Anecdotal at this point - I’m seeing much more competitive times in mine and other age groups for the races in the latter part of '23 (i.e. the first eligible Kona slots) than the same races this year…granted the data set is limited at this time, but California, Florida, Wisconsin, Langkawi were all 8% faster (Chattanooga and Maryland had funky conditions this year) - to me that says people are gunning for Kona, something the roll-down doesn’t necessarily speak to.
1 Like
A survey on this would be interesting - I’d probably give up long-course if Kona were not a thing. I’ve already ditched XTERRA since Maui has been off the table, despite that race being notoriously stupid. What Kona did for me in the last few weeks - get a new set of tires and ride my TT bike in 45 deg weather (STUPID! that’s what doing Kona is for me).
2 Likes
Here is the thing. 98 percent of the field has no chance to go to Kona. They are still doing the sport though. Maybe 10 percent of the field has a chance at the 2 percent of Kona slots, so do all those people quit doing triathlon too or do they move on and target a new location for a championship.
The other 90% who likely have no chance at Kona, they likely keep doing triathlon, and can the sport get another 10 or 20 or 30 to backfill?
You’re arguing that location matters, and then omitting that Kona is a small town in the middle of the Pacific.
That’s hard to get to. That’s incredibly expensive.
If you’re trying to attract people to your sport, location can matter the other way.
From my angle, I’m doing Kona exactly once because the whole thing is so expensive and far away. Maybe twice since if I qualify sometime soon, my wife can’t go due to work and so we’ll go maybe again after retirement. But if the whole thing rotated like the 70.3 words do, I’d probably do it every other year if it’s in an interesting location (plus the associated qualifiers). But once I punch my ticket, if it’s only Kona, I might well branch out to non-IM races afterwards looking for interesting things to see and do since I’ve checked that box.
1 Like
It seems we are assuming the choice is:
A) Pro women separate from the men on 2 days of racing
B) Single WC location
C) WC in Kona
Pick two.
We are all adding our personal preferences and impressions as to which of the requirements should be dropped. The truth is we are all biased.
- B+C) Giving up on 2 days of racing could actually work with a workaround if a Pro only race was held on a different day and that was somehow acceptable by the big Island. Road closures could be partial. Or maybe there’s a single day wave start schedule that works for women. In either case Ironman would miss out on the revenue generated by 2500 AG slots and the carrot that comes with it. Let’s see how motivating it is for men to realise they need to go sub 8:50 to qualify.
- A+C) Give up on the single location and you come up with something similar to the current system. IM has the challenge of organising two WC and all the additional costs that come with it.
- A+B) Give up on having a world championship in Kona and the question becomes what do you do with Kona and its brand value. But in truth it’s just a matter if it makes more money than the alternatives.
The direct conclusion to your comments isn’t that Ironman give up Kona or goes back to 1day WC in Kona. It’s that Kona stands on its own without the WC attachment to it. It would become exactly like Boston or NY marathon.
If we assume that Kona has a freestanding brand value and a world championship has its own brand value, it’s easy to come up with the conclusion that
1 Kona + 2 elsewhere WC > 1Kona WC + 1 Nice WC > 1 Kona WC.
What percentage of Kona participants attend it for the first time? Is the pointy end of the field driven more by competing in Kona itself or by trying to win their AG?
My suspicion is the few who manage to consistently qualify for the world championships are so much faster than the average that they are in practice competing to win/place their AG.
Ironman could have a dual qualification system (slots for Kona, slots for the WC). Or slots for the WC, a new system for Kona. Make it time-based, make it like legacy, there’s a million ideas.
Nobody complains that their own slot (whether that’s for Kona or Nice) was too easy to get.
People complain about other people’s slot being too easy. I don’t think anybody new to Kona WC, or Nice WC had a bad experience this year or last. It’s those who’ve already been to Kona who complain that IM has ruined it. And maybe the pointiest end of the field who feel their sense of exclusivity is damaged.
Kona works as a frequent flyer incentive of sorts. Participate long enough to qualify for Kona. Or do one extra premium race because you’ve earned it. I would argue the randomness of the roll down is what truly makes it work. If you make it virtually impossible to qualify it’s not an incentive anymore. By the way it’s randomness, not skills, that makes people addicted to betting.
