Interesting IM article

Someday I want to run the Boston Marathon.  If they move all the qualifing spots to 5K races I will never make it in.  Why?  I'm not fast, I can run long and steady I just can not run short and fast.  If you could only get into Boston at a 5K you would see alot of people walking at the end.

Moving the IM Kona spots to a 1/2IM would do the same thing.  You are going to end up with a bunch of people that can smoke the first half of the race but then suffer and put their health at risk for the second half. 

That’s how they use to do it years ago... You would qualify at Olys or HIM for Kona... I am not sure what’s my position about this article but I do know that for us AGers it might be tough to do more than IM a year (note - I never done one before) Think about qualifying at Canada or LP and then racing a few months later at Kona… again I never done one so I don’t know, but I know after doing a marathon my body doesn’t recover for like a month or more…

I totally disagree with this article. I know several people who can smoke a HIM but have no desire to go longer and finish a full. The HIM distance also is still short enough to "race" for the athlete who has a decent amount of time to train, whereas a Full IM is a race of attrition for the average age grouper. The difference between HIM and IM racing is much more than just doubling the distance.

Another point, most of us will never qualify for Kona, and if we do the odds of doing it year in and year out are small. If you are the caliber of athlete that is able to qualify year after year then (theoretically) you have the capacity to train AND RECOVER faster and better than we mere mortals. From a personal standpoint, if I am ever fortunate enough to qualify for the Big Kahuna at an IM then I could really care less if I do anything but finish in Kona, and I think that most age groupers would agree.

Just my opinion...........

About 1800 to 2000

Actually, only a few 70.3s have Kona slots.  And there is some speculation that those will be gone after 2006.  WTC seems to be moving the other direction with Kona qualification.

But I think the point is not that people couldn't choose to do multiple IMs, but those qualifying for Kona would not be required to do so.  Doing IMs is not necessarily healthy for most, especially if repeated frequently.  Recovery takes a lot longer than for a HIM from all I've learned (never done IM), it's not 2:1.

To qualify in an IM, you're going to have to be pretty competitive at the HIM distance, so I don't think this is analagous to a 5k/Boston Q.  And with Boston, I believe that you have the ability to defer your entry until the following year (qualify now, race in 2007 not 2006).  Maybe this is another option for Kona, especially for the later qualifiers like Canada and LP.

I think the idea has some merit.  They could at least move part-way and move more slots to the 70.3 series.  This might actually serve to free up some full slots for those that just want to participate in the IM events too.

Still, I doubt it happens.

Nobody says they have to take the slot.

"Just finishing" an IM is still going to take quite a bit out of you.  The author of the article based his opinions on friends & family he knows who have attributed health issues to multiple IMs done in a year.  It's valid to question whether WTC should require this for AGers who would like to race at Kona.

I think there is value in a having a field of competitors at Kona, the most elite event in triathlon, that you know can go the distance, and commit to the training to do so.  The author's main point is that two IMs in one year is too taxing for many. Putting aside his admission that this is mere opinion based on no scientific findings whatsoever, I would argue against putting all or most Kona slots into half IM qualififers.  If health is a concern, then simply make it a requirement for Kona slot winners to show they have done a prior IM in the past two or even three years.  Also, the author almost salivates at the prospect of WTC being able to increase its licensing revenues  

"Imagine what WTC could charge IMNA for the right to stage these events? Imagine what it might be able to charge the promoters of Timberman, Steelman, and the like, for Kona slots?"  

I can imagine. I see the future and it isn't cheap.

Not sure what your suggestion is here.  If you qualify for and go to Kona now (except for the handful of 70.3 slots), you have just done an IM and have another scheduled in 13 months or less (mostly less).  Proving that you have done an IM prior to this serves what purpose?

But there a lot more HIM options outside the 70.3 races (unlike IM distance).  I don't think that WTC would be able to "take over" the HIM distance the way they have with IM.  If you wanted to try to qualify, you would end up paying more (but almost certainly MUCH less all-in than you have to now with IMs).  If not, you could look to other races (or you might decide the "quality" of the 70.3s was high enough to justify an increased fee--many of the 70.3s are already at the higher end of HIM costs).

BTW, I think the author was trying to look at a possible incentive for WTC to make a move that he approves of--not salivating over their ability to do it.

I do not think this will be true AT ALL.  In fact, even some of the top pros do not do 2 IM/yr.  I don't believe Reid, Beke or Widoff (all Top 5 at Kona) raced any other IMs in 2005.  And if you qualify at a 70.3 in May or June or July, are you really going to try to squeeze in an IM before October?  I know that I certainly wouldn't.  If my goal was to qualify in a given year, I might sign up for 2 or 3 70.3s where slots were available, but not an IM somwhere in there.

Edit: Some people will continue to do multiple IMs of course.  Freedom to choose and all.  But WTC wouldn't be requiring it from the majority of those who simply want to race at Kona in a given year.

very good point

Now you are talking!

My only advice is train hard and race fast!