18 Responses to Ironman North America 2005 Statistics »»

Comments

1. Though interesting, your conclusions are deceptive meaningless. For instance, average times in WI are of course going to be skewed to the left because it is so close to Hawaii and thus does not attract a very competetive field. This can be seen in the winning times, which in WI are in the 9’s where at any other race they are in the low 8s. Lake Placid will likewise be distorted because no pro men raced this year. CDA is skewed upward because it was the pro mens race this year. I could go on and on. Again, interesting, but the data is not saying anything and is leading you to false assumptions because the sample is so small. Furthermore, times are meaningless, because they do not say anything about place. What WOULD be interesting would be to run regressions of swim, bike, run place vs. overall place. The data is there and the results are actionable and not anecdotal.

   Comment by darland | 2006/05/03 at 20:31:08

2. What I know is that my statistics for completing any of those courses successfully this year are 0%, and I’m pretty darn fit. You ironman distance competitors are fascinating. Maybe I can train myself into the club some day.

   Comment by Greyhound | 2006/05/03 at 20:37:11

3. Average time of 12:37 in Florida? Geez. Now I feel pressure.

   Comment by tarheeltri | 2006/05/03 at 21:02:54

4. Yep, why do you think I picked IMFL for my first? :-)

   Comment by Nancy Toby | 2006/05/03 at 21:19:40

5. Hi darland. I don’t believe we’ve met. :)

   While WI is very close to Kona, my guess is that it still attracts a very competitive age group field. While the major IM specialist pros may not be doing WI, I think their numbers are really a drop in the bucket when compared to the thousands of AG athletes who may be making their bid for Kona in the following year. I don’t think it’s fair to say that Wisconsin would have a less competitive field overall just because it’s close to Kona. For pros, sure but they make up maybe 5% of the field total? I just don’t think for as few number of pros that there are that it really makes that much of a difference in the overall averages in comparison.

   I agree that the sample is small and that’s why I’d like to look at the data as it compares to previous years. Obviously, Wisconsin isn’t as difficult as the table above would lead you to believe. The finisher times and percentages were lower and higher respectively in 2004. I really think that only over time and many, many years will you be able to draw any kind of conclusions on course difficulty based on time. And frankly, many of the races just haven’t been around for long enough to even come to such a conclusion - Arizona has been done twice now, Wisconsin only four times, etc.

   Really, I posted the data more out of my own curiosity than to draw any kind of sweeping conclusions from it. I still may put all the IMNA in my own database of sorts. Having to query the IMNA database is both too slow and tedious for my own liking. If I do, I’ll try and spread out the data to include results from all years.

   Comment by Chris | 2006/05/03 at 21:19:55

6. Hey Chris, I found this a couple of months ago and put it on my blog. It standardizes all AG qualifiers times to their Kona times and uses that as a metric for course difficulty, i.e. how much slower (or faster) do you race in Kona relative to your qualifying time.

   http://go-chu-go.typepad.com/gochugo/2006/03/the_day_after.html

   Obviously the results are a bit skewed but the results are kind of interesting.

   Comment by mike | 2006/05/03 at 23:46:26

7. Wow. Very interesting numbers!!! Um, that finisher percentage for IMWI is a LITTLE bit low for comfort….:) Guess I’d better get used to riding/running in the heat, eh?

   Comment by Sara | 2006/05/04 at 07:35:17

8. I think that is very interesting thanks for posting it. I would be interested in seeing any more such stat charts you feel like putting together. :) I’m torn between Placid, Canada and Wisconsin for my first. I would really like Canada, but have yet to find someone to sign me up. Do you happen to know anyone who’s doing it this year? Thanks again for the info.

   Comment by Brett | 2006/05/04 at 07:54:53

9. Oh, wow, totally neat. I think your limiters are correct, and I would love to see more! This is really cool. Thanks Chris!

   Comment by Jen | 2006/05/04 at 10:01:14

10. Wow, nice data….I had friends that did IMWIS last year and they still say it’s the HARDEST IM course they’ve ever done…especially with all the heat and the high drop out rate they had last year! Your data perfectly shows that as a matter of fact!

