What I got out of this is that Thorsten doesn’t think pros should race, very odd comment from him.
Sorry, I thought about this all night (it’s 6:17 a.m. here) and does PINO by any chance mean Pussy in Name Only? would that be a bad thing or a good thing?
The reported comment (the sentiment of which is not “odd” imho) was:
"Radde also wasn’t a fan of having three full-distance races count because ‘it forces people to do a lot of racing if they want to do well’.”
I’m sure Thorsten does think Pros should race. His whole ‘trirating’ endeavour is founded on his enthusiasm for the sharp end of the sport.
I guess the point he’s making is that to score well in the IM Pro Series (ie top 10), athletes had to race three ‘Series’ IMs: the way the prize structure (NB $1.7M) was/is set up.
And he thinks that’s one too many long distance (iconic Roth an additional complication/attraction).
In ‘normal’ (non-pandemic) and even in Kona points times, every athlete had to race two: one to get KQ (or validate an AQ) and th IMWC. The IM Pro Series requires one more, and two 70.3s. That really isn’t “a lot of racing” but is one more IM than most athletes would like.
Virtually every top athlete races 5 or > times a year unless injured.
The ‘three IMs plus two 70.3s’ structure offers a lucrative season long opportunity for long distance athletes, especially those for whom 113km/100km races are too short. It also makes sure the top IMs around the world (except Cairns) get strong, competitive fields: great for the athletes (and the races are worth broadcasting to the benefit of viewers and advertisers alike).
IM Texas is going to be fiery.
1 Like
No, in the article he is critical of Ironman but not of who he’s being paid by. He criticizes Ironman, but not PTO. PTO is just as guilty of making athletes race more often. It’s not like pre-PTO 70.3 specific athletes did 8 70.3s or anything.
When it was KPR time, athletes didn’t race many IMs, they raced one IM to validate the distance and then enough 70.3s to get points which was never really more than three. This never led to great fields. I think slots for winners of IMs was the better choice. People thought it would lead to spreading out the pros, well they were spread out to begin with. At the end of the day there are what 500 pros registered with IM and 50 slots? Each?
“Obviously the PTO system is a lot more complicated than what IRONMAN has done,” Radde said. “To me it was too-simple a system, and I think it still is. But it’s been working well from a marketing viewpoint. That model of every second counts, and the simple way of being able to count down the points worked well.”
I suggest Thorsten is (merely) saying that the every second counts IM Pro Series scoring system is simplistic (compared with the sophisticated PTO Rankings system), yet he recognises its presentational strength. I guess the T100 scoring system is simple and that might be a better protocol to compare with.
PTO’s T100 2024 contract required athletes to race 5 x 100km races.
PTO’s T100 2025 contract required athletes to race 6 x 100km races (aiui). Do either of these schedules warrant a “guilty” verdict? [No]
Looking at “pre-PTO 70.3 specific athletes” I’ll offer you top-ranked EPB and Findlay race schedules as examples:
https://stats.protriathletes.org/athlete/emma-pallant-browne
https://stats.protriathletes.org/athlete/paula-findlay
“or anything”
Saying one is simplistic and the other complicated is a bit “funny”. PTO’s ranking system is geared towards it’s own races but they recognize that they would be dead in the water if they didn’t put the other races in there so that they can flush and refresh their contracted pool and also pros would probably stop racing with them.
Ironman’s calculation is meant to reward performance in a specific race, so there’s real calculations to be made versus just random placings at randomly adjudicated level of races.
You provide two exceptions to the general rule, what’s the average number of races in a year for 70.3 specific athletes across the whole registered pool. It can’t be more than three.
I’d be interested to hear whether (and where) you think the database required to answer that Q is. What is a “whole registered pool”? Do you mean all athletes who’ve been allowed their pro licences so they can start in the first wave?
I’m looking at T100 capable athletes (your ‘PTO is guilty of making them race too many’ strawman)
“Two exceptions?” (EPB and Findlay) Have a look at Gentle and Salthouse to help you realise your “general rule” isn’t.
Then look at some of the men (where I’m less interested).
To chime in here. I’d agree that high-level athletes (men and women and I’m interested in both 
) definitely had lots of race days prior to T100/Pro series. Even Frodo and Lange who are known for not racing a lot often had 4-5 races a year.
What I would argue is the amount of hard race days have increased. With both series the level of competition at each race is high. Your examples of EPB, Findlay, Ash and Ellie may have many race days but how many of those do you think they actually peaked for and didn’t sandbag a little bit? I dug in a bit below if you want a few numbers. But basically, the top athletes were only really showing up for 3 big days a year. What both series are asking (not really demanding but you will likely not be successful otherwise) is 5-6 big performances a year which is a big jump. Whether this is good or bad or neither is another question, but the racing load is higher now than ever even if the number of events is similar for those chasing T100 or the Pro Series
In 22’ EPB had 12 races, 3 DNF. 3 races she won by 7-9min, 3 races she won by 90-120s, and 3 “champ” caliber fields. Paula raced 7 times in 23’, 2 of which she won by 4-5min, and 3 championship fields. In 23’ Ellie raced 11 times, 1DNF, 2 won by 10-14min, 3 local Australian races, and 3 champ level fields. in 23’ Ash had 3 races she won by 4-6 min, 2 other competitive events and 3 champ(PTO) events.
