I did two Ironman 70.3 events in 2015. One was OK (middle pack), the other was a disaster. Somehow I am now a “Bronze level” Ironman All World Athlete, allegedly in the top 10%. How could this be?
It’s a loyalty program and not a ranking system. Despite what they might tell you.
I did two Ironman 70.3 events in 2015. One was OK (middle pack), the other was a disaster. Somehow I am now a “Bronze level” Ironman All World Athlete, allegedly in the top 10%. How could this be?
follow the money
It’s just math - http://www.ironman.com/triathlon/organizations/all-world-athlete/points-system.aspx#axzz3wn3uJYib
And then bronze means you are in the top-10% overall, as you said.
I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of people do only one race, and by virtue of doing two races, you have a big advantage over them, whether you agree with it or not. Remember, the ranking is additive - not average. So it’s race #1+#2+#3 = total. Average is in some ways more accurate, but it other ways not. An average doesn’t penalize people who race less, but it also punishes bad days which isn’t necessarily fair (sort of like ERA in baseball where one really bad outing can decimate your ERA, even though it doesn’t really matter whether you lose by 10 runs or lose by 1 run; a loss is a loss).
This is the problem with any ranking system based off a small sample size. Each result has outsize influence. So, to this extent, logella is right. It’s really more of a loyalty system, since if you do 3 Ironman races in a year, you basically guarantee yourself a high ranking. But so what?
There’s no real way to “scam” it. It is what it is. It’s an additive-score ranking based off your three best races with a premium placed on longer distance finishes. Maybe, at least relatively, your races were better than you thought. There’s what’s bad for you. And then there’s actually “bad.” Along those lines, I do think it’s worth noting that we all get skewed perspectives simply by virtue of doing this sport. I mean, by almost all measures, you are WAY higher than in the top-10% in terms of ability. Even just completing a 70.3 is a pretty big accomplishment. I think we tend to forget that.
they ought to add a “platinum” level and also give some real benefits to that level, like being able to enter a race much less than a year out.
It’s just math - http://www.ironman.com/...m.aspx#axzz3wn3uJYib
And then bronze means you are in the top-10% overall, as you said.
I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of people do only one race, and by virtue of doing two races, you have a big advantage over them, whether you agree with it or not. Remember, the ranking is additive - not average. So it’s race #1+#2+#3 = total. Average is in some ways more accurate, but it other ways not. An average doesn’t penalize people who race less, but it also punishes bad days which isn’t necessarily fair (sort of like ERA in baseball where one really bad outing can decimate your ERA, even though it doesn’t really matter whether you lose by 10 runs or lose by 1 run; a loss is a loss).
This is the problem with any ranking system based off a small sample size. Each result has outsize influence. So, to this extent, logella is right. It’s really more of a loyalty system, since if you do 3 Ironman races in a year, you basically guarantee yourself a high ranking. But so what?
There’s no real way to “scam” it. It is what it is. It’s an additive-score ranking based off your three best races with a premium placed on longer distance finishes. Maybe, at least relatively, your races were better than you thought. There’s what’s bad for you. And then there’s actually “bad.” Along those lines, I do think it’s worth noting that we all get skewed perspectives simply by virtue of doing this sport. I mean, by almost all measures, you are WAY higher than in the top-10% in terms of ability. Even just completing a 70.3 is a pretty big accomplishment. I think we tend to forget that.
They could make gold top 1 percent, silver top 2 percent, bronze top 3 percent and it would make it less of a loyalty plan in some ways. Certainly just finishing 3 events puts racers in contention for bronze because most don’t do 3 WTC events. But it is in WTC’s interest to have a wider net for the program. It’s not like Star Alliance Gold where they want the bar to be high so you fly more and more and more to get to gold. WTC is not there yet… It’s just not possible to do a ton of IM and half IM racing for the average person. They likely don’t want this to be too exclusive. They want you coming back next year to do 3 more races. They don’t care how fast you are…everyone doing 3 races should get status.
One needs three events for USAT ranking too. Just saying 
One needs three events for USAT ranking too. Just saying
In the Tri. Is 2 in the Du and Aquathon
One needs three events for USAT ranking too. Just saying
In the Tri. Is 2 in the Du and Aquathon
I should have done that second Du this past year.
One needs three events for USAT ranking too. Just saying
USAT also averages your results.
It’s a loyalty program and not a ranking system. Despite what they might tell you.
