login
NY Times Article (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2010-10-24 5:55 PM in reply to: #3169255 |
New user  433  |  Subject: RE: NY Times Article LOL..wind tunnel, what lake shore in the winter. While the facts of the article might be challenged it does point out some common trends, not 100% full sample size: - middle to high middle class incomes = Tris can be expensive, even a local sprint Tri , 60 fees - mid 30s to mid 40s make up the field = yes there are people above and below this range, but its not a 20 something sport or college to pro sport - lower risk of injury compared to straight running = in general but any excess and/or overtraining can lead to injuries -I may have missed this, but I would guess higher average of sport with people college degrees= but so is pro Basketball, Base Ball, Football, My opinion is it tends to draw people with average to above average intelligence, I think this may be due to the technical + physical skills needed for the sport. How many people read the SRM vs Shamino Article? - I think Tris draw in a larger group of very friendly, supportive, non-cut throat to win attitude, people. If you compare Tris to Pro Cycling, there is always a rival going on. E.G. look at this Website and all the free supportive advice that is giving. - I think Tri folks tend to be have a higher degree of self discipline that drives them. How many years does it take a person to KQ? I'm sure its not for a pay check. |
| 2010-10-25 5:06 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
| 1 | Subject: RE: NY Times Article The article “Triathletes, 40-Somethings, Going for Youth” (October 22 online, October 24, 2010 print), spotlighted the growing popularity of a sport with tremendous health benefits. As an athlete profiled in that article, I would like to clear up some inaccuracies and misstatements that were associated with me. When agreeing to participate, I hoped the article would help to encourage persons of all ages, sexes, races, and even physical abilities to consider multi-sport as a means of improving lifetime fitness. That is my main focus for doing the sport. This article was a missed opportunity to highlight the benefits for anyone who commits to doing their best to stay fit; instead, it implied an unnecessary competition between sexes and financial brackets. These generalizations have nothing to do with me or how I participate in triathlons. Unfortunately I had no control over what was written. The average participant that I know spends approximately 1k on ALL their gear from sites like Ebay and only a few hundred on races. In fact, many volunteer at a race one year to get a free entry for the following year. I would hope the artical does not discourage anyone from entering a sport as wonderful as triathlons which are full of energetic, accepting people. Eric Goodman |
| 2010-10-25 5:23 AM in reply to: #3169053 |
| Subject: RE: NY Times Article KWin - 2010-10-24 9:59 AM I wonder why the article never bothered to mention all the women who do tris? Because the NYTimes does not see the need to belittle women as they do men. |
| 2010-10-25 7:00 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
Master 2946   Centennial, CO | Subject: RE: NY Times Article Problem with the Ave pay is it includes execs making millions of dollars that skews the results. I say that because in todays society there really aren't that many people making $175,000 when you also note that Triathletes make up .04% of the population. Just my guess. I hate when they throw out these numbers because I know I don't make that kind of money, and I know I have a decent paying job. I also know the other triathletes around me aren't making that much. So somewhere the numbers are skewed... (Note I know maybe 1 out of about 30 triathletes in the range of $175,000... And that is a dual income home. |
| 2010-10-25 7:09 AM in reply to: #3169834 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: NY Times Article velocomp - 2010-10-25 7:00 AM Problem with the Ave pay is it includes execs making millions of dollars that skews the results. I say that because in todays society there really aren't that many people making $175,000 when you also note that Triathletes make up .04% of the population. Just my guess. I hate when they throw out these numbers because I know I don't make that kind of money, and I know I have a decent paying job. I also know the other triathletes around me aren't making that much. So somewhere the numbers are skewed... (Note I know maybe 1 out of about 30 triathletes in the range of $175,000... And that is a dual income home. USAT's most recent study (2008) breaks incomes down into classes as follows: Income Average income: $126,000 12.9% have incomes under $50K 14.5% have incomes $50-74,999 16% have incomes $75-$99,999 23.4% have incomes $100-$149,999 12.1% have incomes $150-$199,999 8.4% have incomes $200-$299,999 5.5% have incomes over $300K Doing math in my head i come up with 26% with incomes over $150K, nearly 14% over $200K, quite a bit more than 1 out of 30. |