I don’t know who was 1st quoted as using this but I’ll say it.
Isn’t that what the money is for?
Which is funny, because I believe the original narrative behind the points system (prior to the recent update and skewing of the tier score to t100) was to give athletes a chance to score well if they have standout performances in smaller fields!
The PTO Ranking protocol tries to consider this (as far as positions/Position score are concerned) and see the shading in the table below (see footnote) and that’s worth 40% of an athlete’s overall score. All athletes get the same SOF score (30%, reflecting the competitiveness of the race) and all athletes’ time scores (30%) has the same base plus or minus what % they are ahead or behind (essentially) #3 athlete’s time.
2 Likes
You’re right!
The original post stated they didn’t like the Pro series format as it made those who race fulls do more than they usually would in a season. But there was no equal critique of T100 as those who moved from the 70.3 scene now race (hard competitive races) more. I just wanted to make it clear that the athletes racing more often is the same for both series so it is a silly reason to prefer one race series over the other!
I think it’s wild triathletes could make 6 figures, race 6-8 times a year without any travel costs, and the results wouldn’t matter, it would only increase your payout. Just an truly unbelievable time for the top pro’s in our sport.
1 Like
You’re just continuing be a PTO STAN.
What is the average number of races per year across the registered pro population? That is the question. Thorsten wants to say “having them race three IMs is too much”. Ok, then why are you working for an Org that forces athletes to race 6-7 100Ks, you can’t play both sides of the line. He is paid by PTO and he just put out a quote that Kevin probably should have jettisoned. But it’s out there.
As a fan, I want the pros to race more often and in denser fields. If they continue doing what they’ve been doing by avoiding racing completely (a lot of people with a pro license qualify and never race more than once as a pro) then the professional sport of triathlon will just be what it is.
What the avg pro does per year is meaningless in the new context though. Especially in today’s climate of we are basically “all in” on either making it in the next few years or as you put it pro triathlon simply being what it will be. Again pros are getting paid 6 figures to race 6 times essentially half distance a year, what “problem” are you seeing or alluding too?
This is a good system in theory (the athletes involved put a lot of work into it). The issue is the PTO is giving all of their own races diamond scoring. Its very skewed when other really big events (Roth and WT LD champs) were downgraded from platinum to gold this year. There are big Pro series events that IMHO are “platinum” worthy compared to T100 races (e.g., oceanside, Frankfort) but all IM pro series events are 2 full rankings below at gold. Hell even 70.3 worlds in 23’ wasn’t even given diamond status!!!
2 Likes
Any race can increase their prize money if they want to achieve higher status.
2 Likes
Nope, that is not the question: and note that T100s are, eponymous alarm, 100km whereas an IM is 226km: way different TSS.
Feel free to explain why the mean number of races completed by “registered pros” is in the slightest bit relevant.
The racing behaviour of the top 50 = 50 (W + M) professionals is relevant in this discussion.
I assert that 7 or 8 races in a season is a reasonable (and average(mean)) racing schedule for a pro trying to make money (by all means share stats which suggest this is not so, for athletes who have a full season without injury).
Now a middle distance only athlete can manage that with zero problem and target a couple of races during the season as their ‘A’ races and the final (probably) as their A+.
The T100 Tour offers that simply and with great competition and excellent remuneration. In 2024, contracted athletes were required to race 4 + GF. So left room for a couple of ‘others’. Same in 2025. Note this is not “forcing athletes to race 6-7 100Ks”.
For the full distance athlete going for the IM Pro Series they have to achieve 5 good scores: the prudent athlete will schedule 6 (3xIM plus two 70.3s plus Marbella). For an athlete wishing to race the IMWC, the minimum number of IMs is two (repeating myself): one to N/KQ and the IMWC. The IM Pro Series requires one more IM to finish up the sharp end (top 10, decent additional money). Thorsten’s take is that athletes would prefer to just race two. Ironman are providing a season long series which is full distance heavy, deliberately. I don’t agree with him, fwiw.
The racing behavior in the past was one of avoidance, one IM and enough 70.3s to achieve a high enough KPR to qualify. You brought up KPR.
The current behavior is based on IMWC, T100, and IM Pro Series. If you assert that racing 7-8 times per year is reasonable, I would generally agree. It’s more than reasonable to also race 3 IMs in a season, otherwise what’s the point of the sport? Winning is the point, money is a side quest.
It’s very simple, 6 races is either too much or it’s not.
ETA:
Also, I’m actually unsure if Kevin’s title is remotely correct. It might be a good time for the top 10ish globally. But the sponsorship is not nearly as good as 20 years ago. I’m talking breadth of people with sponsors and breadth of sponsors that support triathlon.
Two “small differences”:
- to be competitive in the Ironman PRO Series, you have to race three Ironmans and two 70.3s at a minimum,
- to be competitive in the T100, you have to race four 100k races,
- to get paid a lot of money in the T100, you can race zero races competitively and just toe the line five times.
So no, these two are anything but the same. Your math is especially strange with 3 IMs (in particular) and 2 halves being “as bad” fatigue wise as 4 events in the T100.
1 Like