    Comment by Shelley | 2006/05/04 at 12:31:12

11. Very interesting….maybe you should add a Canadian one to the list. :-)

    Comment by Dawn (aka Pink Lady) | 2006/05/04 at 14:04:41

12. Sara, IMMOO or IMWIS had the highest dropout for an IM ever in 05 thanks to the heat. I liked Chris’ response to the first commenter.

    IMFL is the flattest course but not considered the best IM for record breakers. you may expect faster splits on the bike but six hours aero in the same gear will give a terrible strain to your lumbar and glutes. Plus the wind can pick up.

    Great post Chris and great response.

    Comment by commodore | 2006/05/04 at 22:42:26

13. Hey Chris,

    Very interesting….It made me go back and take a look at my handful of race results. I seem to be stuck in a rut finishing in certain time window….hmmm, how to break thru to the next level…..i’m in analysis paralysis!;-)

    Comment by Mike | 2006/05/06 at 13:07:30

14. I think it’s going to snow this year for IM WI.

    Comment by qcmier | 2006/05/07 at 21:36:52

15. OK - is it really weird (and freakin’ scary) that the bike split for Placid is better than for WI? I mean, aren’t those hills straight up and down? I thought that course was harder??? GAH!!!

    OK, Chris. Wisconsin is the hardest IM course in IMNA? Is this what you’re telling me? :o

    Comment by Wil | 2006/05/09 at 08:03:04

16. Interesting…. so do you think that it’s more taxing to push up and coast down hills, or to spin constantly for 6 hours?

    Comment by trimama | 2006/05/09 at 09:57:48

17. What about the non-WTC “Ironmen” labeled events of the same distance. I can think of two off the top of my head, the Oklahoma City Redman and the Quelle/Roth Ironman Challenge in Germany. I am a little disheartned at the WTC’s comercialization of their events and their run-ins with the ITU and (recently resolved) USAT.
    Any data on them?

    Comment by Joel | 2006/05/27 at 16:01:13

18. This is a great statistical breakdown. Some points I\’d like to add:

    I\’m a consistent 16-17 hour finisher (I have a larger stastical base than you used — 9 finishes in 13 starts), and the only place I\’ve seen people dropped is in Wisconsin. I\’ve had race directors change their rules to try to keep me from dropping out, but I was the last person to finish the bike when I did WI, after which everyone else was dropped without discussion. I\’m sure other races have firm cutoffs, but WI was draconian about it.

    Florida has open, unprotected, and therefore windy roads like most races don\’t. Most of the hilly races (esp. Lake Placid and Switzerland) have downhills to match the uphills. You get back your potential energy on matched hills, but not into wind. Some of the harder courses, like Hawaii, but also the even more difficult Lanzarote, have both hills and wind. The first Arizona was wicked windy (I saw tumbleweed and dust devils on the bike course), and WI has a tradition of being hot. Florida and Canada can get cold or hot. Things like that can drop people or kill bike splits. Grinding into wind for 40 miles can also bleed heat, energy and flexibility, which can go on to wreck your run split.

    People also train differently. If you live in western Colorado, pushing into wind for 6 hours is rough. If you live in Iowa, pushing up Richter Pass is difficult. Also, your body type makes a difference. More muscular, and therefore heavier, people can push into wind easier than they can climb. 60-64s tend to be able to spin a dead-on cadence for six straight hours with less mental fatigue than 25-29s.

    It\’s obviously complicated — you can\’t do true statistical analysis without enough data to eliminate cross-correlation effects — but it\’s not just who competes. Because you\’re sampling across the entire field for 1500+, your results are less sensitive to skill of competitors than they are to other factors like weather, course, course governance (USAT recently published a statement wherein they admitted that they can\’t stop drafting on IMUSA courses, and they barely even try overseas), and so on.

    Comment by Stephan | 2006/06/16 at 12:38:28

Leave a Reply »»

Name

Email

Website