login
no more pros at IMFL, WI, LP, .... (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-08-05 7:54 AM in reply to: 0 |
Extreme Veteran  1986     Cypress, TX |  Subject: RE: no more pros at IMFL, WI, LP, ....Originally posted by sheesleeva Originally posted by GMAN 19030 even if your premise were true, excluding women does not make the sport grow. look at women's college basketball. just ten year ago, it was a given that 4 of the same 5 teams were making the finals, and the competitors were like h.s. playing against college teams. now, the women's tournament is much more competitive and fun to watch. cutting the number of teams - or women, because "it's watered down" is not the way to encourage young women to play. rather, the message you are sending is, women just aren't that good so we aren't giving them as may spots as the guys. you may be ok with sending young girls and teens that message, but I'm not. this last Olympics, a young woman from my home town was in the Olympics in an event in which only one American qualified - she finished somewhere in the middle of the pack in London. the message the girls got from that was not, oh, don't bother with girls, they aren't very good, rather, there has been on overwhelming interest in her sport since. by encouraging girls rather than saying why bother with girls, is how the field gets stronger. Originally posted by KathyG Given your thought that women get larger percentage of spots, why do women need more points and race more than men to get a Kona slot? It's the same ranking system but less spots. There's just less of them and even lesser quality of them. As watered down as the men pro field is the women's is even worse.
You're really barking up the wrong tree. My math above and Kathy's math pretty much show that women are given more slots at both the pro and AG level then they statistically deserve in what amounts to charity. That's the opposite of exclusionary. I'm not sure why you feel women should get equal number of slots when they account for 25% of the field. I just picked IMTX to look at and there were 2190 finishers. 1688 male and 502 female. Women got 16 or 17 slots, men 33-34. I'll let you do the math and tell me which sex got statistically screwed. Edited by GMAN 19030 2014-08-05 7:55 AM |
| 2014-08-05 8:03 AM in reply to: brigby1 |
Expert 2355 Madison, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: no more pros at IMFL, WI, LP, .... Originally posted by brigby1 Originally posted by bcagle25 Originally posted by FELTGood They will lose those second tier pros to Challenge.....2 already said it on social media Its one thing to say that, its another to act on it. Pros have been known to speak with their feet and not their voices in the past. Haven't sponsorships had a good deal of influence on this? A number kept going to WTC over races like Rev3 due to the Sponsor contracts/payouts tipping things back towards the IM branded races in spite of higher prize money and more likely payout at these others. I'm curious what the non-major pros will be doing with this. As in where they'll be racing and how their sponsor deals may be restructured. And this brings up a great point. Lots of DEVELOPING pros go straight into IM racing, and want to get all the sponsorships they can. However, they don't think about the best way to DEVELOP ATHLETICALLY over time. Having talked to several pros about going straight into IM racing once given their pro card, many would change how they started as a pro. If anything I think this reduction in pro races will help the younger athletes learn to race and develop over time, rather then stunt their growth by going straight into IM racing. |
| 2014-08-05 8:15 AM in reply to: bcagle25 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: no more pros at IMFL, WI, LP, .... Originally posted by bcagle25 Originally posted by brigby1 And this brings up a great point. Lots of DEVELOPING pros go straight into IM racing, and want to get all the sponsorships they can. However, they don't think about the best way to DEVELOP ATHLETICALLY over time. Having talked to several pros about going straight into IM racing once given their pro card, many would change how they started as a pro. If anything I think this reduction in pro races will help the younger athletes learn to race and develop over time, rather then stunt their growth by going straight into IM racing. Originally posted by bcagle25 Originally posted by FELTGood They will lose those second tier pros to Challenge.....2 already said it on social media Its one thing to say that, its another to act on it. Pros have been known to speak with their feet and not their voices in the past. Haven't sponsorships had a good deal of influence on this? A number kept going to WTC over races like Rev3 due to the Sponsor contracts/payouts tipping things back towards the IM branded races in spite of higher prize money and more likely payout at these others. I'm curious what the non-major pros will be doing with this. As in where they'll be racing and how their sponsor deals may be restructured. Dumbest. Thing. Ever. |
| 2014-08-05 9:15 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Regular 1161 Hamilton, IL | Subject: RE: no more pros at IMFL, WI, LP, .... Didn't we just have this discussion a month or so ago about who is faster and some full distance v half distance comparisons were being made and the overwhelming consensus seems to be that MOST pros (if not all) get faster at the shorter lengths first. I'm not saying there aren't a few wannabes that go to IM length way too soon, but to say that LOTS of developing pros jump straight into that league seems counterintuitive to what I've seen. Even the ones that go IM too soon don't usually go straight there, which seems to be what you are saying. P.S. I don't know if that's the dumbest thing ever. I've seen much worse. Also, that comment lacks LB's normal sarcastic flare, so I'm calling a pre-coffee post on that one. |
| 2014-08-05 9:47 AM in reply to: Danno77 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: no more pros at IMFL, WI, LP, .... Originally posted by Danno77 Didn't we just have this discussion a month or so ago about who is faster and some full distance v half distance comparisons were being made and the overwhelming consensus seems to be that MOST pros (if not all) get faster at the shorter lengths first. I'm not saying there aren't a few wannabes that go to IM length way too soon, but to say that LOTS of developing pros jump straight into that league seems counterintuitive to what I've seen. Even the ones that go IM too soon don't usually go straight there, which seems to be what you are saying. P.S. I don't know if that's the dumbest thing ever. I've seen much worse. Also, that comment lacks LB's normal sarcastic flare, so I'm calling a pre-coffee post on that one. Our earlier discussion, if I remember correctly, had to do with getting fast first, then buildiung endurance. I don't remember the pro aspect being brought into it as much as this discussion, but I remember that we discussed guys like Gomez, Brownlee, etc. one day moviong to long course and how good they are likely to be. While I don't think you can put 99.9% of the population in the same boat with those guys, the idea of building speed first over endurance is sound for everyone who wants to have success in this sport......and it takes years to do properly. It's also not something that most AG'ers are even interested in since most seem to want to try and go long as soon as they can, and it's not something that a beginner can even attempt to do without building a solid base. That being said, Ben is right.......there are quite a few pros who get their cards through short EDR races, etc. who then jump up and try to get some of the long course pie.....doesn't turn out well very often. The guys/gals who pay the most dues to building their race properly end up on top. You can't shortcut building a fast race. |
| 2014-08-05 10:35 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Regular 1161 Hamilton, IL | Subject: RE: no more pros at IMFL, WI, LP, .... I think we are on the same page, here, I just felt like the "lots of developing pros" statement didn't seem right. I guess the word "lots" is subjective, but when I read it I felt like it meant "most", that's my bad interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK