The WTC Ranking system!

tim cronk

Results are out for the WTC rankings.   They rank you by country , world , IM , HIM, and combined.   Definitely not a perfect system and rewards those that race the most taking your top 3 races.   So anyone who completes 3 IM's in 1 year will probably rank pretty high in the IM and combined category since the IM ranks higher than the HIM.

I'm certainly pleased with my results ranking  2nd out of 1516 in the US , and 4th out of 4170 in the World for the M50-54AG.   Just to illustrate how unrealistic the ranking system is.... I was 2/186 @ IMTX , 2/288 @IMFL , and 76/175 @ KONA the World Championship.  But according to WTC I'm still in the top 1%.....

Its obvious WTC went this direction to generate more racing within their races.  The real concern is if they start to use some type of ranking system for Kona Qualifying like they do with the pro's....  So while its fun too look I sure hope this isn't the beginning of something else. 

Just for grins this prompted me to look up USAT rankings for my AG....    2013 I ranked 30/2795  or top 11% (a far cry from the 1% WTC).....  They still use your top 3 races similar to WTC but since many more athletes will complete 3 qualifying races the results are a lot more realistic!

What are the thoughts about ranking system to KQ?

Will you change your races to more WTC?

Will you race more longer distance races?

Edwin Croucher

Anyway you shake it Tim, you had a great year of racing. I would be doing back flips for just one of your finishes. Of course, I would have to wait a week or so after the race first. As far as more racing, probably not in the near future. I would like to get 3 races in during a year. However, those IM dollars are big and I still have lots of family needs. 

Brad Marcus

Interesting stuff. My wife and I both raced 2 HIM's in 2013. When she got the email that she was top 10% from WTC I was not surprised. I was more surprised when I checked my inbox and saw the same email. Although my times are respectable, I do not think I finished top 10% in either race. So, what Tim says makes sense - the more you race, the better. It seems that WTC might use this as a tool to not only get folks to race more, but to race Ironman events. For Tim, seems very deserving. For someone like me at this point....I'll take it, but don't feel like I earned it.

Dino Sarti

Two IMs got me a silver.... Pretty cool in my house.

zwuba

I got silver too for one IM and one HIM!

Al Truscott

In what I'd considered a pretty medicore year, I was 107/1216 world wide and 56/556 in US. Fun, but I'd rather focus on individual races. I don't see much honor in a system where someone who only races twice and wins both "loses" to someone who wins nothing and races three times. IMO, fairer would be a simple "low score wins", using average race placement, with ties going to person who races more.

rlh2000

Agree with Al. While I'd be a ways off from placing regardless, financially, this isn't even a goal I can shoot for. While WTC races are popping up more and more, they still usually mean expensive entries + travel. To do that at least 3x/yr puts this out of reach of many, as well as discourages people from doing non-WTC races if they are shooting for a ranking (and I am sure this is part of the plan). I really hope they don't go this route for Kona qualifying. This sport already has a huge financial bias, and that would just inflate the problem more.

GMAN 19030

I can almost guarantee that WTC is moving to an AGR system for Kona qualification. Not sure how they would do it but I'd bet it's coming.

Just brainstorming...

- Give each AG winner at each IM an automatic slot. Make that the only guaranteed slot. That's 26 automatic slots (potentially assuming at least 1 per AG) x 34 qualifying races = 884 automatic slots. If the AG winner doesn't want the auto slot it will roll down until it's taken.

- The other 1000 or so slots are at large slots based on the AGR. % of AG to the total IM and 70.3 participants equals that number of slots. So if the M40-44 AG accounts for 10% they would get 100 slots. That goes straight from the rankings. So the first 100 that are not auto qualifiers in the rankings will get an invite with roll downs occurring until all 100 slots are taken.

- Yes, this means the female AG's and older AG's will lose much of the slots they have enjoyed over the years in a system that was statistically unfair to the four AG's in the M30-49 range. Sure the race will be very M30-49 heavy but so be it. The math is the math. Get over it. If your AG only accounts for 1% of the total field you shouldn't be getting 4% of the slots. Likewise, if the AG accounts for 20% of the field they should get more than 10% of the slots.

- Will this lead to point chasing? Absolutely. That's to WTC's benefit.

- Keep the lottery as is.

William Jenks

The USAT system is statistically pretty sound.

Coach Rich

As the Season Planning Guy, I think I'm on the front of conversations about why/how people choose the races they do. Decisions are made overwhelming according to personal criteria of cost, proximity, timing, etc. I don't see (sane, well-balanced) people racing more frequently due to WTC rankings that are self-serving. 

IOW, it's curiosity and will make for an annual spike in "check out my medal" posting on Facebook but nothing more, really. 

Now, Bob's prediction/proposal certainly raises some interesting questions...

robin sarner

I like doing 2-3 ims per year

If a new system would favor me, great. But i believe that it will make it harder, based on the company's record.

GMAN 19030

Posted By Rich Strauss on 17 Feb 2014 09:33 AM

I don't see (sane, well-balanced) people racing more frequently due to WTC rankings that are self-serving. 

Have you ever met a triathlete? 

