(According to results at www.sportstats.ca)
(top 10 countries listed)
USA 795
GER 204
JPN 113
AUS 102
CAN 96
SWI 59
GBR 52
FRA 47
AUT 36
BEL 36
Questions for discussion:
What would you expect this distribution to look like if the event was moved each year or if qualifiers were more evenly distributed?
Is it the expense of getting to Kona or is Ironman 4x more popular in the U.S. than any other country, including 8x as many competitors as Canada.
(note: contrast this with participation in 2004 ITU Worlds in Madeira - USA and Canada more similar in numbers):
GBR 316
USA 257
CAN 191
AUS 186
Also interesting is that Germany had over 200 in Kona but only 12 listed in Portugal - discuss.
Bottom line is that there are more qualifier races and slots in the US than anywhere else, including Europe. Arguably, there should be more qualifier slots overall in Europe, given the higher overall population and arguably the higher overall calibre of athlete (any of you who have gone over to race there and gotten soundly thumped know what I am talking about…).
I have said it here many times and I have heard key movers and shakers in the sport say the same thing, that it would be very intersting to see, what would happen if the WTC would move it’s Championship race around. It now has venues with one assumes great race managment in place around the world. I know that there are those who think this blasphemy, due to the historical importance and legacy of the IMH event, but I personally think that it would be great for the sport. I also strongly suspect, as have a few other top observers of the sport noted, that the results in both the pro and the age-group ranks may be very different. It is what it is, but the conditions in Hawaii are VERY selective. You must be able to do well in, what is bordering on brutal conditions. I agree that this is part of the legacy of the race, but I know that there are top long course athletes who just don’t do well in those sort of conditions - several notables have told me so personally. Ever notice how there are streaks of great performances at IMH in the age-group and pro ranks. I believe the conditions contribute to that. It would be interesting to take the same field you have in Hawaii every year, with the same money on the line and the same title, “Ironman Champion”, and have them race in moderate conditions( I know you can’t control this always, but you know what I mean) and see what happens. What would the results be?
How does the participation distribution compare to the population distrubution between countries? Certainly the US is the most populous by an order of magnitude compared to most of the other countries you listed. In that respect, maybe the numbers aren’t so surprising. Is triathlon more popular by an order of magnitude in the US? I don’t know.
I think Kona, and what it represents is much more closely linked to US culture than anywhere else. As a result, the general idea is that it is the ultimate goal of all triathletes, as is engrained by the media.
I imagine the cost of travel to Kona would be most affordable from the US.
The greatest number of irondistance triathletes (in my opinion) are from the states. This is based on an unscientific observation of the number of irondistance races.
World championship (sorry, Ford world championship;)), any different than the world series? Funny how there aren’t any teams ourside of N. America. I think people generally see these events as pseudo-world championships… but would actually defer to the olympics as true world championships.
I keep hearing stats from triathlete mag that the average subscriber makes $150,000. I’m sure similar figures exist for m-dot participants. I doubt that this is the case for shorter distance races, which (I think) are more popular in other countries. Anyway, Kona is an expensive journey (so I’m told), so I’m guessing that the disposable income of the average american triathlete is higher than other countries. And like the ITU worlds, in the age-group catagory, it is the fastest of the rich. The ITU worlds, however, move around the world, so it has a larger global draw.
Anyway, just a couple thoughts on a Friday morning.
If the race is to truly be a Championship at all, then the course needs to be the hardest available. Many agree that means either Hawaii or Lanzarote.
The only people competing for the real championship are the pros, and their travel expenses are subsidized by sponsors, so where the race is located really doesn’t matter.
You may disagree with me (vehemently if needed), and state that the race is about AGers and this is their championship too… blah blah blah… but it’s not. Kona is The Show. This is one race where I think the rest of the sport has to cater to the pros and the AGers take a backseat. The Super Bowl isn’t going to change dates or be moved because the Pawtucket Flag Football League Champ can’t afford a flight to Detroit.
“”“The only people competing for the real championship are the pros, and their travel expenses are subsidized by sponsors, so where the race is located really doesn’t matter.”“”"
You don’t get out and talk to a lot of pro’s about how much subsidizing really gets done do you? Some of the pros may have the full ride but the majority that I know, which includes some IM winners and others who are top 3 OV, don’t get full rides but do get some help.
If your not top 8 or so IMH is a money losing race for you as a pro.
include Malaysia as one of the hardest because of the heat and humidity…now its not even a qualifier but not sure if its still a sanctioned race. yet the entry fee is still at 350$ i think
“If the race is to truly be a Championship at all, then the course needs to be the hardest available. Many agree that means either Hawaii or Lanzarote.”