| 2010-10-25 8:35 AM in reply to: #3169053 |
Regular 247 | Subject: RE: NY Times Article KWin - 2010-10-24 9:59 AM I wonder why the article never bothered to mention all the women who do tris? In addition to making it seem like all triathletes are rich, it makes it seem like they're all men. I wish they'd do an article that shows the wide variety of people of all ages, both genders, and all economic levels who do tris, AND that makes it seem like a more down-to-earth, accessible sport. Sure you can spend a ton of money, but you can also go cheaper. This article would make non-triathletes feel like it's too exclusive and expensive for them to even think about getting into. The article I'd like to see is one that mentions that no one at your first sprint is gonna care if you have a used, old bike and wear shorts and a t-shirt for the bike and run: just show up and join the fun, get fit and be happy. Any age, any size, any job (not just executives), come on in. I thought the article was a little too gender specific as well. They comment on the “testosterone filled” Lave publication, but if I remember correctly the most recent magazine had an article about training while pregnant and had two women on the cover. |
| 2010-10-25 8:39 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
| 56 | Subject: RE: NY Times Article Remember, it's supposed to be an interesting story, not an ad for the sport. I think it's interesting the sport is such a hit with middle age, well to do men. And this article confirms that being a triathlete can be good for networking. In fact, I recently joined a race team with some people who could be very, very helpful to my career. The article made me think that endurance sports may be the new golf. And thank goodness for that, I have no patience for golf! |
| 2010-10-25 8:42 AM in reply to: #3169980 |
Master 1584 Fulton, MD | Subject: RE: NY Times Article 7ofClubs - 2010-10-25 9:35 AM KWin - 2010-10-24 9:59 AM I wonder why the article never bothered to mention all the women who do tris? In addition to making it seem like all triathletes are rich, it makes it seem like they're all men. I wish they'd do an article that shows the wide variety of people of all ages, both genders, and all economic levels who do tris, AND that makes it seem like a more down-to-earth, accessible sport. Sure you can spend a ton of money, but you can also go cheaper. This article would make non-triathletes feel like it's too exclusive and expensive for them to even think about getting into. The article I'd like to see is one that mentions that no one at your first sprint is gonna care if you have a used, old bike and wear shorts and a t-shirt for the bike and run: just show up and join the fun, get fit and be happy. Any age, any size, any job (not just executives), come on in. I thought the article was a little too gender specific as well. They comment on the “testosterone filled” Lave publication, but if I remember correctly the most recent magazine had an article about training while pregnant and had two women on the cover. That quote made me roll my eyes as well. There have been 2 issues of Lava, one man (Alexander, I think), and one woman (who won Kona this year). But the NYT just really makes crap up as they go, so I can't say that I'm surprised by any of it. |
| 2010-10-25 9:15 AM in reply to: #3169844 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: NY Times Article the bear - 2010-10-25 7:09 AM velocomp - 2010-10-25 7:00 AM Problem with the Ave pay is it includes execs making millions of dollars that skews the results. I say that because in todays society there really aren't that many people making $175,000 when you also note that Triathletes make up .04% of the population. Just my guess. I hate when they throw out these numbers because I know I don't make that kind of money, and I know I have a decent paying job. I also know the other triathletes around me aren't making that much. So somewhere the numbers are skewed... (Note I know maybe 1 out of about 30 triathletes in the range of $175,000... And that is a dual income home. USAT's most recent study (2008) breaks incomes down into classes as follows: Income Average income: $126,000 12.9% have incomes under $50K 14.5% have incomes $50-74,999 16% have incomes $75-$99,999 23.4% have incomes $100-$149,999 12.1% have incomes $150-$199,999 8.4% have incomes $200-$299,999 5.5% have incomes over $300K Doing math in my head i come up with 26% with incomes over $150K, nearly 14% over $200K, quite a bit more than 1 out of 30. Pretty cool link/data. I found this there; 7% are Under 25 12.8% are 25-29 15.7% are 30-34 19.9% are 35-39 17.3% are 40-44 12.1% are 45-49 7.5% are 50-54 3.5% are 55-59 1.6% are 60-64 0.6% are 65-69 0.3% are 70+ I found it interesting that the larger AG is the 30 - 40 not the 40 - 50. |
