into the Pro Series but there he was needing a good result at 70.3 Worlds for a chance to win the series.
As the season goes on it would ne nice for Ironman to figure out a way to give us a sense of how the points could play out so we not only know who is leading but who has the potential to shift and take command.
I think that makes sense, in principle - since anyone who’s factoring for the pro series will be able to qualify for the WCs as a matter of also doing the series - but for academic purposes, I wonder if someone could put together a pro series run without targeting the WCs.
The time bonus on the WCs is 8/16 mins and the level at the WCs tends to be higher, so it might be worth targeting the softer races. Barnaby was 8 mins behind in Taupo (so worth the same as a normal 70.3) and 13 mins behind in Kona (+3 mins, but could be found elsewhere from his schedule), so its not out of the question to be able to actually do it. He actually overperformed here, since he only won one race elsewhere. Lange at 2nd place didn’t do the 70.3 WC.
I’m thinking: South Africa, Cairns, and then Placid for the IMs, and then 2 standard 70.3s (pick where you think the weak ones are). Just stay out of the path of Blu or Kat/Knibb.
You’re probably always better just targeting the WCs (both for the pro series and your sponsors), but its not impossible.
Edit to add: I’m not really arguing that this is a good strategy to win (Barnaby wouldn’t have won this year), moreso that if you’re a 2nd tier pro, that it might be a strategy to maximize your points if you’re targeting the 3-5th place range and don’t perform well at the WCs
But that’s not how the ranking works - you want interim positions to be determined differently than final ones? So then in the interim the ranking list will begin with athletes who only raced one pro series race and won it (lost 0 seconds!). That’s worse than what we have now. The current interim standings reward racing and are congruent with how the final ones work instead of flipping them on their head. You want the #12 ranked athlete (random number) to suddenly jump to #1 and #40 athlete to jump to #3 after Marbella.
All good in theory.
Qualifying for IMWC will be pretty well assured for anyone heading for top 15 in the Pro Series given they’ll need to score two IMs. But (as seen) not so easy for ‘long’ athletes to get a Marbella Q from an IM Pro Series 70.3. As you say, Lange didn’t/couldn’t (and knew that) so raced two 70.3s to minimise loss from no Taupo.
In theory an athlete could race three IMs and not IMWC but that unreasonably concentrates those three full distances in to (max) 4 months (SA to LP). None of those ‘regular season’ races will be a soft touch - well maybe Cairns - but yes in theory and maybe practice (but unpredictable) an athlete might be 16 mins closer in Cairns (Hering, Marquardt, Currie) than in Nice/Kona with all the high-priced help at the IMWCs. Does require the athlete, in early season planning, to adopt a negative mindset to IMWC (too hilly, too hot/humid) though.
They don’t all have to be soft - just one (ok maybe South Africa on the Women’s side but if you’re targeting the Pro Series you go there anyway and try to minimize any conflicts with Knibb, Matthews, Phillip, etc.).
So the question becomes - am I better served by going to Cairns or getting 16 mins in Kona? (and all the attending recovery/travel that it entails). The answer is almost always Kona, but if you had a big event planned in October, or really don’t do well in the heat, you could make it work.
Here’s my effort along those lines (I have not reordered), inspired by @Ironmandad 's article.
IRONMAN Pro Series Standings – Showing Points ‘Lost’
Rank
Name (Country)
Total Points
Total Races Scored
IM Races Scored
70.3 Races Scored
Points Lost
1
Anne Reischmann (DEU)
10,060
3
2
1
2,440
2
Kat Matthews (GBR)
9,880
2
2
0
120
3
Danielle Lewis (USA)
7,318
4
2
2
7,682
4
Marta Sanchez (ESP)
7,030
2
1
1
470
5
Solveig Løvseth (NOR)
6,945
2
1
1
555
6
Alice Alberts (USA)
6,653
3
1
2
3,347
8
Lisa Perterer (AUT)
6,064
2
1
1
1436
18
Jackie Hering (USA)
4,621
2
0
2
379
Berry might leap up the standings with a good result in Cairns. But she’d then need to fit in IMLP. Guess that’s doable before T100 London. Also Wilms (but without the T100 complications. Those two were #4 and #3 in the Series in 2024.
Worth adding to your list an athlete who’s already come a close second in IM World Championships, twice!
And Riddle is likely to beat ‘maybe’ Long in Nice, imo.
Hering, Wilms and Marquardt back on track for the IM Pro Series with IMLP next (last named to drop his Texas ‘fail’).
Hanson, maybe. Assume he will wish to improve on Texas by racing IMLP.
Hamilton leads Standings but scoring 4.
Difficult to see Berry mashing the Series with her T100 contract.
having said that the same could be said for Long