Tri Talk Triathlon Podcast

The audio for this podcast can be found here.

Presenting the Tri Talk Kona Index of Qualifiers. An attempt to objectively quantify the relative difficulty of qualifying for the Ironman Championships in Kona, Hawaii at each of the qualifying world-wide full Ironman events. An exclusive report, today on Tri Talk.

Welcome to Tri Talk, your podcast source for triathlon tips, training, news and more. My goal at Tri Talk is to help you swim, bike, and run faster, to meet your personal triathlon goals. Whether you are an elite or amateur triathlete, we cover sprint distance to Ironman distance. I’m your host, David Warden, and this is Tri Talk episode 39.

If you have absolutely no interest in Ironman distance racing, let alone trying to qualify for Hawaii, don’t worry, episode 40 will released soon, following this Tri Talk special report, and will contain information relevant to all triathlon race distances. I decided to take what would have been one longer episode and split it into two smaller episodes, so those of you without a love for Ironman racing could choose whether or not to listen. However, I encourage you stick around and I think you will learn something new.

You can, as always, send in your questions or comments or questions to david@tri-talk.com .

The purpose of episode 39 is to try and answer the question that almost any Kona hopeful has asked: In which qualifying Ironman event can I perform the slowest, and still make it to Hawaii. If you or someone you love has a goal of qualifying for Hawaii, the following report is something I believe that can significantly influence an athlete’s ability to qualify.

Getting to Hawaii is the dream of many triathletes. The athletes who qualify for Hawaii represent the best in their age group, and almost without exception it is due to that athlete’s dedication and tremendous hard work. One has to finish in approximately the top 3% of their age group in order to qualify.

I should first review the process by which an athlete can qualify for Ironman Hawaii.

There are currently 21 full Ironman and 7 half-ironman races worldwide in which an athlete can qualify for Hawaii. Each of these races allocates between 20 and 120 slots to the top finishers in each age group. Age groups are the traditional age groups that you see in almost any triathlon, men or women age 18-24, age 25-29, age 30-34, etc. Each age group is given at least one Hawaii slot if there are any athletes registered to race in that age group. The remaining slots are allocated proportionally to the number of participants in that age group for that race. For example, lets say you are competing in Ironman Germany, which allocates 120 slots to Hawaii. To make things simple, let’s say that there are 20 age groups with at least one participant, leaving 100 slots left to allocate. If 20% of the participants were M30-34, then that age group would get an additional 20 slots for a total of 21. If 3% of the field were W35-39, then that age group would get 3% of the remaining slots, or 3 of the 100 remaining, for a total of 4. If there are no participants in a particular age group, then that slot is given to the most populated age group of the same gender. If there were no W65-69 in a race, for example, the women’s age group with the most participants would get that extra slot. Once the allocation is set, the fastest finishers in that group get to claim those spots. If M30-34 had 21 slots, the first 21 of that age group across the finish line can go to Hawaii.

After the race, participants can claim their spot to Hawaii. However, if for some reason they choose not to claim that spot, it rolls down to the next fastest triathlete in that age group, and you must be present to claim that slot. It is not uncommon for a slot to roll down several places due to athletes choosing to not claim the slot.

Alright, now that we have covered the qualification process, what can you do besides hard work to increase your odds of getting one of those spots? Let me make something clear up front. The report I am going to share with you is not a magic bullet. It is not a shortcut. Your training, hard work, and genetics will always be 95% of your performance potential. But if you are a long time listener to Tri Talk, you know that the difference between 1st and 20th place can be just a small percentage. That last 5% of your potential boils down to how you apply the science and strategy of triathlon to your racing and even race venue selection.

I believe that the odds of qualifying for the Ironman Championships can be significantly influenced based on the race venue in which you choose to attempt to qualify. There is definitely a difference in difficulty for certain age groups for certain races. Racing in age group A at race B may be much more difficult to qualify for than racing in that same age group for race C.

Before I introduce the Kona I.Q., let’s talk about how athletes currently decide which Ironman race to try and qualify for.

