People on slowtwitch have occasionally wondered what the likelihood is that they would qualify for Kona given their current fitness.
For 2012, I computed the probability of qualification for M50-54 as an example, using the USAT scores of all ranked US Ironman participants in that age group as a quantifier of aerobic fitness.
How to use (if you happen to be M50-54)
a) Take your average or ranked USAT score representative of your current performance. (85% in the example)
b) Find your qualifying probability on the y axis. (25% in the example)
If you have 1/2 IM or IM experience, and you got an 85% USAT ranking in the past but didn’t qualify, you have a decent chance of qualifying by doing a few races. At 80%, your chances are negligible of ever qualifying. At 98%, congratulations, you don’t need a chart of odds because you already qualified.
The curve in the figure averages over all race-to-race variations such as the strength of the participating field and how well peaked a racer is for a given race. However, most people sign up for races long before the field is known, and how well peaked you are is a question of how well you train, how well you are coached, and a good portion of luck (like, not having a cold on race day).
How meaningful are the annual USAT ranking scores as predictors of qualification? The standard deviation from year-to-year for a racer with several years of IM experience and who does plenty of races to get a USAT ranking is small, <1.5%. So if you’ve been doing this for a while, and you are in your early 50s, and your USAT score is not consistently >85%, you might as well enter the lottery or legacy program to get to Kona. You have likely reached your genetic potential relative to the competition, unless you can pinpoint a deficiency unrelated to power output, such as a bad swim stroke, or not shaving your legs and arms (worth ~5 minutes according to Specialized wind tunnel tests!). Beware of any coach who promises otherwise!
Here’s my rule for analyzing probability of KQing.
Look at the last qualifier for your AG last year and subtract 10% from that time. If you don’t think you can go that fast - your probability of qualifying is roughly 0%.
Here’s my rule for analyzing probability of KQing.
Look at the last qualifier for your AG last year and subtract 10% from that time. If you don’t think you can go that fast - your probability of qualifying is roughly 0%.
That’s statistics for the Real World, right there. Winner.
I think there is another factor in play here: the types of races that comprise each person’s score. The guy who scores .83 could be .9 material at iron distance, but only .8 material at Olympic distance. On the other hand, there are folks like me who are (relative to other competitors) slower at iron distance and very unlikely to KQ, even though my USAT score is fairly high.
Here’s my rule for analyzing probability of KQing.
Look at the last qualifier for your AG last year and subtract 10% from that time. If you don’t think you can go that fast - your probability of qualifying is roughly 0%.
I agree with Scott’s sentiment here. Science certainly has a place in the world, but many “Kona qualification evaluations” remind me of studies that show exercise is good and smoking is bad. As an athlete moving up to the IM distance with aspirations of getting to the big island at some point over the next few years, I’m not going to lie, I think about Kona all the time, and I’m also a huge data geek! But on this topic in particular, my thinking isn’t too complex.
Wow! The amateur race continues to get faster and faster, this is nuts!! (Analysis)
I am going to have to get really fast if I want to have a chance at a KQ (Conclusion)
I better train hard and smart, and be patient (Act on the my research findings)
Totally agree. Not all great Oly triathletes are great IM athletes. And it definitely goes the other way too…just because someone consistently gets to Kona doesn’t mean they do well at Oly races. This is where the USAT rankings are a little interesting to me. Kind of like Jack Daniel’s chart. Based on that, Usain Bolt will be one hell of a marathoner.
I think t boils down to this, we use others as a benchmark to where we need to get ratehr than looking at being our best. I know I want to know what I can do at the bare minimum to obtain the maximum. Where is that line? Is it 10 hours a week, or is it 35 hours a week?
Im is a different beast. 9 hours of exposure…lots of time for things to go wrong.
re: “There are two things anyone needs to worry about”
I couldn’t agree more:
On the x-axis you look up how fast you currently are according to USAT; on the y-axis it tells you your odds, which depend on who else shows up. I’m just putting some numbers on your “two things to worry about.”
No worries about me doing the other age groups, though: since no one in this thread is interested in the odds, I think I’ll go for a run now
good point, and already included in my analysis. It tells you that if your USAT score was X in an IM qualifier (not an Oly race), what your odds are of qualifying. So if you were 87% in my example age group, carry on, you’re likely to qualify with a few races if you didn’t qualify the first time around. If you’re at 80%, you have to be a true optimist, or you’re banking on the legacy program.
I simplified my original post, which was a little too long-winded. Given the lack of interest in quantitative odds, I’ll leave it at M50-54
it surprised me, did not expect that 80% on USAT score would have close-to-zero chance of qualifying… I wonder what the corresponding plot for ITU Worlds would look like…
aw, c’mon. You know very well that your qualitative statement borders on tautology, but the statistical plot does not. It tells someone who recently ran a 79% IM not to hope in vain for qualification unless they improve. Whereas someone who raced an IM at 92%, but who didn’t qualify, has better than 50% odds. He just got unlucky with strong competition at his race.
My statement is pretty much what you’ve done actually…I made this statement on purpose. Usat scores include ironman performance, so fundamentally, what you’ve done is very similar to my statement…
Actually,comparing the shape of the curve for each age group might be interesting. Are your chances of qualification different for the same USAT score in different age groups? Probably since slots are not allocated exactly proportionally to participant number AFAIK…
re: “There are two things anyone needs to worry about”
I couldn’t agree more:
On the x-axis you look up how fast you currently are according to USAT; on the y-axis it tells you your odds, which depend on who else shows up. I’m just putting some numbers on your “two things to worry about.”
No worries about me doing the other age groups, though: since no one in this thread is interested in the odds, I think I’ll go for a run now
It’s very useful if one feels like finding an ‘easy’ IM for a PR - although it’ll also be ‘easier’ for most everyone else. Thus race selection is a secondary criterion for qualification, other than selecting for one’s known strengths (e.g. Louisville if you tend to suffer less in hot temperatures than the average IM competitor).
re: Are your chances of qualification different for the same USAT score in different age groups?
Very much so. Basically, your USAT score in a USAT-sanctioned triathlon is your speed relative to the 60% median scores of participants in that race with a previous year’s racing history. An 87% score for two participants in the same race means they finished in the same time, no matter their age. The USAT score is not a percentile ranking (not “you were faster than 87% of participants”), but a speed ranking.
As you might expect, the curve therefore shifts to the right in younger age groups. (It also changes shape.) Your qualifying odds with a USAT score of 87% in an IM qualifier are not bad if you’re M50-54 (30% from the plot, averaged over all US IM qualifiers), but in M25-29 they are exceedingly slim (<1%) because the top of that field is 10% faster on average than the top of the M50-54 field. 10% speed may not seem like much, but it’s huge in terms of the number of people ahead of you.