| 2010-10-25 9:23 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
| Regular 110 Toronto | Subject: RE: NY Times Article HEY! What about all of us 40-something WOMEN who turn to triathlons to get back into shape upon discovering our bodies are horrifically out of shape? Why just men? In many ways, though, I do fit the profile... (other than my gender...) |
| 2010-10-25 9:36 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
Veteran 266 Carolina Beach | Subject: RE: NY Times Article I like to think that I'm a little bit above "average" at things. So does this mean that when I turn 40 my salary will be closer to $200,000? I can't wait! My wife will be so happy! For the record, I'm with TC. I'm a low budget tri-guy. I try to do a few local races and maybe 2 or 3 races that require travel. I ride a 2008 QR with stock rims and I take the time to shop around online for the best deal possible on my shoes and other gear. For example, I just picked up a sleeveless Xterra wetsuit for $50 on eBay. Edited by Wojo14 2010-10-25 9:52 AM |
| 2010-10-25 10:43 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
Elite 3060 N Carolina | Subject: RE: NY Times Article No way the average triathlete spends $22k a year. |
| 2010-10-25 11:10 AM in reply to: #3169451 |
Extreme Veteran 612 Chicago-ish | Subject: RE: NY Times Article chenny - 2010-10-24 5:55 PM -I may have missed this, but I would guess higher average of sport with people college degrees= but so is pro Basketball, Base Ball, Football, My opinion is it tends to draw people with average to above average intelligence, I think this may be due to the technical + physical skills needed for the sport. How many people read the SRM vs Shamino Article? Versus what? If you're talking about the pro field I don't think you're going to see a huge difference in any sport since most of the athletes that excel will get scholarships for college so they get a degree then go pro. Triathlon is an expensive sport so even though it may draw interest from all economic classes, it's easier for those with more money to equip themselves well enough to be competitive. College degrees are more standard in higher paying jobs. While higher pay is generally linked to higher intelligence, I wouldn't say that triathlon draws people who are smarter. Triathlon draws people who can afford it and those people just happen to be of average to above average intelligence. If triathlon were as cheap as bowling I'm pretty sure we'd see a more balanced spread across demographics. |
| 2010-10-25 11:10 AM in reply to: #3170375 |
New user 433 | Subject: RE: NY Times Article I 100% agree. Maybe first year and going pro, but not every year. However, do most people quit after 1 IM? So, will that be a factor? |
| 2010-10-25 11:17 AM in reply to: #3168766 |
| New Haven, CT | Subject: RE: NY Times Article sounds familiar. |
| 2010-10-27 10:18 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: NY Times Article Perhaps the K-Swiss rep is reporting to the IRS that he is giving away $22k in shoes to each sponsored athlete per year, aren't "business expenses" tax deductible? |
| 2010-10-27 10:31 AM in reply to: #3174979 |
Champion 10018 , Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: NY Times Article Are all of the figures we're seeing for income the "household income"? It doesn't specify that in the USAT demographics study, although I don't doubt that's what they are counting. I think that figure is fake and doesn't tell me much. That lumps together single and dual earners, with no other explanation. So if a person is single and makes 175k they have a very different amount of discretionary income than a family of two earners, a two high school and two college age kids, a big house, 4 cars, college tuitions, etc. I can almost see that income bracket (household only, my husband has a better job than me...) but I certainly do not have 22k to spend in one year on tris. |
| 2010-10-27 10:41 AM in reply to: #3175035 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: NY Times Article BikerGrrrl - 2010-10-27 10:31 AM Are all of the figures we're seeing for income the "household income"? It doesn't specify that in the USAT demographics study, although I don't doubt that's what they are counting. I think that figure is fake and doesn't tell me much. That lumps together single and dual earners, with no other explanation. So if a person is single and makes 175k they have a very different amount of discretionary income than a family of two earners, a two high school and two college age kids, a big house, 4 cars, college tuitions, etc. I can almost see that income bracket (household only, my husband has a better job than me...) but I certainly do not have 22k to spend in one year on tris. I has to be household. I consider myself the epitome of the average triathlete (BOPer on the course, but MOPer income-wise) and I make less than that individually but more than that collectively with my wife. While there are undoubtely many people who make that much individually, there is no way that is AVERAGE for individuals. ~Mike |
