Is that elite?
Answer is it s fine as it meets the standard, but its the OP who has opened the can of worms complaining that the field are not as good as her
Thereās a way to communicate disagreement without making things personal and attacking. Someone saying they donāt think someone who placed 50th in one race belongs in the same field as someone who had to place 3rd in another field is making a reasonable point. We can disagree with it, but we shouldnāt feel attacked by the factual comparison about where lines need to be drawn in a world of limited resources.
Its personal to the 50 th placed person and the OP is feeling their race is diminished by one of these lesser humans being present on the course.
Dam people slower than me that donāt impact my event, when I myself was nudging towards a 13 hour ironman
In that case where do I sign up to become pro. Iād like to race with them and the exclusionary policies diminish my humanity. Iām ok starting 3rd row in the swim and I wonāt impact their race, but itās ridiculous for them to exclude me simply because Iām slower.
Thereās always a line drawn somewhere. People have been arguing about them for ever.
Where are your stats to prove the āmajorityā would prefer to be here every year with the men. The majority of women I spoke with like their own race for a championship. They just like their own race on that day (they probably agree with you that they want it in Kona every year, but they want their own day, not race with men). But thatās just my sample. I canāt lay claim for anything other than that being a sample of women I spoke with. Your sample may be different than mine, but neither of us have definitive stats. and really thatās like asking if the majority of Olympians prefer an Olympics in Paris or LA. It will depend on who you ask
1 Like
A private company used free enterprise, and exported a race concept from Kona to locations all around the world and then grew the concept of half of that distance all around the world. They invested in the products, won over consumers, did decent marketing, created accessible standardized events, and consumers voted with their wallets.
Meanwhile, ITU/World triathlon treated that part of the sport as an afterthought and did not service us the athletes.
So guess what. Ironman won over most of the world market by servicing customers. What a concept? If you think they donāt care about customers why do people keep giving Ironman their money? Weāre all rational adults who can choose to spend our money elsewhere, but enough rational adults who clearly make enough money to spend money on ironman events, spend the money at Ironman rather than take their partners to endless fancy restaurants and vacations (or maybe some people do both).
So we have a monopoly that the athletes voted for.
I donāt see a problem with this.
2 Likes
Ya, my feeling wasā¦OF COURSE when the men show up in Kona they lament the fact that there are less women around. And naturally, there will be some women who want that camaraderie (and, ahemā¦ attention).
But the impression that was given at least, and it may have been a tad biased in the girl power environment we live in now, was that most of the women on their day in Kona preferred it. I would guess thatās a bit of a stretch, biological humanity being what it is, I assume at some point most women and men recognize that we kinda like being around each other for all our faults.
But after we have the women in Kona next year, I am really curious to see how the whole experiment turns out.
Iāve been browsing this forum intermittently for a few years now - sometimes for useful info on a race location or gear question and other times for the popcorn when Iām on a night shift. Seems Iām wading into the popcorn section with my first post lol.
Thereās many different opinions but I suppose Iāll add my own as I donāt read many womenās posts on here. When the split was announced you could count me amongst the people who felt I would only race in Nice if it didnāt compromise my future ability to race in Kona as a legacy athlete (or more ideally Iāll qualify this year, but wanted to leave open my options so I can eventually race there). I took a rolled down slot to Nice for the WC experience, and went into the race thinking if the WC continues to rotate that I would not return to Nice more than once.
Having raced in Nice this year, count my mind changed - the bike was spectacular, and I would definitely return if I qualified again. I think this is the piece that seems so short sighted when citing the participation numbers for the women - any business that is pursuing a new venture accepts they may incur loss in the the beginning, and aim to turn things towards a profit down the road. Iād argue that the 2025 and 2026 cycles in Nice will be most telling / the deciding factor here - are the slots being taken quicker by the men, and are there more women choosing to race? I spoke to several women who felt similarly and having done Nice would actually return after initially planning not to - but thatās just what it is, a random sample. As to the argument that somehow the expanded womenās fields lessen the achievement of those at the pointy end - not sure I understand that line of thinking either, as I donāt think the proās feel that us age groupers (while sometimes annoying) racing on the same course actually lessens a podium achievement because we are slower. Seems irrelevant for the top podium finishers to feel their position is any less because of whoever is behind them - if anything, you can see just how impressive the front of the field really is.
Clearly Kona canāt host two days, which I think would be most everyoneās first choice (including mine) - and while I love racing with the men, Iām of the opinion a separate day for the women (primarily, for the top AGers and professionals) is pretty important to provide a clean race. It seems clear we wonāt end up with an ideal solution regardless - Iād be of the opinion to give the Kona / Nice split one more cycle for each gender to see the trend, and if the numbers arenāt any better then I donāt think a compromise-ish solution of what Tim Heming implied in the article is probably the second best idea Iāve heard.
5 Likes
Thereās a few things in this post that are at odds.