The first reason is economical. You may only be able to afford to travel to the nearest Ironman race to your home. This is a completely valid selection process. I don’t want you to review the Kona I.Q. and think that you have to travel to Brazil to qualify. The Kona I.Q. is most beneficial to those who have some flexibility in their travel.

The second method Kona hopefuls often employ is choosing a race based on qualifying spots. Surely, choosing a race that has 120 total spots is better than a race with only 80 spots? Let’s take a look at that reasoning. If your age group typically represents 5% of a race with 120 spots, but 10% at a race with 80 spots, you’d be better off at the race with only 80 qualifying spots, because there are more spots for your particular age group.

Third, the time of year that the race takes place makes a difference as well. Often, the last qualifiers of the year have less fit athletes competing, because those athletes have already claimed their spot in a previous Ironman, or even if they do compete, they have already claimed a spot in a previous even that year, and the slot rolls down.

Finally, race course topography or environmental conditions may be a primary decision making factor. Choosing a race that gives you an advantage based on your strengths, such as good performance in hills or hot conditions, is a smart way to select your qualifier.

This individual selection process should not (and in some cases, cannot) be replaced by the Kona I.Q. Rather, I hope to add value to you by adding an objective race ranking report in the event that you have the ability to choose between qualifiers. All other individual factors being equal, one race may be easier to qualify for than another for your age group.

The Tri Talk Kona Index of Qualifiers (or Kona I.Q.) is an attempt to objectively quantify the relative difficulty of qualifying for Hawaii at each of the 21 qualifying world-wide full Ironman events. I propose that there are other, less-tangible factors that draw to a race either a higher number athletes in a certain age group and/or athletes with a higher (or lower) level of performance. High or low numbers of athletes from either of these two categories at an event could significantly influence the ability to qualify. The best case scenario for an Ironman hopeful, despite all the factors I listed above (finances, time of year, qualifying slots, strengths, topography, etc), the best race for a Kona hopeful is to race in a race that has a high number of individuals in their age group, (thereby increasing the total slots for that age group) and that those individuals competing in that age-group have a lower level of fitness than you. I think that there is enough data on Ironman qualifiers to crunch the numbers, to find the races that have that magic criteria, and this is what the Kona I.Q. is all about.

The Kona I.Q. is based on a simple formula that establishes relative baseline race difficulty, and matches that to the performance of the last (slowest) qualifying time for that age group. A percentage is then assigned to each age group for each race. That percentage represents how much slower the last qualifier was relative to the top finishers for that event. Therefore, a race where the last qualifier for a particular age group was 20% slower than the top finishers would theoretically be easier to qualify for than a race where the last qualifier was 10% slower than the top finishers for that race.

So, I have taken all 20 full Ironman races, and looked at 3 years of data on what the last qualifying time was for each age group for the person who accepted the slot. In other words, how slow can you be and still qualify. But, I didn’t just based the ease of qualifying on the slowest qualifying time, because races like Ironman Wisconsin takes 45 minutes longer for the top 3 pros to finish over the last 3 years when compared to Ironman Austria. So, a slow last qualifying time may be due to a tough course or tough weather conditions, and not necessarily because the field has less fit participants. Instead of ranking the qualifiers based on the overall last qualifying times, they are ranked based on the last qualifying time relative to the top 3 finishers. An age group where the last qualifier finished 2 hours behind the pros may actually be a better choice to try and qualify for than a race where the last qualifier finished 2.25 hours behind the pros. This is because the that longer finish time behind the pros may be more of a reflection of the course difficulty than of the athlete’s fitness, and therefore a more accurate measurement of an Ironman race’s level of qualifying difficulty is the last qualifying time relative to the top finish times for that day.

With the Kona I.Q. at tri-talk.com, you can take a look at a ranking of all full Ironman races by age group, and see which race would theoretically be the most easy, or most difficult for you to qualify at. Again, there are many individual factors when choosing your venue to attempt to qualify, but if you have a choice between races, I hope that this will assist you.

