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

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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×