How long does the T100 get to continue to use that as their #1 accolade? It’s been 5 years since the first PTO championship and with Ironman having secured long term funding for the Pro Series it seems the T100 will have to again step up and be more than simply the catalyst that got IM off their ass to recognize the value of the pro athlete.
1 Like
Well they don’t really have anything else they can hang their hat on so I guess for 2 more years until they run out of money.
2 Likes
They have made us care about short course athletes in non-Olympic years which I think is great for the health of the sport. In a lot of niche sports the off Olympic years send the athletes into obscurity except for the rare ultra famous athlete. Many of the T100 athletes will return to the Olympics and will have a larger fan base bc of the exposure they have received.
I also think the T100 bridge will bring more short course athletes into long course and maybe earlier in their careers so we see them at their peak vs seeing them only as their speed starts to slow and they move into full distance. That will make full distance racing even more entertaining.
2 Likes
T100 didn’t give us a season long narrative either.
1 Like
Completely agree
I disagree to an extent. The women’s winner of the T100 comes right down to the final race in Qatar. If something happens to Hayden that could change the order of the men’s, but for the women there is drama and uncertainty until the final race has been completed.
1 Like
The final race will have drama for the series but neither of the organizations were able to turn their series into a story telling vehicle. The 3 mare race that will happen at Qatar almost popped up out of no where vs something that was part of a broader narrative. Part of that ability to tell a story will come from seeing how the series unfolds over multiple years so it will take time. IM has a bit of a leg up on that learning g curve bc they appear to have a consistent series to learn from. It may get a few tweaks but will I likely have the complete overhaul that the T100 is starting with next year. So T100 will need to accelerate their learning curve to bring that long narrative to life.
2 Likes
Jist going to chime in and say that the pod argued (Mark specifically) that you can compare the scores of the pro series between men and women - this is only true for winning scores.
If the pro women take, on average 10% longer to complete their races, then it stands that the gaps will also be 10% wider between positions (all else equal). Mark was saying that could compare Hannah Berry’s 9th place vs the 9th place in the guys - but you can’t do this because gaps would be naturally larger for the women.
Is a bit more complicated than just a flat 10% since the winner’s time is fine. So what you’d do is increase the non-win gaps by 10% relative to the win (or whatever the gender gap is for each distance) for the women, or reduce that same amount for the men.
Obviously, the men’s field is deeper so the original point still stands, but you can’t just directly compare.
1 Like
Why would you want to? Seems reasonable to let the 2 stand alone and not need to compare them cross gender. I’d be more interest to get to a point where the top 10 in both genders have major followings and are considered A players in pro triathlon.
I don’t listen to the pod until my Tues workout so my question may be answered when I listen tomorrow.
I don’t think this is right? I’m not looking at any results at the moment but the women’s placements relative to the first place women should not be materially different than those of the men.
1 Like
No real point at all. It seemed like Mark made it up when it was very likely Kat was going to finish with a higher score than any of the men. It didn’t turn out that way, though.
I remember back in 2020 during the COVID period, the PTO supported some races with prize money, but they offered one prize pot for both men and women combined, with an “equalizer” handicap time. It didn’t work very well. Comparing male and female performances is so nuanced.
If a woman comes in 2nd place, their score relative should be 10% (or thereabouts) lower than the 2nd place man’s score, assuming an equal field.
If one group takes 10% longer to complete the course, then the gaps between the athletes should also be about 10% wider.
I wasn’t thinking this was something we should do - just commentating on Mark’s comparison.
Edit to add - it doesn’t always have to be the case that the mean and standard deviations of both groups follow one another. While it is entirely possible that women are 10% slower, their results could be more closely bunched, for whatever reason. In practice, however, it does seem that women are both a certain percentage slower, and proportionally wider gaps.
I still think there’s an opportunity to stagger the races so that the women start (calculate the average of the time gaps the last few years) ahead of the men. It gives them an opportunity to be in front for most of the race, and adds in an interesting dynamic.
It can’t work for IM because you need to then manage the age groupers behind, but for some of the 70.3 pro series where the extra time is feasible, it could be an interesting play.
I was listening and thinking the exact same thing. Great minds think alike. Still, this accounts for the minority of the gap (as you note).
1 Like
Fairly sure that Mark’s point was that you can compare the female winner to the male winner for an overall view on the top athlete of the year… not that you can make any comparisons further down the rankings. That’s why he made reference to who was closer to the ‘perfect score’
Elite rant from Talbot this week on why Jimmy Riccitello needs to go. I think he’s right.
Jimmy should just go watch his son race in Europe all year. Seems like it would be proper fun.
1 Like
Was a solid rant .
Talbot loves cancel culture, so it’s not surprising.
I few things are obvious
- pros need 20 m
- Discs are ok
I am thinking that’s really it .
Hey, just wanted to jump in here because I probably should’ve been a little more clear in the episode.
I’m not saying everything Jimmy has ever done is bad. He’s done a lot for the sport over the years, especially in helping shape and organize the rulebook we race under today. There’s plenty of positive there, and I’m not trying to erase that.
The issue I’m raising isn’t really “me vs. Jimmy.” It’s that I’m speaking on behalf of the pros and a lot of them won’t say anything publicly because they don’t want the headache or the potential consequences. But behind the scenes, this is a 90–10 issue. Almost every pro wants this rule updated. The sport has evolved, race dynamics have evolved, and the draft effect at 12 meters is just not a secret anymore.
You even had a multi-world champion on the phone with Scott this past week literally begging for the move to 20 meters out of fairness for the Ironman Pro Series. That’s how strongly the athletes feel about it.
And yes, Jimmy doesn’t have the final say. World Tri and the Ironman executive team make the formal decisions. But Jimmy does have enormous influence on how the rules are interpreted, how testing is done, what gets pushed forward, and what doesn’t. That’s just the reality of how the sport is structured. And when someone with that much influence has been strongly against moving to 20 meters for years, it shapes everything including the testing protocols.
This isn’t some personal crusade. This has been going on for over a decade. The athletes have asked for this over and over. The sport has changed. The data is there. The fairness issues are obvious. And to feel like nothing is moving because one person is stuck in a different era of the sport is incredibly frustrating for the pros who are out there racing for their careers.
So that’s really all I was trying to get across. I’m not just speaking for myself. I’m echoing what the majority of the field has been saying privately for years. And honestly, they deserve to be heard.
Thanks for listening @Lagoon we all with ya on this one!
@Triathletetoth
And I don’t support cancel culture haha. I am the opposite. haha I believe you should be hired on Marit. Marit is doing the correct thing and doing your job well.
4 Likes
I’m going to disagree on this one, especially for the women’s race.
Triathlon isn’t just about who can exercise the best, its also about making tactical choices as part of the race. This comes with a decision whether or not to sit in a group, or attack off the front. And if there’s no draft benefit, there’s no tactical decision to be made.
From the last two years at Kona, it would seem that there are these types of decisions being made - Laidlow/Ditlev off the front, Kat staying with the group - which arguably made the race more enjoyable. Could Kat have won if she left the group earlier? Maybe, but at least there’s a decision there instead of trying to make the sport simulate parallel time trials.
This is especially notable on the women’s side, where there isn’t the same density in the groups as you see with the men - you want some women bunching up as part of race design.
5 Likes
Haha I know “ you “ it’s a joke I knew it would poke the bear . Haha
Too easy . Relax
1 Like