Jump to content
Sunnychick

Kona qualifier 15+

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Little bit of humour here, chuckling at the standards that have been applied. Agree that the sport is for all and has he categories it has. About 6 years ago we were rubbished for being able bodied men under 50 and not going sub 10 in IM

So for an able bodied 18-24 female, 15:2x is a solid time?

I don’t buy comments around youth being that much of an impediment - van Berkel Won Busso when he was 24, then backed up an won Challenge Copenhagen a few later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be happier if the spots were allocated by age group but age groups with low number got rolled up into the next age group with a handicap applied. 

This way you don't  have 1 spot for 10 people or less. It's BS & makes a joke out of the qualifying process. Make it a minimum of 50 per bracket etc 

15:2X & getting a spot for Kona is taking the piss. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trilobite said:

So for an able bodied 18-24 female, 15:2x is a solid time?

I don’t buy comments around youth being that much of an impediment - van Berkel Won Busso when he was 24, then backed up an won Challenge Copenhagen a few later.

18-24 is an age group where there are large discrepancies in experience between competitors, further highlighted by the small numbers in the category.

Some are racing at 23 or 24 with several seasons of triathlon (even Ironman) behind them, perhaps following on from years of squad training as kid and plenty of competitive sport through their teenage years. They may be on the cusp of racing pro and truly know how to race.

Others may have started out in tri with little or no sporting background, or at 18 or 19 still developing physically.

Is 15:2x a solid time? Not particularly, but it was certainly solid enough on the day for a KQ.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bored@work said:

I would be happier if the spots were allocated by age group but age groups with low number got rolled up into the next age group with a handicap applied. 

This way you don't  have 1 spot for 10 people or less. It's BS & makes a joke out of the qualifying process. Make it a minimum of 50 per bracket etc 

15:2X & getting a spot for Kona is taking the piss. 

Or you could just take the 50 best age/gender-graded performances on the day for your 50 KQs.

That would essentially eliminate the pro/age group distinction from 25 to 40 but I don't see that as a bad thing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was two people in the 18/24 females 50/50 chance of getting a spot 

females 25/29  had 17 competitors 

The same thing with the older male age group.  

70/74 males - 2 competitors 50/50 odds of getting a spot

65/69 males 17 competitors 

 

Combine some of these age groups & give the extra spots to the age groups with the highest numbers of competitors.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

Or you could just take the 50 best age/gender-graded performances on the day for your 50 KQs.

That would essentially eliminate the pro/age group distinction from 25 to 40 but I don't see that as a bad thing.

Agree or have an over 50 & under 50 category. I think giving spots with only two competitors is a load of shit. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bored@work said:

Cool. It's something I have been thinking about lately. I turned 40 in Jan & have picked up my first injury. The body just  seems to take longer to recover these days. 

How old are you now?

 

Just turned 54, so moving up a category next year. I was 23 in 1988 when I did my first IM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think just bigger age groups ranges would be a better start. 

20-30

30-40

etc...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 50 under 50 isn’t fair. 

AP would never get there. And his whole life would cease to have purpose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe something along the lines of what Paul put up. If there are 50 slots, then the 50 best age rated results get slots.

eg: a 9:05 for a 30 year old man may rate as the same as a 10:30 for a 60 year old man, or a 10:00 for a 35 year old woman.

If someone can come up with the duckworth-lewis scheme, then this wouldn't be too hard given the huge database of IM results available to use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not gonna be any system that's gonna seem completely fair.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So..... should a minority (age demographic) be disadvantaged because they are a minority in representation? 

Interesting to see some think that should be the case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/06/2018 at 1:08 AM, AP said:

What were you doing when you were in the 18-24 category 😏

Me? Ironman ... just not quickly enough to qualify!!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/06/2018 at 10:08 AM, AP said:

What were you doing when you were in the 18-24 category 😏

I was watching surf ironman. And doing ultra distance bike stuff. 

Never heard of triathlon. Certainly couldn't have contemplated doing one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turts said:

So..... should a minority (age demographic) be disadvantaged because they are a minority in representation? 

Interesting to see some think that should be the case

Not if you make,10yr age groups. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Peter said:

Not if you make,10yr age groups. 

Performance declines more rapidly with increasing age.

If you adopt 10 year age groups, a 69yo athlete at the end of his category is at a greater disadvantage than a 59yo, who is in turn more disadvantaged than either a 49 or 39yo.

There are better models to use. Why swap one inferior model for another?

Here's an explanation of age graded performance

It doesn't matter if an athlete is in a small or large category, a highly competitive category or one skewed with a relatively large proportion of slower competitors. The cream will still rise to the top of the rankings.

 

Edited by Paul Every

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

Performance declines more rapidly with increasing age.

