Should there even categories or classifications other than male female?

Triathlon Forum
1

I am sick of people complaining that SL “stole” someone’s spot! There have been so many Steve Larsen threads since this past weekend’s race, so don’t hijack this thread into another SL should have raced pro or shouldn’t have taken a spot.

My question is more fundamental: should we even have pro/elite and AG classifications? What other sports make this distinction? The different special interest groups make it too easy for some people. We should get rid of pros, clydesdales, and athenas. If you finish 1st, then you are the best. If you finish 372 overall out of 1345 and happen to weigh 201, are you really better than someone who weighs 199? No you are not, you are slower.

Qualification for races should send the best people. Clydesdales and athenas should not get qualifying spots for races anywhere, unless they beat their smaller competitors head to head. I think a race like kona should have a qualification procedure like this:

80 spots handed out for the race.

75% of participants are men; 25% are women

60 spots go to men; 20 spots go to women

Half of those spots go to the top finishers in that gender.

30 top men and 10 top women.

Then the rest are distributed across the age groups; however, the age groups are 39-under, 40-54, 55-69, and 70+.

Actually I really think the top 60 men and 20 women should go, but that would never fly so what I wrote above is a compromise.

I am just sick of people who claim that they “deserve” to go to Hawaii (or any other race that requires qualification) because “someone stole their spot” or because they belong to some special group of the triathlon society. Former pros should not have their own group! When you miss qualifying for an event, that should be an incentive to try to go faster next year or at another race. If you say you can’t go faster, then that is a piss poor attitude; don’t come back, because we will not miss you. You shouldn’t be able to create your own little category so that you can participate in a championship when you probably do not belong there.

There will be some who will say that the pros would get too many spots. Its the frickin world championships! If they beat you, then they deserve to go. Besides there are still some spots awarded by age categories.

I am a proponent of some sort of elite wave at every single triathlon. It should be open to those with the best previous results, but the overall winner should not have to come from this group.

Alright, I think I am rambling now and probably have been rambling this whole post, but I get really pissed off when people claim to deserve something just because they think they work hard. We all work hard, but championships are NOT for everyone.

Bottome line: men race against men, women race against women, and that is it.

Oh yeah: the one category I am cool with is CAF. Those competitors should legitimately have their own category.

2

Okay, I agree with some of your points. But are you advocating there only be 80 competitors in Kona? That’s a pretty small race.

-Colin

3

I think Age group categories make sense. The truth is that people’s bodies do change as they age and it’s tough, albeit not impossible, for a 50 to compete with a 40 y/o. Actually, most sports break down by age. HS, college, then age group. I don’t believe tri is unique in this. Swimming, road races, cycling-though broader I agree use age groups. I have some problem with clyde/athena because a tall person might make the category while a short stocky body type does not. Anyway the groups give different competitive groups a chance to feel like they are competeing with and for something.

my 2 cents

Pat

4

<<I think Age group categories make sense. The truth is that people’s bodies do change as they age and it’s tough, albeit not impossible, for a 50 to compete with a 40 y/o>>

Should we not have categories for fat people, grossly overweight, slim, thin etc.,

Should it be based on body fat % ? For example, you can get qualified as top of the 21%-25% fat group? Whilst some guy who is genetically more fortunate and only eat powders race in a different category?

Should we not have categories based on VO2MAX? This is very much a genetically determined and can only be trained to a small extent. Why should someone who was born with organs that are more suitable for high capacity work should have an advantage over a person who trains much harder but has not been born to the right parents. So, you can qualify, for example, as the 31-40 VO2Max group.

Should we not have categories for people who are obsessed with triathlon and one for people who also have life? So you can qualify as top in the group who also have a job, social life and other things to do?

Life is unfair.

5

Another slant:

I think the great attraction of our sport is that we do have the classifications in place as they are. Take an IM for instance; we (the AGers) get to race with them (the Pros). How many other sports do you get to do that in? How inspiring is it? Very I’d say.
From the pro’s perspective this is also a positive from their side (from my experience of speaking to them anyway). They know that having everyone race makes the race possible - there isn’t that much money in the sport, and just having 70 pros race in an IM on their own would be dull. Seeing AGers cross the line is just as inspiring for them as it is for us. They admire (as I do) those who stick it out for sometimes twice as long as they do.
Here’s another thing. How many other sports do you get to mingle with your heroes? If I were a footballer in the UK playing for some 3rd division team, I wouldn’t even dream of sitting next to someone like David Beckham (I use him as an eg - I don’t know anything about football) after a match and having a drink and a chat.

6

who cares about Beckham…you meant victoria right??

