Wait, they still do that?
1 Like
I just listen to hear what Talbot said that was so outrageous and political??? Did I miss it?
Also the hot take was mine 20 m did nothing to change the finish order and Pat said take a look at New Zealand?
Same top 10 we would have thought of same top 5 , same top 3 give or take the issue that happen within an Ironman.
Oceanside same , Dallas same.
It seems the 20 m has helped KB the most.
We are making hot takes that 20m has or hasn’t changed the game and we are a handful of races into this change to come to said conclusion. Can we atleast give it a full year and both IM and 70.3 WC’s?
although I guess that’s the definition of a “hot take”
1 Like
You caught up!!!
outside of pushing 50% of the pro women back into the fast age Group men I really dont see what the 20 meter has done either..
3 Likes
texas will be the true tell. a notorious course for drafting before. hilly course like oceanside it probably wont make a difference. btw, 20m still in effect up a steep hill? Probably causes the athletes to conserve more for the run by lowering power
I actually think it’s the opposite. A flat and fast course like Texas, no amount of draft zone is going to likely break up the groups that much. In order to work the best bike tactics, you always want courses that have some teeth to it. Flat and fast courses are the worst probaly to break up any of the groups beyond the ones who fall off the last hour of the bike. The true elite FOP bikers can likely get away regardless of the terrain, but for the main groups, flat and fast courses suck to break up the groups imo.
1 Like
The whole Pro field will be slingshotting off the age groupers after the first lap.
Why do you think that’s not important? Ironman gives far more athletes a chance to collect a paycheck. And in a sense, T100 is only paying out at 5 races for men and 5 for women. Most Ironman races have a prize for men and women.
The point being there is just so much more opportunity for more pros to get paid.
Do the IM pros wish that money was consolidated across pro series races instead of 60? What if IM treated it’s non pro series pro races as merely qualifiers for the pro series and didn’t pay at all in them. But put all their budget into the pro series. Is that better?
1 Like
this is an interesting question how many athletes made enough price money to be called a pro athelte with ironman vs t 100 in 2025 . While for sure the ironman number is going to be higher I would say its probably something like 60 with t100 and about 90 with ironman ( this is a guess and Thorsten at tri rating has the numbers but they are not public ) some smart athletes like alanis sifferet made approx 2/3 of their price money outside of ironman and t100. 22 k with challenge and 42 k with other races 4,7 k with ironman 21 k with t100
I guess the first point is what is a meaning fulll pro price money for a year
2nd point than you would have to get the number of athletes that made the threshold
1 Like
Probably a better question is how many pro athletes make enough money that allow them a decent standard of living? I would dare say less than 30-40 overall
Most work part time somewhere else to support themselves like coaching or have a life partner that provides some element of support
neither t100 or IM provide enough financial help for the entire pro community although it has improved a lot since T100 stepped in so kudos to them
That post on insta is from someone desperately trying to be relevant as an “influencer” in triathlon despite not even being a triathlete. Yawn.
if IM pooled all the money into IMPS, IM would have to introduce their own pro standard or improve the registration policies. They couldn’t have all of their races littered with BOP pros inteferring with FOP pros.
But every sport in the world has tiered pro levels, as all you would do if you made it A level only is erode your pro sport over time.
World triathlon (formerly ITU) have 3 paid levels, conti cups have a very small prize pool, world cups a bit more and world series more again. Ironman already have the series races paid highest, and different levels of other races, the problem is that many are entering the series races when they have no hope of being in the top 30 more or less the top 10 to earn prize money. There is a possibility that lower ranked athletes are seeing the higher dollars and entering as its still all new and they aren’t really aware how much better the top athletes really are, but once they have raced, and had their butts kicked in a few this season, that level athlete may decide to stick to the lower level races where they have more chance of a small pay day going forward.
1 Like
It’s both good and bad. The only way much of the issues is solved is if IM implemented a tiered system. But by implementing a tiered system, it would solve the “too many pros” because many simply wouldn’t ever take the pro card. Why take the pro card if your C level and every race you have to do with IM would be in some lower level international travel; psst that’s the structure of itu. And we see that there is very few C level pro’s just out there racing to race in itu. The structure requires such an investment from the athlete, that you are either improving in itu or you move on.
So the tiered system would solve the too many BOP pro’s racing big events, but it also would have an likely negative affect on the overall numbers as well; the incentive to take the pro card would only decrease. And maybe that’s what the sport would need, as many people think there are too many pros now. So there is a balancing act, as I think you want a healthy number of pro’s in your sport while also not making it too easy either.
IM is a business first and foremost, my guess is that they want as many pros to buy into the $1500 fee as possible to offset the what ~$6mi investment they make to have pro’s.
That’s why in the post that you replied to, I said what if IM made the (hypothetical) non paying probs races qualifiers for the pro series. Obviously they’d have some standard to grandfather the big dogs in and if you want in, you can go to a regular pro race with no prizes. Then be happy that said lack of prizes in that race is being used to pay deeper into the pro series.
i guess this is the how you do the elite amateur pathway. Until then it would be a bit silly to have a “pro” field race for no money. That sorta defies the logic of a “pro” field imo.
For me the main issue is in terms of the size of the pie. The distribution of this pie across athletes is a different one altogether.
In 2025 IM had a total payout of $6M for all races plus the pro series bonus across 68 races. T100 paid out $5.7M including bonuses across 10 races. So even in absolute terms. The difference is not that much especially if we factor the support they offer pros like hotels, bike mechanics, massage etc.
Even WTCS paid $2.1M across 8 races and they haven’t upgraded that much. So the question is why can’t IM increase their prize money?
I probaly agree more with Pat L’s take on this. I think it’s less about IM giving out better pro purse and more about getting more sponsors into the sport. That’s when your bigger paydays will come from I think. So I think your asking the wrong question.
1 Like
I don’t disagree, but then is the difference between zero and your run-of-the-mill $15k prize purse in Ironman 70.3 that significant? If you come from the same continent, you basically need to get third or better to recoup the cost. Different continent - gotta win.
The below amounts are before tax withheld by the host country, which can be substantial.