Paul Hough

At Bob, Rich, there is no doubt that an age group KPR system would encourage more frequent racing by mentally unbalanced people like myself. I wouldn't do it every year, but I could see myself throwing down during a designated year to rack up the points. Plus, the Honey Badger is exhibit one that triathletes will do crazy things, and not just for the WTC "medal."

Dave Tallo

Posted By Bob McCallum on 15 Feb 2014 12:25 PM


I can almost guarantee that WTC is moving to an AGR system for Kona qualification. Not sure how they would do it but I'd bet it's coming.



Just brainstorming...



- Give each AG winner at each IM an automatic slot. Make that the only guaranteed slot. That's 26 automatic slots (potentially assuming at least 1 per AG) x 34 qualifying races = 884 automatic slots. If the AG winner doesn't want the auto slot it will roll down until it's taken.



- The other 1000 or so slots are at large slots based on the AGR. % of AG to the total IM and 70.3 participants equals that number of slots. So if the M40-44 AG accounts for 10% they would get 100 slots. That goes straight from the rankings. So the first 100 that are not auto qualifiers in the rankings will get an invite with roll downs occurring until all 100 slots are taken.



- Yes, this means the female AG's and older AG's will lose much of the slots they have enjoyed over the years in a system that was statistically unfair to the four AG's in the M30-49 range. Sure the race will be very M30-49 heavy but so be it. The math is the math. Get over it. If your AG only accounts for 1% of the total field you shouldn't be getting 4% of the slots. Likewise, if the AG accounts for 20% of the field they should get more than 10% of the slots.



- Will this lead to point chasing? Absolutely. That's to WTC's benefit.



- Keep the lottery as is.

This, or very very small variations on the above.  Maybe podium winners KQ in certain AGs, winner in others.  And lottery spots remain the license to print $$$.     

 

Paul Hough

@ Bob and Dave - if the AG winner still gets a guaranteed slot under a KPR-like system then I don't see how your proposed system will reduce much of the slots that now go to the older AGs since petty much, for M55 and up, there is only 1 to begin with.

I am not complaining either way and have nothing to get over, but I think the whining that comes from the 30-49 age groups about the current system is made without benefit of understanding how much harder it is to continue competing as you get older. The folks in the 70 and up age groups have more than earned their designated slots and I think it is far more challenging to just toe the line at that age then it is to KQ at the younger ages.

GMAN 19030

Paul, statistics have proven time and time again the M30-49 AG's get screwed. They account for probably 60% of the field but get 40% of the slots.

The women have statistically faired better than the older male AG's due to WTC's archaic formula in which unused slots must remain within the gender. That resulted in some wacky allocations were some female AG would get 2 slots even though they accounted for 1% of the field while the M40-44 got 6 slots but accounted for 20% of the field. The older males also get slots they should probably not statistically deserve due to WTC's formula. Some folks at ST did some good analysis of this last year and some guy more or less figured out WTC's "secret" formula. I can search for it later if you'd like.

You're right in that nothing would change in regard to auto qualifying spots for some of the smaller AG's but the remaining slots would be based purely on the AG's % vs the total %... which is not how the current system works.

Paul Hough

Bob - your argument is based on the premise that slots be allocated in proportion to entries. I am making a premise that older age groups deserve their allocation under the theory that it is much more difficult for them to even make the starting line. Take a look at the entries in each AG. After 50 the entries tend to drop by 50% each 5 years. The physical barrier to just get to the starting line of an IM is massively more difficult in the upper age groups than it is for athletes in their 30s and 40s. Looking at the percentage of entries as the sole criterion for slots would make sense only if the physical challenge to prepare were equal for all age groups. Neither approach is intrinsically more "fair" than the other, it's just a different perspective. But I reject the charge that the current allocation gives older folks more than they "statistically deserve" especially when statistics prove that the race is ever so much more challenging as you age. If you are still racing ironman in 15-20 years...and the odds are long against it ... you may come to agree with my viewpoint.

Al Truscott

For some reason, this discussion is reminding me of The Who's song, Roger Daltrey singing Pete Townsend's words: "Hope I die before I get old". Otherwise, I'm trying very hard not to comment.

GMAN 19030

Posted By Paul Hough on 20 Feb 2014 09:43 PM


Bob - your argument is based on the premise that slots be allocated in proportion to entries. I am making a premise that older age groups deserve their allocation under the theory that it is much more difficult for them to even make the starting line. Take a look at the entries in each AG. After 50 the entries tend to drop by 50% each 5 years. The physical barrier to just get to the starting line of an IM is massively more difficult in the upper age groups than it is for athletes in their 30s and 40s. Looking at the percentage of entries as the sole criterion for slots would make sense only if the physical challenge to prepare were equal for all age groups. Neither approach is intrinsically more "fair" than the other, it's just a different perspective. But I reject the charge that the current allocation gives older folks more than they "statistically deserve" especially when statistics prove that the race is ever so much more challenging as you age. If you are still racing ironman in 15-20 years...and the odds are long against it ... you may come to agree with my viewpoint.

I certainly don't discount what you're saying but I'm a firm believer in fair and equitable and basing slots of percentages is just the most fair and equitable way of doing things.  I don't say that with any bias since I'm 44 years old and within the group that gets screwed the most.  I will have this same feeling in 10 years.

Statistically speaking, the older AG's deserve 0 slots so the 1 slot they already get is charity enough.