7

erm… no

Now Baby Spice, now we’re talking :wink:

8

i’m in favor of age groups and classifications because for alot of people this makes the sport more fun and attractive. i probably wouldn’t race triathlons if i knew there was no chance of me getting a medal in my age group (no chance because there aren’t even age groups). alot of people are motivated by being an age group contender…that’s part of the purpose in training and competing. there’s no sense in taking that away.

and for those who cry they “deserved”, but didn’t win. sorry, but that just reflects poorly on the person crying, not on how the sport is organized. sour grapes, in other words. i tend to not listen to those people…sometimes shit ain’t fair, no need to cry about it.

9

I don’t understand your distinction between men and women. If there are 80 slots, why not hand them out to the top 80 finishers?

I know Kona will then have only male competitors in their 20’s and 30’s and that no one will watch it, but so what? The “best” people will be there.

10

so is this what you want Kona to be reduced to? the fastest 20 and 30 year olds?

yeah, i think the sport would fall flat on its face if this were to happen. that’s just not good for business.

11

I know Kona will then have only male competitors in their 20’s and 30’s and that no one will watch it, but so what? The “best” people will be there.

But that’s not what Kona, or for that matter, this sport is about

12

Bingo.

13

Qualification for races should send the best people. Clydesdales and athenas should not get qualifying spots for races anywhere, unless they beat their smaller competitors head to head.

Please tell me there aren’t now Kona qualifying spots for Clydesdales ? I think it’s great to encourage the bigger guys and girls to race, but to race against everyone else, not in their own special division (I know there are now Clydesdale divisions for awards, but surely not for Kona spots ?).

I think Jim Ricitello said it best:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/features/riccitello/bother.html

“The Clydesdale/Athena division. I’m pissed. I once had a discussion with one of the Clydesdale people at a USAT Board meeting. Why isn’t there a division for those of us men who are 5‘6” and under? It’s just as much of a handicap to be short as it is to be heavy. I understand the purpose is to attract all types of athletes to our sport. But most people see it as a chance for them to do something they were never able to do in regular age-group competition: place in their age group. I know a guy in my hometown who ate his ass off to get up to the 190 pound Clydesdale weight. He won the overall National Championship in the Clydesdale division. How wrong is that? I’ve heard stories of people putting lead weights in their shoes, so they could “make weight.” 190 at weigh-in, 170 on race day. I don’t blame it on the athletes, though. I mean, if you want to create a division for fat people, then get that weight limit up there. What is this 190 pound stuff? I have asked numerous times why the weight restrictions are so low. I know tall skinny people who are 190. Heck, when Paul Huddle was 7th at Ironman, he weighed more than 190. I know quite a few good pro women who weigh enough to race in the 135 pound Athena division. I won’t name names, though, because women, for the most part, are kind of sensitive about their weight . . . even when they look good. To be a Clydesdale you should have to weigh over 300. I’m talking Daryl Haley. You should have to tip the scales at 190 to be an Athena. They’ll never do it, though. It’s just a huge marketing scheme. The Clydesdale Company wouldn’t have anybody to market things to if they raised the weight to what it should be. I’m eating up to 190 when I retire, baby. Professional Clydesdale. I hope they don’t up the weight limit till I have a shot at 190."

14

ok, you were trying to make a point. i wondered why you wrote something like that…it sure didn’t sound like you!!

whew! thought we lost you for a second…:slight_smile:

15

I think that triathlon should use the USCF cat. system

16

Somebody suggested on the other thread to use “Cat” ratings similar to USCF. That seems like a pretty good idea. Is this a possibility for triathlons?

17

"Bottome line: men race against men, women race against women, and that is it. "

So - you’re advocating on playng field for everybody between 18 and 80?

Dude, you are so totally clued out. If there were no AG’ers there would be no sport of triathlon. It’s the AG’ers that are the ordinary people and weekend warriors that keep the bike and tri shops in business. They provide the fan base that keeps triathlon alive and gives it TV coverage. Having AG catagories is the motivation that gets ordinary people into the sport in the first place. Take away the AG catagories and these people will soon find other recreational sports to participate in. Triathlon will then disappear faster than the dodo bird.

18

ok, you were trying to make a point. i wondered why you wrote something like that…it sure didn’t sound like you!!

whew! thought we lost you for a second…:slight_smile:

So did I. I had to dig deep to bring him back :slight_smile:

19

Hey nice one. And here’s proof.

The BBC here in the UK were going to give the ITU in Salford from last weekend 50 mins TV coverage this Sat. Instead, they are giving it 80 mins (combined for both the ME and FE races). Absoluetly great news - and it’s probably partly because of the suport there from the AGers after they had all finished, they all hung around to see their heroes.

20

so is this what you want Kona to be reduced to? the fastest 20 and 30 year olds?

not good for business but sure good for me if all was racing were 20 or 30 years old MEN LOL:-)