- the whole triathlon community isnāt built on exclusivity. So there needs to be more data that says that exclusivity makes better world championship, whatever better means.
- In terms of competitiveness, itās impossible to argue that more selection makes the race more competitive. Quite the opposite in fact. In pretty much every sport a world championship is more competitive than the Olympic games, even if the Olympics are more prestigious. Selection may arguably help build prestige not competitiveness or inclusivity.
- Letās assume men are in fact driven by the prestige of selection and the format has worked because of that. Whoās to say thatās what women are driven by? Is there a survey that backs that up?
- What Iāve observed at races that Iāve attended is that a vast majority of people (men and women) donāt attend the slot allocation because they donāt think they will ever get the slot or they have decided before even getting the choice. The truth is slots do roll down, sometimes by a lot, even for men. Iāve seen the āwhoād like to go to Konaā for men. So we could say that if people arenāt taking up the slots we should have less slots. But the real question we need to answer is why arenāt people attending the slot allocation. Maybe Ironman should try a way to encourage more people to attend slot allocation? Or handle roll downs by email instead of by presence? Or decrease some of the costs? Thereās no WC format that works if attending the WC has become prohibitive for many and when you get there youāre annoyed by the 70 usd name t-shirt.
Personally I liked the two day formats, I donāt like the split location. Iām also not enthusiastic about the fixed destination, I like the idea of continuosly changing destinations like for the 70.3 champs.
I donāt think Kona can sustain 4000+ athletes, 2022 was madness.
A Kona based on lottery and a rotating WC champs (that Kona isnāt part of) would definitely be something Iād like to see.
When I read things like this again and again, I am asking myself āDo people understand how private equity (Investors and the owners of the Ironman Brand) work?ā In this case GROWTH private equity.
Answering the question āSo why separate us?ā
Like it or not - the owners ONLY have ONE thing on their mind: Grow and SELL MORE. This is what is left right center for DeRue quarter after quarter.
ItĀ“s not about community, feelings, gender and what not. ItĀ“s (sadly) only about money.
Are we making more money on a two-day / two-venue event?? YES
DeRue is gonna have a hard case changing this now 
just sayingā¦
Yes just a sample of women I have spoken to directly.
The Huberman quote early on gave me a very clear picture of what this entire post would be like.
3 Likes
For sure but they are loosing money on their first womenās Nice. I donāt see that changing.
ItĀ“s the overall math that counts! And they are not āloosingā money on the WomanĀ“s Nice race (as in EBITDA on that event), but I suppose you mean, that they are earning less, than if the Women had their race in Kona? (in a 2-day event, which we know is not feasible currently)
The General Ironman Nice race rakes in 695 EUR for 2500 athletes. That is 1.74M EUR overall revenue.
The Womans WC Race in Nice produced 1384 EUR for 1400 athletes, so that is 1.94M EUR overall revenue.
I can accept that the cost side may be slightly higher for the WC, than on the general Nice race, but there is no negative bottom line on either races ā¦
1 Like
I feel like everyone that have an opinion on whether it should only be Kona or a rotating venue should specify where in the world they are from. I think americans in general want Kona and europeans want something else.
1 Like
Unsure why that changes anything @AC_Prestation ā¦ ?
I seriously donĀ“t know anybody (outside of ST) who wants the WC to happen anywhere but in Kona, preferably as a two-day race, both men & women.
I am European, I raced in Kona and I loved it. I would never do a WC in Nice (especially not at that price tag)
Hey Paul, I completely agree with pretty much everything youāve said, and further, I totally understand why IM acts the way it does, Iād no doubt do the same in their shoes.
The issue is that I donāt have to like the situation we find ourselves in. I can imagine a much better one where the brand IM is owned by the PTO or WT and is licensed to local races that wish to use it. More competition would engender better races for athletes at lower costs whilst still using the iconic brand.
It seems to me that the more ācommercialā the company has become the more, guess what, ācommerciallyā the company has acted. And that means that, given itās situation, it can act very effectively as a commercial entity and simultaneously badly for athletes. To be clear, I donāt think it has much choice given its ownership, the management is beholden to the shareholders.
To your point about monopoly, again I agree. Not sure where youāre from but this type of monopoly is way stronger than a ānormalā one. If you are a Man Utd supporter, management knows that youāre not going to suddenly go and support Man City. This allows them to act in an even worse way towards the fans. IM is in exactly that situation. Itās no surprise that all their decisions are focused towards the bottom line and not athletes. 
Right? Thatās where I figured I had read enough.
If you want to establish credibility, then at the very least cite a research article.
American in America here.
I prefer 2 days of racing and make one of those days 100% womenās racing, but keep them all on the same venue, and that venue doesnāt always have to be Kona.
And like I said earlier: I am speaking as a spectator. I have no interest in ever participating in Kona. Maybe if I was racing I would feel different, but weāll never know.
3 Likes