If you adopt 10 year age groups, a 69yo athlete at the end of his category is at a greater disadvantage than a 59yo, who is in turn more disadvantaged than either a 49 or 39yo.

There are better models to use. Why swap one inferior model for another?

Here's an explanation of age graded performance

It doesn't matter if an athlete is in a small or large category, a highly competitive category or one skewed with a relatively large proportion of slower competitors. The cream will still rise to the top of the rankings.

 

I still love watching the old farts going around and giving it some ... the Southwells come to mind and I remember Fred Knudsen at Forster in 97 being followed around the Club by a nurse. He was fine with a beer, but he didn't mind a bit!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rimmer said:

I still love watching the old farts going around and giving it some ... the Southwells come to mind and I remember Fred Knudsen at Forster in 97 being followed around the Club by a nurse. He was fine with a beer, but he didn't mind a bit!

And you're in that camp of Old Farts, Mr Every .... but I still remember your speech after the Deca in Canbera in the early 2000s, so you can get away with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul Every for a balanced reply to the thread

What's interesting here is that most of the debate is being driven by one guy who did Kona as a legacy lottery athlete and has said he was not impressed - and the other one who has said on many occasions that he has no interest in going to Kona (and that's good because he would never qualify anyway)

But so much passion from two disinterested blokes - a girl who wanted to go got the chance of a lifetime and these two debate the legitimacy of the whole process for page after page

Thanks again Paul for adding a bit of common sense to the debate 😎

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paul Every said:

Performance declines more rapidly with increasing age.

If you adopt 10 year age groups, a 69yo athlete at the end of his category is at a greater disadvantage than a 59yo, who is in turn more disadvantaged than either a 49 or 39yo.

There are better models to use. Why swap one inferior model for another?

Here's an explanation of age graded performance

It doesn't matter if an athlete is in a small or large category, a highly competitive category or one skewed with a relatively large proportion of slower competitors. The cream will still rise to the top of the rankings.

 

parkrun gives you an age graded performance when they send out your weekly result.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AP said:

Thanks Paul Every for a balanced reply to the thread

What's interesting here is that most of the debate is being driven by one guy who did Kona as a legacy lottery athlete and has said he was not impressed - and the other one who has said on many occasions that he has no interest in going to Kona (and that's good because he would never qualify anyway)

But so much passion from two disinterested blokes - a girl who wanted to go got the chance of a lifetime and these two debate the legitimacy of the whole process for page after page

Thanks again Paul for adding a bit of common sense to the debate 😎

Please. Firstly again for,the 7th time. I have no issue with this girl doing 15hr and going to Hawaii. 

Secondly I did not go to Hawaii on a legacy lottery. I went in 2011when it didn’t start until 2013 

thirdly I was just suggesting changing things slightly. Not doing the under 50over 50as that’s totally unfair. 

Paul suggests a good idea. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if you took the top 50 AGers, wouldn't you only have a shit tonne of a certain bracket? 

 

Like at Busso when you have a heap of younger men going 9-10hrs. 

And that would not represent the whole field. BUT, I guess it would represent the "best" 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paul Every said:

 

There are better models to use. Why swap one inferior model for another?

 

 

Because the same people have benefited from the inferior model for the last 20 years. 

I get this argument all the time at work. It's always been broken why fix it now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AP said:

Thanks Paul Every for a balanced reply to the thread

What's interesting here is that most of the debate is being driven by one guy who did Kona as a legacy lottery athlete and has said he was not impressed - and the other one who has said on many occasions that he has no interest in going to Kona (and that's good because he would never qualify anyway)

But so much passion from two disinterested blokes - a girl who wanted to go got the chance of a lifetime and these two debate the legitimacy of the whole process for page after page

Thanks again Paul for adding a bit of common sense to the debate 😎

Can you please quote Peter as saying he was not impressed? Peter loves Kona & keeps trying to get me to race there. 

You are also wrong re qualifying for Kona, I would have got a spot when I raced the XC class but I didn't go to roll downs. This was achieved using the same brocken process that allows you to qualify every year. 

I can see how you love the current system, Kona is your life, your income and the thing that give you purpose in life. 

The topic was driven by Trilobite who started the thread, I simply highlighted facts & numbers to support my believe the system could be improved to make in fairer for the majority of ppl. 

 

So go fk yourself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So i guess if we are changing the Kona qualification to the best 50 across any age group we should do the same for the ITU world champs as well?

I am an average 70.3 and olympic distance athlete so either are of no bearing to me personally.

I just don't understand how there doesn't seem to be the same conversation about athletes who "qualify" to represent Australia in years where the event is held overseas where qualification is essentially pay to go and few if any age groups take the maximum allocation per age group. Are they any less worthy of calling themselves an australian representative then this girl is of a Kona qualifier? 