If IM goes back to 1day WC in Kona with 1200 slots for men, 1200 for women how many men are motivated to train to go sub 9?
Obviously a lot of people keep on doing triathlon regardless of Kona. The question for IM is, can a Kona/WC system get them to race more with IM?
1 Like
this is correct people dont care so much about bosten etc as the venue but the prestigue and the atmosphere and to be fair the spectators in hawaii are 20 x inferiors to roth so the spectators dont really get you to kona.
kona a is the undeputed home it ironman. and atmosphere wise taupo will be great this year of all the tri venues i have been taupo is one of the best.
at the same time many people like the kona energy and even though we dont care for its many do. so i guess while i agree more with you than bryan we cant deny that bryan does have a point as well. and the truth is in the middle most likely ie kona is a lot more important than penticton
at the end of the day why not try 2026 a 2 day world champ not in kona
and a ordinary ironman kona race and lets see what happens.
Yeah, at the end of the day, my personal opinion or preferences is irrelevant. There’s a great line in the film “The Right Stuff” about the early days of NASA and the Mercury program. When the 7 astronauts selected began to complain about media obligations, it was pointed out to them “No buck, no Buck Roger”. Meaning personal bias aside, Ironman is going to take the path of maximum profitability, it’s just not clear which direction that travels.
I think Ironman needs to stick to Kona for the world champs. Not for sentimental reasons - but really, to remain competitive in the industry over the long term. What do you think?
I mean it’s the same subjective arguments and conclusions we have been making in other threads except he has fun diagrams. 
I’m inclined to agree with his analysis but that’s also subjective.
If the locals don’t want it, hate it being there and the local community doesn’t benefit from it - no matter how much IM want it there, it will be difficult to convince the mayor / government to sign off on it.
The issue is IM are too greedy with AG entries, there is too many of them (which feeds into the local’s resentment of it) we could have Kona every year, with both male and female and happy locals - alas that doesn’t fit with them wanting thousands of AG’ers…
1 Like
Yesssssss MOAAAAR threads on this subject, will never get fed up with it! throws a Blummenfelt 
2 Likes
Well, there’s a physical limitation to the size of the field, the pier where transition is. They can only accommodate about 2500 bikes, so that’s the cap.
What Ironman moved headquarters from Tampa to KONA? Essentially, becoming a local. They would employee locals, probably very few, but would become a local business themselves.
Management note:
I merged a couple threads on the same topic into this one because we didn’t need another thread debating whether the IMWC should be one day, two days, Kona, not Kona, etc.
Just hash it all out in here.
4 Likes
Kinda puts a damper on the magical experience if the locals hate you doesn’t it
2 Likes
or should ironman follow where the growth is …
1 Like
To be fair, they always have. Someone threw a beer bottle at my wife running along Ali’i in 2007. If you are a local who benefits from the tourism, you are a fan. Everyone else, not so much.
The Hour Between Dog and Wolf is a great read, if you haven’t already. And it covers why traders should trust their gut feelings based on physiology/science. I’m with you on this trade.
1 Like
I do this at races I attend. Sadly recently this has only been 70.3s (I keep getting injured)
Except your own behaviour is a really strong argument in favour of the status quo.
You went to both Nice AND Kona. IM sold you two premium races.
Because you couldn’t qualify to Kona you still went to Nice and did that on consecutive years.
Also, reading your blog, am I right in understanding that you qualified at IM Cairns? A search in the results of that race tells me you were 10th in your AG at 50 minutes from the winner.
That race had 55 slots, so you presumably received a roll down. How deep were the roll downs at that race?
Now, consider that if IM goes back to Kona on a 1 day of racing it means 1200 slots for men. If there’s 40 qualifying races it means 30 slots per race max. In practice it’s a lot less if you need to make space for different race tiers, championships, legacy, etc.
20 slots realistically means 2 slots per AG, maybe 3 in the largest ones. In practice you wouldn’t have qualified.
I’m genuinely interested in understanding what’s your thought process and how would you feel if you had never been to Kona and you’d realise you can never make it because you’re constantly 30-35 minutes from second place.
(I apologise if my post comes out as too direct, I’m just trying to understand why you appear to like the previous system while being a beneficiary of the new one)
2 Likes