Thursday, May 2, 2013

More fun with Ironman Rankings

As it turns out, the new Ironman Ranking formula is pretty primitive.  It's based on your finish time (YT) and the finsh time of the fastest person (FT) in your AG:

Ironman Ranking Points = 5,000 - 12 X (YT - FT)
       (times expressed in minutes)

Basically you lose 12 ranking points for every minute you finish behind the fastest person in your AG.  So armed with this knowledge I decided I would figure out which of my IM races would have been ranked highest by the WTC:

1.  IMAZ...2011...11:52.....3,754 points
2.  IMWI...2006...12:05.....3,487
3.  IMFL...2004...11:31.....3,289
4.  IMFL...2007...11:19.....3,206
5.  IMC.....2008...12:56.....3,152
6.  IMAU..2008...12:28.....2,711
7.  IMAZ..2012...13:23.....2,564
8.  IMGE..2010...13:33.....2,504
9.  Kona...2012...13:42.....2,393
10. Kona..2010...13:49.....2,114
11. IMWA.2005..13:40....2,050

Not suprisingly my points go down as I turn in slower times.  However, since the score is also based on how fast the first place guy went as well, it can lead to some surprises.  For example, my fastest IM (IMFL 2007) only yields my 4th best ranking and is even worse than my slower IMFL 2004 performance.  On top of that, in 2004 I was in the 45-49 AG and in 2007 I was in the 50-54 YO AG.  The reason for this is Joe Bonness, who was the first place guy in 2007.  This illustrates the primitive nature of the WTC ranking approach.  One guy can show up and radically change rankings.  This suffers from the same flaws that the old USAT ranking system had before they went to the NASTAR (skiing) style system a few years back.

I think my IMAZ 2011 and IMWI 2006 scores are elevated because in addition to being pretty decent times (for me) they are close to Kona so their fields tend to be not as strong as some other IMs.  The same logic holds for IMFL--with the exception noted above.

At the end of day what this really says is I came closest to winning my AG in an IM at IMAZ in 2011....but I already knew that!

1 comment:

PWickman said...

Hey RC, I really enjoy the blog and find your data crunching quite informative! If you feel up to it, I'd love to see what you think about how the different IMs (and HIMs too actually) suit different racers. Obviously your bike strength lends itself more to some courses than others, right? Is there a way to match the strength(s) (swim/bike/run) of an athlete to a particular course that you've raced? It seems that you have experience on quite a number of courses and have done some multiple times. So, based on your performances, which courses given you the biggest advantages (or disadvantages) over your competition? I hope I'm being clear in what I'm asking here...

I, along with the rest of the triathlon world, am chasing a Kona slot, and I'm trying to figure out which race might give me the best shot.