It's not like the qualification process for Kona isn't known before the event - no one can complain that the goal posts are moved on them after the fact.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chappy019 said:

 

I just don't understand how there doesn't seem to be the same conversation about athletes who "qualify" to represent Australia in years where the event is held overseas where qualification is essentially pay to go and few if any age groups take the maximum allocation per age group. ? 

 

That topic has been done to death over the years too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bored@work said:

Can you please quote Peter as saying he was not impressed? Peter loves Kona & keeps trying to get me to race there. 

You are also wrong re qualifying for Kona, I would have got a spot when I raced the XC class but I didn't go to roll downs. This was achieved using the same brocken process that allows you to qualify every year. 

I can see how you love the current system, Kona is your life, your income and the thing that give you purpose in life. 

The topic was driven by Trilobite who started the thread, I simply highlighted facts & numbers to support my believe the system could be improved to make in fairer for the majority of ppl. 

 

So go fk yourself. 

For completeness, I did not start the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, trilobite said:

For completeness, I did not start the thread.

Sorry about that, I was on my phone & must not have scrolled up enough.

My message remains the same :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turts said:

That topic has been done to death over the years too.  

Well there you go! Apologies if that opens a hornets nest!

It seems that regardless of how much of society today is geared towards anti bullying, inclusion and the like, almost all facets still suffer from some degree of wanting to devalue other people's achievements.

Can't we all just get along? *insert multiple giant sized sarcastic emoji's

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FFF1077 said:

But if you took the top 50 AGers, wouldn't you only have a shit tonne of a certain bracket? 

 

Like at Busso when you have a heap of younger men going 9-10hrs. 

And that would not represent the whole field. BUT, I guess it would represent the "best" 

Yeah good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Bored@work said:

I would be happier if the spots were allocated by age group but age groups with low number got rolled up into the next age group with a handicap applied. 

This way you don't  have 1 spot for 10 people or less. It's BS & makes a joke out of the qualifying process. Make it a minimum of 50 per bracket etc 

15:2X & getting a spot for Kona is taking the piss. 

Can't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AP said:

Thanks Paul Every for a balanced reply to the thread

What's interesting here is that most of the debate is being driven by one guy who did Kona as a legacy lottery athlete and has said he was not impressed - and the other one who has said on many occasions that he has no interest in going to Kona (and that's good because he would never qualify anyway)

But so much passion from two disinterested blokes - a girl who wanted to go got the chance of a lifetime and these two debate the legitimacy of the whole process for page after page

Thanks again Paul for adding a bit of common sense to the debate 😎

As I said earlier, the main aim is to maintain the integrity and credibility of this sport and the "World Championship".  It's great having 70 year olds doing it and people that have survived cancer etc etc We need a diverse group of participants, as Sam alluded to. We don't want 2000 18 - 24 year old blokes, but we need to find a way of maintaining diversity whilst maintaining integrity. Finishing last in your AG and qualifying with 15 hours+ is not good for the sport and is probably not good for the individual. What does this woman do now, when she moves up an AG she will have to go 5 hours quicker to KQ. She'll probably quit. I'm happy for her she's going, but I'm not sure how you or anyone else can argue this is good for the sport and the credibility of the World Champs?  

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, chappy019 said:

devalue other people's achievements.

 

 

Kona is the holy grail, I think people have an issue with that being devalued, not a case of devaluing someone's achievement. The qualifying process is the problem. As someone else said earlier, chuck all the participants from the AGs with low numbers together, F18-24, M70-74 etc and give them 3 spots or whatever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zed said:

It's great having 70 year olds doing it and people that have survived cancer etc etc We need a diverse group of participants, as Sam alluded to. We don't want 2000 18 - 24 year old blokes, but we need to find a way of maintaining diversity whilst maintaining integrity.

And that's where Age Grading comes in. You get the best of each AG. If there are no "good" athletes in a particular AG at a race, then none from that group get to go, but if there is a really good performance by a 70yr old, then they certainly qualify.

At the moment, you could get the situation of a 68yr old not qualifying with a time that is 2 hours faster than a 63yr old due the the luck of the draw in the current system. Age Grading totally eliminates that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

And that's where Age Grading comes in. You get the best of each AG. If there are no "good" athletes in a particular AG at a race, then none from that group get to go, but if there is a really good performance by a 70yr old, then they certainly qualify.

At the moment, you could get the situation of a 68yr old not qualifying with a time that is 2 hours faster than a 63yr old due the the luck of the draw in the current system. Age Grading totally eliminates that.