Why? since when in other sports is the hardest course of the year restricted to the World Championship? In fact I can’t think of another sport where the world championship is consistently the hardest race course of the year. Not in Road Cycling, not in Mountain biking, not in ITU, not at FINA (ok so that would be a bit more difficult), not at IAAF (ok that’s kind of the same except the marathon)…
(According to results at www.sportstats.ca)
(top 10 countries listed)
USA 795
GER 204
JPN 113
AUS 102
CAN 96
SWI 59
GBR 52
FRA 47
AUT 36
BEL 36
By Percentage of Population
USA 795 = .000268
GER 204 = .000248
JPN 113 = .000089
AUS 102 = .000507
CAN 96 = .000292
SWI 59 = .000787
GBR 52 = .000086
FRA 47 = .000077
AUT 36 = .000440
BEL 36 = .000347
So by percentage of population the most people racing per capita:
Swi 2. Aus. 3. Bel. 4. Can 5. USA 6. Ger.
Sounds pretty balanced to me. If anything it sounds a bit discrimitory towards Asians. No China, No Korea, No India – all have huge populations. But also are 3rd world countries with little access for the average citizen to triathlons.
If anything I would say to make it more globally “fair” – Drop the lottery system. Make it a true World Championships.
Furthermore, let’s say they move the Kona race to Germany - who wins (most AG podiums) - Germany or USA? How about in a neutral country, even expense from both USA and Germany?
I agree. In running the premier road events( 10K, 1/2 marathons, marathons) around the world fall over themselves to make their courses as fast a possible. Triathlon on the other hand and Ironman in particular seem to go the other way, as if going 2.5/112/26 is not hard enough, the course and the conditions in some locations are boarding on brutal. Nothing wrong with this, as it is part of the historical legacy of the events and in a bizarre way part of the attraction, but it just seems odd that the trend is the complete reverse to running.
Not to mention Switzerland having the highest per capita (from Sparticus post). Who’s over in Europe - what has made Ironman a big deal in Germany, Switzerland and Belgium? Is it due to a strong tradition in cycling?
I’m not so sure the trend of triathlon vs running is as you say. I think as many so truly point out, that the historical lore has a strong draw. If you look at running, the biggies are Boston, which everyone tries to qualify for, with New York, Chicago, et al being lower on the chain, even though they are fast courses. To compare the sports, Boston is what Hawaii is to us. No world records at Boston either.
“If your not top 8 or so IMH is a money losing race for you as a pro.”
That’s true and it’s a very intersting point and trend that has developed just in the past few years. Indeed, the IMH starting field is the best Long Course triathlon field of the year. The thing is, it could/should be so much deeper. There are a number of pros who have decided to NOT race at IMH this year and the last few years for two main reasons:
It’s financially not worth their while to go or simply way too expensive. The money at IMH is VERY top heavy.
It’s not their type of race conditions( too hot and too humid)
What this has created is almost a second tier of IM and long distance athletes who go to a number of the other IM and long distance traithlons, but NOT IMH. For example both Gordo Byrn and Tom Evans, two sub 8:30 IM athletes decided not to race at IMH last year. I am sure they had their own personal reasons, which I would understand completely but the fact remains that they did not start and the race field at IMH in 04 was the weaker for it.
My only point here is that, the starting field in Hawaii could be quite a bit deeper and more competitive than it already is.
I’m with you in that thought. The World Championships should change location. Hawaii will always be Hawaii as far as IM is concerned. It will always be pretigious regardless. However, I think the World Championship should never conflict with Hawaii because it would be nice to see many of the contenders still battle it out on the lava fields. Perhaps the date of the IM World Championships could be in Hawaii every second year and the years in between the race could be held at the key IM races like Canada, Australia, NZ etc. In that case, I believe those races would need to change their dates to allow the top pro’s the ability to taper for 2 races. I just realized how complicated I am making this…screw it - keep the Championships in Hawaii.
I agree with you to a certain degree, but Boston has suffered from the fact that it is a slower course for a number of years with the real big guns going to Chicago, London, Roterdam, Berlin and other races that really build up the fact that they are potentailly a course where the top runners can get the World Best time. I understand that Paul Tergat is running NYC this year, but I suspect that he was lured away from another flatter fall marathon with a big appearence fee for running NYC. NYC has also suffered from this as well recently because it does run a couple of minutes “slower” than the course named above.
Boston is no longer “the” marathon. Chicago, London, Berlin, Rotterdam - flat fast marathon courses - have largely usurped much of Bostons prestige. Even NYC has lost some of its luster recently. However, Bostons decline in stature among the running community in recent years has been dramatic. Its still the biggest marathon for semi-serious and older age group runners, but the standard is just too slow to mean anything to the truly competative (read elites and sub-elites), and as an organization BAA just hasn’t devoted the effort or money to bringing in a truly elite field in recent years. As a consequence Boston just doesn’t cast the shadow it once did. I’m interested in who wins London because the best are there (Gebresailasse, Tergat), not Boston which is probaly going to be won by a B team Kenyan.