| 2010-10-27 10:41 AM in reply to: #3175035 |
Resident Curmudgeon 25290 The Road Back Gold member | Subject: RE: NY Times Article BikerGrrrl - 2010-10-27 10:31 AM The USAT-commissioned study that cites $126k as the average income specifies that it is household income. See part 2 page 6 and throughout.Are all of the figures we're seeing for income the "household income"? It doesn't specify that in the USAT demographics study, although I don't doubt that's what they are counting. I think that figure is fake and doesn't tell me much. That lumps together single and dual earners, with no other explanation. So if a person is single and makes 175k they have a very different amount of discretionary income than a family of two earners, a two high school and two college age kids, a big house, 4 cars, college tuitions, etc. I can almost see that income bracket (household only, my husband has a better job than me...) but I certainly do not have 22k to spend in one year on tris. |
| 2010-10-27 10:44 AM in reply to: #3168732 |
Expert 1168 Vancouver (not Canada) Washington (not D.C.) | Subject: RE: NY Times Article Maybe the 22k factors in lost productivity because we are arguing about what things are worth on BT...  Edited by cbrave 2010-10-27 10:44 AM |
| 2010-10-27 10:48 AM in reply to: #3170375 |
Champion 6962 Atlanta, Ga | Subject: RE: NY Times Article japarker24 - 2010-10-25 11:43 AM No way the average triathlete spends $22k a year. While it may not be $22K, I bet it's a lot more than you think. Especially if you include all of the true costs of doing this sport we love. Assuming it's your first year and you make the standard Tri purchases, include gas to each race, food while training and at the event, race entry fees, clothing, nutrition, etc... It adds up pretty quickly. It's not just bike, entry fees and hotel fees. |
| 2010-10-27 10:58 AM in reply to: #3175085 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: NY Times Article cbrave - 2010-10-27 10:44 AM Maybe the 22k factors in lost productivity because we are arguing about what things are worth on BT... LOL! Yeah, that would prolly be too low then..... |
| 2010-10-27 11:11 AM in reply to: #3175104 |
Champion 10154 Alabama | Subject: RE: NY Times Article Marvarnett - 2010-10-27 10:48 AM japarker24 - 2010-10-25 11:43 AM No way the average triathlete spends $22k a year. While it may not be $22K, I bet it's a lot more than you think. Especially if you include all of the true costs of doing this sport we love. Assuming it's your first year and you make the standard Tri purchases, include gas to each race, food while training and at the event, race entry fees, clothing, nutrition, etc... It adds up pretty quickly. It's not just bike, entry fees and hotel fees. But....but...but think of all the money we SAVE because we are healthy! We are less stressed so we spend less on counselors. And we don't have much time for golf or beers after work with the guys becuase we have a long ride scheduled on Saturday morning....so we spend less in green fees and bar tabs. :-) ~Mike |
| 2010-10-27 2:57 PM in reply to: #3168732 |
| Chicago | Subject: RE: NY Times Article Wait, in the same USAT link: Income Average income: $126,000 12.9% have incomes under $50K 14.5% have incomes $50-74,999 16% have incomes $75-$99,999 23.4% have incomes $100-$149,999 12.1% have incomes $150-$199,999 8.4% have incomes $200-$299,999 5.5% have incomes over $300K Spending (discretionary income) 50% of dollars spent on bikes and bike equipment 17% of dollars spent on race entry fees 8% of dollars on fitness clothing 11% of dollars on athletic shoes $2,274 spent on bikes in past 12 months $564 spent on race fees in past 12 months $524 spent on bike equipment $370 spent on training, running and athletic footwear $277 spent on nutritional supplements Shouldn't that add up to $4,009. I just think the KSwiss guy is wrong... wait, doesn't KSwiss sponsor Lieto?? |
| 2010-10-27 5:46 PM in reply to: #3176511 |
Pro 5361 | Subject: RE: NY Times Article $4K a year makes a lot more sense. except- there's no travel budgeted in there. Hmmm. Do cycling shoes get put into the bike equipment category? or the athletic footwear category? Are helmets clothing or an accessory? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK