If Matthews hadn’t raced Zell am See as an ‘insurance’ race, jogging it in (10 miles! even if physically possible) would’ve made no difference. Loevseth would’ve jumped her anyway, and even with no fifth score Matthews’ points would have ended second and stayed above Perterer.
It’ll be interesting to see what choices are made next year. Anyone wanting to race both Nice and Kona have to 70.3Q and KQ: that’s a ‘fixed’ requirement for four races. Make the two qualifiers IM Pro Series and just need one more race. Choose a 70.3 instead of an IM ‘costs’ the athlete 2500 points but may open the calendar for a T100 or two, or Roth.
There will be a very strong field in Taupo in March and very few will be already KQ. Findlay would be no means assured of achieving a KQ (4WPRO): and if lower than #4 would be a fail as that’d mean another IM if she still wanted to experience Kona. We saw Lawrence KQ with her #5 at IMLP but that was late season - then went on to a superb result in Kona. Having said that, who wouldn’t prefer Taupo’s chipseal at the end of the southern summer as opposed to twice up Texas’ Hardy toll road and back in the heat of late April.
All three have roles to play and are playing them brilliantly. The banter seems to never die off. In the long run, the guys do need someone like Vicky in the “studio” to contain their egos (in addition to everything else she’s been contributing).
Yeah, I agree looking at the results. I think I counted 15 men and 8 women that did the 3 IM + 2 70.3. Most athletes just don’t seem to care to fully do the series. It does seem to be resulting in some more competitive fields though, which is good.
Athletes have to choose a race schedule to meet a variety of criteria. The first is: do I want to race full distance. If not, stick to T100s plus a couple of 70.3s and Marbella (Nice next year). Then: ‘how many races in total. Then need to qualify for IMWC and 70.3WC. Then: is it worth chasing the IM Pro Series - which constrains which races you can choose.
Some may be ‘all in’ for just the IMWC and having qualified, decide that a second IM is one too many before Nice/Kona. Others, for example Philipp, may prioritise Roth($) rather than choose a second IMPS IM. Yet others chose a T100 contract ($$) and this has been almost incompatible with a full IM Pro Series (really only Matthews has done this in the two years it’s been running; Berry could’ve done it this year, but see Reszel thread for her judgement).
The designation of 17 races as IM Pro Series has, as said, ensured competitive fields at every race and the live coverage is a significant bonus from an athlete’s image PoV. Top athletes have been incentivised but not ‘forced’ to race one another rather than fannying around giving the impression of avoiding competition (Lanza, Vitoria, Kalmar, other), leaving only the 70.3WC and IMWC as ‘show down’ races.
The abolition of T100 contracts next year will create a new dynamic and a challenge for the top 20 men and women. The very large prize purses for each T100 will attract great competition and will be a race calendar design challenge to athletes who want to race Kona. The first two years have forced athletes with potential for a top 8 in IMPS to race (and finish) 3 + 2. Next year I can see athletes choosing to race a couple of T100s (not including the GF), racing 2 + 3 and gaining more prize money that way than racing three IMs. It also releases all the athletes who’ve chosen to concentrate their efforts on T100 to consider racing full distance (eg Geens, Findlay, Noodt, Derron).
Looking at the men’s list, and Schomburg’ mechanical in Frankfurt likely cost him the podium in the pro series, and with it $55k - since he was only down ~1400 points on Hogenhaug. I suppose though that you could add back in the 20k EUR he got in prize money from Roth. (Unlikely any appearance money since it was last minute)
You have to show up to win, but this is the 2nd time Hogenhaug has benefited from just being plain old lucky. Last year it was Marquardt’s cramps, this year it was Jonas’s aerobars and his partner giving birth early which allowed him to race Nice.
I’d add to that that Iden, Thompson and RvB all had poor Marbellas which meant Hoegenhaug stayed just ahead.
Noticeable that the top 7 men all raced Marbella whereas only 6 of the top 10 women did. Unless an athlete is top drawer they are likely to score better points in a regular season 70.3 compared to at the 70.3WC (for the same physical performance), because at the latter, the pointy end is sharper and super motivated.
Should IM consider adjusting the scoring for the WCs to incentivize athletes more to attend and compete in them? Specifically the 70.3 WC when it is the last race of the season. 3000 points wasn’t enough of a variable to have any impact on the women’s podium but if it had say been worth the same as an IM at 5k points we could have seen a total upheaval of the women’s standings. It also would have been enough of a risk that I doubt anyone healthy would have skipped the race solving the issue of lack of attendance at the Pro Series award ceremony.
They already have that extra 20% bonus built in (2500 > 3000 and 5000 > 6000). It’s an interesting idea but most athletes are either already motivated to race the WCs or they are not so good at middle distance. By the time IMWC was done, athletes who are not pointy end middle distance could see what the possible gains losses might be either racing or not, IF they’d had put the effort in to get in a second ‘normal’ 70.3 (ie Perterer racing Zell am See, and all 4 Norges getting in a second one as insurance - none needed in the event). Matthews was there to win. Loevseth was there as there was a faint chance of winning the Series and to bask in the deserved glory of her status as Ironman World Champion.
As I shared upthread, Perterer was locked into #3 without the option and Hering same, more or less for #4. Since the last race of the IM Pro Series will be Kona for the next 3 years (and nearly every athlete in the top 10 will be racing there as their 3rd full and the max 6000 points), attendance is not an issue till Oman in 2029.
They certainly have time to solve it but Perterer being locked in at 3 is a great example. There was no way for 3k to move the needle and encourage her to show up to defend her spot. Had it been 5k she would have had a reasonable chance to lose that. It also changes the race dynamic for Kat, does she go gentler to start the run knowing she risks losing a $200k payout if her calf explodes. Maybe she suspects if she goes full send it won’t survive but if she nurses it on the run she can finish and retain her payout. Adds some race within a race dynamics giving more for commentators to talk about spicing up the broadcast.
It will be nice having Kona as the cap stone bc I agree many people won’t skip it, but having a big showing at Oman will be important to secure future funding from them. So I hope they consider doing something different that year to get everyone in contention for the series there for both the race and the awards.
I know that with Kona being last for the next few years, Kona will decide the final order, but I wonder if the T100 being more “open” will have an impact on the pro series - not just people coming over, but also athletes like the Norges, Kat, etc who wouldn’t mind picking up the odd T100 race if it aligns with the calendar.
Instead of picking up an extra 70.3 as insurance, maybe more people opt to trade that extra race for a T100 slot or two? Which then means that there isn’t the same ‘locked’ in’ feeling late in the season…
I’d think for those at the top (Kat, Blu), if they’re in 100% for the pro series, they’re in and so wouldn’t jeopardize it by not doing the bonus 70.3, but Perterer, Schomburg, etc might well try.
