Our confusing question?

BACK IT UP!

It's simple enough...

So here's the deal IM Fegan has just been raced. The slots have been ditributed as normal, 1 per age group then the rest spread out determined upon numbers.

So we look at the slots and there's 5 for the male AG 30-34, 4 for 35-39, but only 1 for M 50-54.

Bob is 53 and had a great race going second in his AG with a time of 10:05.

The last slot in the 30-34 goes to Dave in a time of 10:12.

Is it right that Dave who is 32 and is slower than Bob who is 53 gets to keep the Kona slot?

Should it be that for Age Groups with the majority of slots should only be able to take them if there aren't people who are faster than them in older Age Groups.

Obviously people in older groups should be protected, i.e Steve at 68 who wins his slot shouldn't need to compete with 30-34's but if he races quicker, should he take one of their slots if he missed out on his single slot?

I personally think you need to be faster than the rest of the field as well as your age group. So if someone older misses a slot due to low numbers in his age group but goes faster than someone who should qualify is his age group then he should get their slot.

Updated on 8/4/2009 3:07:31 AM

I think yo8u should keep your slot of earned it so it would be unfair to take it as you earned and paid for. This would just be another chance for WTC to make money

Andy

NO WAY! this takes away the idea of the age group. each age group is its own individual race to see who qualifies; thats why different age groups go off in different waves. also, what if some 18 year old won his AG but a 30 year old was faster than him? does that mean the youngster should have to forfeit his slot to a more athletically developed man?

Fegan you need to get out more...and whilst you're out there try partaking in a bit of training.

However, I would agree that qualifying when a coffin dodger is demonstrably faster than you would be hard to justify for the younger 'qualifier' and hard to take as the galloping grandad. Seems to go against the ethos for AG racing (which presumably is to give the older guy a realistic shot at 'winning') and after all it is a race so if you've overcome the (alleged) handicap of age and smacked down a young buck then to you my friend the spoils. Unless of course this is evidence of the non-competitive sport nonsense going mainstream. It's a race and if some toothless, silver fox, fuelled only by Steradent and Werthers Original, takes me in the finishing chute then I'll gladly concede the victory - albeit we'd be several hours away from Kona so it is somewhat hypothetical ;o(

Can see the point of the 18->30year old above (albeit it's now possible to win aged 20 it would seem!!) but if this was reserved to maybe over40s when there's (sadly) incontravertible eveidence that your abilities as an athlete diminish then the principle is still sound.

Not sure where the 'WTC to make money' comes into it surely there will still be the same number of qualifiers by either method? If anything they should make less money seeing as OAP's seem to get discounts on entry into everything else in life. Can't see the WTC agreeing to that - even after the recent IMT grilling!!

But what if there were way bigger numbers of coffin dodgers and consequently get a way bigger share of the slots than the younger bucks? I'm sure this already happens with age groups like 40-44 and 45-49... there are all sorts of age adjusted formulas for calculating times, so are you advocating using them here as well Fegan full force consistent deliverer so as all the fastest people qualify?

Do we all just sign more waivers to the WTC to let them use some formula that they came up with randomly rather than the current fairly transparent one?

I know, we'll let the IMT boys ask the WTC... they're bound to challenge them on all points... (c'mon guys, get WTC and Felix in a room and let them fight!)

T-rex

Yes the slower time should keep the Kona slot. if we were to do it the other way around then we need to start giving out slots for the first 75 across the line and that's it. It sucks to be him but that's life.

The older faster racer should be give the opportunity to purchase the slot from the younger age grouper for a dollar amount per minute beat, determined by the younger slower athlete. Younger dude probably needs the money and the older dude probably has the money. Younger dude probably can qualify elsewhere, and has the years to do so. Supply and demand in Ironman. Can't believe WTC hasn't come up with this idea already... they could get 10% of the sale and give it to the pros... i mean keep it.

may as well go the full hog.....

Should woman qualify if they are > 30% slower than the male field for their age group?

I think Fegan needs to listen to his ipod a little more while running, instead of thinking up questions like this. :-P

You're basically saying faster age groups should get more slots. Listen to tri-talk's podcast on USAT rankings, which requires an hour of talking to explain. I don't think we want anything that convoluted, which is what would be required to allot slots based on age group speed.

Not saying faster age groups...

Purely if you're beaten to the finish line by someone older than you, but due to statistical break down of entrants you're age group has more Kona slots to offer, then is it fair that you go on a slower time?

I think a system created to ensure that older age groupers are reward can actually backfire making the older age groups even more difficult to qualify from.

Don't know how it is overseas, but here in America, they give you a "finisher's hat" when you cross the line at Ironman. Maybe WTC can take this a step further and furnish special colored beanies or helicopter caps to any under-40-year-old athlete that crosses the finish line after any over-40-year-old athlete. That way, even if you got your Kona qualifying slot, you still know that every time you put on your stupid little hat to go show off to the world that you completed Ironman, all the fit geriatrics will know they could probably kick your ass.

While it seems logical in an isolated case such as the example given, it just doesn't work when you think about the big picture. If a 50 year old can move down to take 32 year old's slot, does that mean a 32 year old could then step down, to a typically slower age group bracket and take away a 19 year old's slot? You could then argue that same 19 year old should be able to move, if he's faster than say a 26 year old qualifier, to take away their slot. So what you're really talking about is doing away with age groups and just going with overall placing which would just be ridiculously unfair.