 

Sounds like a great idea. Young lady qualified in a time slower than a 70 year old woman and 80 year old man and she's in her prime.... I think age grading is an awesome idea. Is it done in any other sports? 

 

AP (or anyone else) would you have a problem with age grading?

Edited by zed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan in the past have you taken aim at able bodied men under 50 who can't crack a certain time or qualify as not wanting it enough?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chappy019 said:

So i guess if we are changing the Kona qualification to the best 50 across any age group we should do the same for the ITU world champs as well?

I am an average 70.3 and olympic distance athlete so either are of no bearing to me personally.

I just don't understand how there doesn't seem to be the same conversation about athletes who "qualify" to represent Australia in years where the event is held overseas where qualification is essentially pay to go and few if any age groups take the maximum allocation per age group. Are they any less worthy of calling themselves an australian representative then this girl is of a Kona qualifier? 

It's not like the qualification process for Kona isn't known before the event - no one can complain that the goal posts are moved on them after the fact.

Actually that conversation has been had quite a few times. And there are people who get worked up about that subject too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A2K said:

Actually that conversation has been had quite a few times. And there are people who get worked up about that subject too. 

aint that the truth..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

AP (or anyone else) would you have a problem with age grading?

I don't have a problem with the present system - each age group gets a place - if you think its soft and you want it - turn up - if you sit back behind your keyboard bitchin about it - but you don't enter what have you got to say

Whatever they change it to - if they bother to change it based on the opinions of a small minority of people who hardly ever race - then I'd still be racing because I enjoy the whole process - the training - the racing - the roll downs - the presentations and the after party :whistling:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AP said:

I don't have a problem with the present system - each age group gets a place - if you think its soft and you want it - turn up - if you sit back behind your keyboard bitchin about it - but you don't enter what have you got to say

Whatever they change it to - if they bother to change it based on the opinions of a small minority of people who hardly ever race - then I'd still be racing because I enjoy the whole process - the training - the racing - the roll downs - the presentations and the after party :whistling:

Cool.

I'm just shootin' the sh!t not bitchin' :)

 

Edited by zed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, AP said:

I don't have a problem with the present system

Of course you don't. You benefit from the system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely understand as athletes the "feel" of the devaluation of the qualification process.

but doesn't an organisation who by it's own admission offers spots that can be auctioned off to the highest bidder to attend, devalue its own world championship / brand? Surely if they as the owners of the event don't have a problem with its commercialisation / devaluation do any of us really think that they have an issue with the qualifying times of its attendees?

To me it's kind of like the active fee conversation - you know the rules and either opt in and play by them or you don't. Opting in and then complaining about them after the fact is pointless.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember being st cairns in 2015 and Pete Murray said at the start of roll down "this system just works" I missed by one spot and honestly could not agree more.  

 

Also to the person who said she came last in her age group, she also came second.

 

Edit to add - I am in an easy age group though so my opinion may be biased.

Edited by RunBrettRun
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, chappy019 said:

I completely understand as athletes the "feel" of the devaluation of the qualification process.

but doesn't an organisation who by it's own admission offers spots that can be auctioned off to the highest bidder to attend, devalue its own world championship / brand? Surely if they as the owners of the event don't have a problem with its commercialisation / devaluation do any of us really think that they have an issue with the qualifying times of its attendees?

 

 

 

Yeah the point is moot. Ironman couldn't give a f**k. Lottery, celebrity spots, legend status etc etc It's a shame Challenge aren't proving more of a competition to them, they just do what they want. It's all about the $$.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, AP said:

I don't have a problem with the present system

 

16 minutes ago, Bored@work said:

Of course you don't. You benefit from the system.

Given that AP often podiums at Kona, he would most likely qualify using age grading as well. You still get the best of each AG along, but you just don't get the ones lucky enough to be in a small AG and get a KQ with a time 2 hours slower than the winner of that AG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone care to let me know what a young female needs to do in order to legitimately qualify and not be questioned or scrutinized by the tri community? 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tossacoin said:

Anyone care to let me know what a young female needs to do in order to legitimately qualify and not be questioned or scrutinized by the tri community? 

 

She's not being questioned, the qualification process and "World Championship" status is being questioned. The qualification process is flawed and calling the race a "World Championship" is a misnomer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tossacoin said:

Anyone care to let me know what a young female needs to do in order to legitimately qualify and not be questioned or scrutinized by the tri community? 

 

3 minutes ago, zed said:

She's not being questioned, the qualification process and "World Championship" status is being questioned. The qualification process is flawed and calling the race a "World Championship" is a misnomer. 

Finally.  Thankyou.  Not one person has questioned this girl getting a spot doing 15hrs.  She raced.  She came second.  She qualified.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×