The points are skewed towards participation.
You have to consider how many athletes only do a single IM or single 70.3… and many of then are very, very slow. You lose I think it was 8 points per minute I think… but start out at what 5000? so 2 hours and you’ve only lose 960 points in an IM.
5150 and sprint are also added in.
I out performed the “Top American” in my age group by a sizeable margin in terms of actual time. He was also 1 hour slower than the actual fastest American in the AG in Kona. I was 26th by the AWA rankings, depsite being 2nd American in Kona. Pretty funny really.
It is a rankings scale for people who raced 3x. Sam Gyde raced 3x this year and was 1st, 1st and in Kona he had an uncharacteristically bad day in Kona and ran around 30 min slower than he’d normally run. He won the 40-44 AWA not that he cares, but if he stops at 2 overall amateur race wins (South Africa and Tremblant) he’ll only be in 54th place.
Actually this is the case of the M40-44 54th place finisher Ben Bell from Australia who won the age group at IM Australia and Kona. In my age group (M50-54) Richard Sweet won IM Texas and second in Kona and ends up 44th! Jurgen Zack who was 3rd in our age group in Kona only had around 4700 pts because he only raced once (he won at IM Malaysia last year but was 49 anyway).
Basically it is like being the New England Patriots and only playing 10 or 11 games out of the season and ending up with lower points for the season. You did not play a full AWA “season”. That’s the way it is structured.
If you want more points (which is probably meaningless) you can race more and give more $$$ to Messick.
I did two Ironman 70.3 events in 2015. One was OK (middle pack), the other was a disaster. Somehow I am now a “Bronze level” Ironman All World Athlete, allegedly in the top 10%. How could this be?
You’re in the top 10% of customers.
It is a rankings scale for people who raced 3x. Sam Gyde raced 3x this year and was 1st, 1st and in Kona he had an uncharacteristically bad day in Kona and ran around 30 min slower than he’d normally run. He won the 40-44 AWA not that he cares, but if he stops at 2 overall amateur race wins (South Africa and Tremblant) he’ll only be in 54th place.
Actually this is the case of the M40-44 54th place finisher Ben Bell from Australia who won the age group at IM Australia and Kona. In my age group (M50-54) Richard Sweet won IM Texas and second in Kona and ends up 44th! Jurgen Zack who was 3rd in our age group in Kona only had around 4700 pts because he only raced once (he won at IM Malaysia last year but was 49 anyway).
Basically it is like being the New England Patriots and only playing 10 or 11 games out of the season and ending up with lower points for the season. You did not play a full AWA “season”. That’s the way it is structured.
If you want more points (which is probably meaningless) you can race more and give more $$$ to Messick.
(tongue partially in cheek) you mean give it to the Chinese - given the economic news of late…
They can use it 
But then again, so can I 
I did two Ironman 70.3 events in 2015. One was OK (middle pack), the other was a disaster. Somehow I am now a “Bronze level” Ironman All World Athlete, allegedly in the top 10%. How could this be?
yep im a silver AWA and do 2 70.3’s a year and im not at the pointy end either. Like other said, its additive.
It’s not a scam it’s just a loyalty program. The "top x percent’ is bogus though. In very general terms top 1% podium at big races, top 2% gets you to Kona, top 10% would be top 20 at big races, maybe top 10 at lower profile 70.3s. To give another data point I am also bronze with an 8th overall (no pro field) at a full this year as my only race, so there are a few ways to earn AWA status, but racing 3 times sure makes it easier!
Dev, this is why I’m doing an AWA Platinum level. top 0.1%.
You can see here that it’s really fast people who have also raced three times, so the best of both. Platinum guys will of course be required to lord that status over the lowly Gold members when they’re cutting the AWA line at registration.
I’m in the same boat in terms of I’ve done 3 IM-branded races each of the past 3 years and been around MOP, and get “bronze” status as well. The only tangible benefit I’ve gotten is a shorter line at registration. I’ll take it though.
I didn’t even know I was a silver member and waited in line with the rest of the peasants… I felt like a dirty commoner
I get “bronze” status as well. The only tangible benefit I’ve gotten is a shorter line at registration. I’ll take it though.
I actually like the sweet spot in transition. For Eagleman last year, my race number was in the 200’s because of AWA, and a transition spot right next to bike out. Some people wouldn’t view that as a benefit, but I think it’s nice to get a good transition spot in a field of 2,500 people.