I’ve read every argument and kept an open mind for the last few years, but now that we’re at a mature point in the decision making about the WC model, and after seeing buzz leading up to this year’s M race, it is clear to me that Kona is the only place and way for the IM WC. And this year’s race hasn’t even happened yet.
One day, both M and W, and let IM fuss around with the numbers to ensure parity and advance equity. The day and place are special and have magic or buzz or something special; the other models (2 different days in Kona; alternating M / W venues, etc) have been great attempts to find a different way … but just don’t compare.
So you really think it would be better to cut the number of men in half at the race just so the “buzz leading up to” a race is better?
If Kona takes place every year, switching genders, does the Kona buzz go away when the women are racing? You’ve already admitted the buzz is here now, but was there no buzz last year? In your last point you even said the two day event in Kona doesn’t compare. That seems really bizarre to me. Were the athletes and industry less excited by having two days, two broadcasts, buzz leading into two events, etc.
I think what you area really just saying is Kona is better than Nice. And most people would agree with you.
But here’s a formula I think we can all agree on from a numerical stand point.
1 Kona + 1 Kona > 1 Kona
1 Kona + 1 Nice > 1 Kona
1 Kona + 1 Kona > 1 Kona + 1 Nice
Since no one is really taking away Kona every year, but adding another race in addition to Kona, we are getting more.
E.g. if you take the same athletes, sponsors, etc and move them to another location - do you still get the same buzz?
Or is the buzz because we’re all directly comparing Nice with Kona, and everyone is just holding out for Kona?
My point is that you’re not comparing this to anything permanent. You’re comparing 2024 Kona to either Nice or St. George, which are all arguably temporary solutions.
What you’re not doing is comparing Kona to a mature, permanent solution for the WC, that everyone has had time to build out and get the bugs worked out.
Personally, I think more is generally greater than less. So more people doing a world championship triathlon is better than less.
It could be said, for those super in the know and tracking all the buzz with their buzz-o-meters, that the participant to buzz ratio is higher when we just have Kona, and maybe that makes a super concentration of buzz that makes all our wildest dreams come true.
But I’m of the old school mentality that says if we have thousands of people telling their friends and family they are training to qualify for and then training to race, and then travelling to race a world championship, that’s going to have a greater impact on the awareness around triathlon.
If we have two amazing races at different parts of the world, that’s twice the opportunity for break through stories. And there is always a story that can be sold. Having them both in the same day, and maybe having them both in the same location separated by only a single day, has the real potential to reduce the buzz baseline.
If what we’re after is more buzz, clearly more people doing the buzz generating thing is better.
is there anyway to downvote threads? these redundant topic is like bob babbit always having to bring up mark allen / dave scott every kona even though there are greater stories now
Its worth noting that part of the buzz for 70.3 worlds is being able to go to the race and cheer on the other gender on a day when you’re not also competing.
Ditto for being able to go and experience a new venue in a location that you might never have considered. If the WC is always in the same location - how many of us want to go year after year? But if its in a different country next year, then you have the opportunity to not only involve locals who might not be able to travel to an island in the pacific, but also people who don’t want to go and do the same race every year in the same (expensive) location. The local Hawaiians already know about triathlon - but if you host your event in a new location, you have the opportunity to show non-athletes what its all about.
We’re repeating this discussion over and over again. I’ll just add one thing because it hasn’t been said on this thread yet.
Of all cycling destinations I’ve visited, Kona is probably the least cycling friendly of them all. And the only one where so many locals seem to enjoy voicing their dislike of Ironman openly and directly.
I agree with your statement that some triathletes are not very respectful although I wouldn’t express it the way you said it.
Still, this hate towards triathletes/Ironman isn’t apparent in Nice or any other Ironman destination I’ve visited.
There’s always these types in every community, but in a small community you see them more.
The locals that dislike triathletes also dislike the the other tourists too. The people who complain when triathlon shuts down a road complain if a marathon shuts down a road.
They also complain about bike lanes and politics etc. Generally they live their life on the margin of being unhappy people and anything that might annoy them pushes them over the edge.
Yes, in Hawaii we sadly have to account for the anti-white/mainlander bias as well. But my personal experience is this is at the margin.
Come to Nice, they will get kicked out and told to put a shirt on.
Kona/Nice is a brilliant combination. It allows different types of athletes to be competitive. Kona is boring as it produces the same old.
Whatever the outcome the women’s race needs to be separate from the mens so that the podium isn’t affected by weaker male pro’s and stronger male AGers who go off a few minutes behind them. Coverage of the women’s race is poor when it is a mixed race.
If Kona is it, then move to a world championship to every other year. The Olympics and World Cup are n four year cycles, which doesn’t impact interest. Alternate men and women and you have a viable Kona structure.
As a european, I’d say that 1 nice + 1 nice > 1 Kona +1 Kona > 1 Kona. I love seing the women in a separate day, and I hate that, lets be honnest, going to Kona IS a money selection, in a sport where money IS already a very significant factor. Also, being someone who hates wind, humidity and heat I really dont see the appeal in burning a huge amount of fuel and money juste to be able to say " I went to Kona"