This report should encompass all the ambiguous elements that go into age-group difficulty for that race. If a particular race has better performing athletes not claim their spot, and those spots roll down, the report should reflect that because it uses the time of the last person who claimed the spot, not the last time that should have claimed the spot. If a particular race draws a high number of a certain age group, for whatever reason, cultural, financial, even political, and therefore increases the number of slots and last qualifying time, that will reflect in the data as well.

Now, there are 20 Ironman events and 20 age groups per event. I obviously cannot go over all 400 data points. I encourage you to go to tri-talk.com and look for your particular age group or race. However, let me give you some examples. If you are a male 30-34, based on the last year of Ironman results, you could have been 23% slower than the top pros at Ironman Brazil and still qualified. However, for that same year at Ironman UK, you would have had to have been only 8% behind the pros to get that last spot, you’d have to be pretty fast at that race. However, that does not mean that UK is a bad race to try and qualify. If you are a female 25-29, then the UK race would be a great race to attempt to qualify based on last years Ironman events, where you could be almost 50% slower than the pros and still qualify, and is ranked #2 in the Kona I.Q. for that female age group.

Or, if you are a male 50-54, the race in which that age group had the slowest last qualifier relative to the pros was Ironman Austria, and the fastest qualifiers in that age group came from Ironman Western Australia. Your best bet for a woman 30-34? Ironman France had the slowest last qualifier.

There are some other interesting observations I found from producing this report. Any race that draws a high number of Europeans, Australians, or New Zealanders becomes a very competitive race, and difficult to qualify. I don’t want to get anyone’s regional, nationalistic, or patriotic blood boiling, but triathletes from Europe, Australia, and New Zealand are just freaking fast. If you don’t believe me, go try and find the last time someone west of the Prime Meridian won the Ironman Championships. There are very few age groups who had slow last qualifying times in those regions. Another note on Ironman Florida, it has a significant triathlon community, and therefore draws a high number of fit athletes from that regions, and also a noteable draw from Europe, and therefore is one of the more difficult races to qualify for in North America.

The Kona I.Q. is presented in both a 1-year index, based on the last year of results, and also a 3-year index for races with at least 3 years of race results. Some races are excluded from the 3-year index because they don’t have 3 years of history yet. After significant review of the data, I believes that the 1-year index is a superior forecast for the following year’s races, but I have included the 3-year index as well. When you visit the Kona I.Q., you will note the exclusion of analysis of any qualifying 70.3 event, or half-Ironman. There are 7 qualifiers to Kona at the half-Ironman distance. However, because only one 70.3 event offers more qualifying spots than the other 21 full Ironman venues (Buffalo Springs), it is assumed that a 70.3 race will be, in general, more difficult to qualify for than at a full Ironman. This is certainly not true across the board, and does not apply to athletes with strong performance at that 70.3 distance. 70.3 Kona qualifiers will be integrated into the Kona I.Q. at a later date, as will a separate 70.3 I.Q. for the Clearwater 70.3 Championships. It will also be updated twice a year with the previous 6 months of race results. Look for an updated Kona I.Q. this fall.

Finally, a note to critics of this report. I will repeat that this report is only the last piece of a significant journey. Training and genetics will ultimately determine your ability to qualify. This report is at best informative and at worst, simply trivia. Some of the flaws are obvious. Age groups that have a low level of participation, and therefore a small sample size, are at great risk of a significant margin of error. In looking at the data, the 18-24 age group and age groups over 55 in particular could be radically mis-reported based on just one qualifier due to lower participation. However, this is why I have included the 3-year index, containing 3 years of data, to help mitigate this problem, increase the sample size, and reduce the margin of error.

I wish you the best in your personal triathlon goals, and want you to know that you can achieve your dream of making it to Hawaii.

Thanks for sticking around for this report. I’ll be publishing episode 40 very quickly after this episode, and I’ll be talking about branched chain amino acids, with a follow up report on cadence and water temperature. See you soon!