8th without a roll down (got the last non-roll down slot). Correct, 65 slots for the men and 40 slots for the women. 101st overall with the new system.
IMâs data that they showed when they moved to a 1 day WC in Kona was that athletes are more likely to drop out of the competitor pool after they qualify for their first WC.
Now, if what youâre saying is true (that your middle aged male competes more often than other cohorts), wouldnât this mean that this would keep more of us in the competitor pool?
In some respects, making something more difficult increases its value - making something harder to KQ means that you spend longer trying to get it.
All theyâve done (assuming the coefficients are fine) is take away the lottery aspect to it. Are you otherwise arguing that people keep showing up and placing 20th in M45 on the 1% chance they get a favourable roll down? (And that this is the sole reason they sign up)
Besides, for every 10th place M45 that snags a roll-down is a disappointed F45 that placed 3rd.
2 Likes
Some other details from my little spreadsheet:
From the âpool of qualifiersâ 16 total:
1 F60-64
1 F55-59
1 F40-44
1 F35-39
1 F25-29
1 M65-69
1 M60-64
1 M55-59
3 M50-54
3 M40-44
1 M35-39
1 M18-24
Itâs a factor for multiple signups. So they donât likely lose customers but they do lose multiple sign-ups from customers who have any hope removed. There are absolutely a set of athletes who arenât at the tip of the spear who chase qualifying slots at both distances. They are also the same athletes who get AWA silver and bronze their most profitable cohort.
Hard facts. My assumption is that there is a bigger pool that makes up the former than the latter.
As I said, slots will go one way or another. There seems to be hundreds of such small changes and organization makes over time that eventually damage it. Anyone arguing, âthis is going to lead to failureâ would be seen as crazy because such a change couldnât possibly the the straw that breaks the camels back.
Iâm curious how this goes over the next few years.
excuse the ignorance of an 52 yo who can only use the âsumâ equation. what column do I put this super impressive formula into
DMed you!
thanks
1 Like
this is link for 2025 Rockford Illinois 70.3
just substitute âb4395fca-89f0-48c9-80ee-82bb750145edâ for the one you are looking for
Do you think the move to 1 day Kona made this decision easier or harder? By default 1 day Kona was going to pinch out the men who are majority of your customer base. So are they âdouble downingâ on their screw job of their biggest customer? Or has the limited Kona space made it ok since by default the men are already pinched since they will almost assuredly have x% of women gaining spots.
To be fair, you canât really compare your recent race with the new system. Your recent race was based on a 1 day male event only. So thereâs A LOT more slots for the 1 day male event (65 for men) vs the new system (40 total for male AND female).
A more fair comparison would have been kq races for 2019 and prior.
If Iâm not mistaken, you would have been just outside or maybe one of the last qualifiers under the new system. Is that right?
105 slots were distributed. About 80 would be left assuming every AG winner took their slot.
I assume at least some of those AG winners scored higher than you under the new system, so maybe there were ~90 people ahead of you that did not have a slot. So at 101st youâd be right on the edge of the new system. I think I have that right. Still trying to wrap my head around the changes.
So, for you at least, the two systems were roughly equivalent.
1 Like
Correct, and I did mention that I was 8th with 65 slots given for the men. I wouldnât have qualified (without a roll down) if we only had 40 total slots. Though I think 40 is a bit lower than normal too. I think previous years were around 50?
So to me the winners are:
- fast females in competitive agâs
- Fast older folks (50+)
And the losers are:
- middle aged men or MAMILâs (30-49)
Compared to the old system that isâŚ
1 Like
The general standard has been 40 typically. Though regional champ races have had upwards of 75.
Not really. Since the past couple years the WC has been split into 2 days it gives the men and women 50-ish? slots each. Since we are moving to a single day, we should be heading back to the âoldâ # of slots per race (~50 total for everyone).
Edit: This is for full distance races not 70.3s
From a quick glance, I think so.
Here is the top 10 from IM Cali last year:
M50-54
F40-44
F75-79
F60-64
M25-29
F55-59
M60-64
M55-59
M40-44
All of these athletes finished 1st in the AG. #11 was the first person to qualify being 2nd place in their AG (M50-54)
Apologies if this has been answered/addressed already. How are time qualifications impacted/figured when a race is shortened, such as swim cancelled or half bike instead of full bike? Such as Chatty swim last year and Iâm sure others.
From the FAQ on IMs page:
BlockquoteWhat happens if a qualifying race is affected by a canceled swim or event that results in a shortened distance?
In the event everyone in the race is similarly impacted by modifications to the event, the same qualifying system will be used. In this situation, all athletes face the same race conditions. Thus, athletesâ finish times can still be compared to their age-group standard; the age-graded finish times can be ranked using the same method; and qualifying slots can be allocated using the same roll-down process.
The course or conditions does not matter. You are still racing against the people that are enduring the same course and conditions as you. You are not racing against other people from other races.