Retooling
Triathlon's Competitive System
Somewhere in the evolution
of the sport, age-group classifications were formed. Age-group categories
are a common way to divide up the ranks of competing athletes. Such
a system can be seen operating successfully in youth sports from swimming
to little league baseball. And on the other end of the age spectrum,
categories for masters - usually athletes still competing in their
sport after age 40 - are in effect. Whereas it makes perfect sense
to divide up youth leagues according to developmental age, and place
older athletes in masters categories, it makes no sense for those
of the ages in between.
Triathletes competing in the
years between the juniors and masters, i.e. over 19 years of age and
below 40, are no doubt the most numerous. An endurance athlete's prime
generally falls somewhere within this age range. These are the years
after an athlete's body has finished its developmental growth stages
and before the aging process starts to slow it down. This is the age
range for the careers of professional triathletes and the most successful
amateurs.
It seems arbitrary at best
to artificially differentiate a 24-year old from a 25-year old, or
a 29-year old from a 30-year old, especially when they may be of equal
abilities. In reality, it is athletes of relatively equal ability
levels that are competing against each other rather than athletes
of similar ages. Whether at the front of the race or the back of the
race, the real competition takes place among triathletes of similar
racing levels, regardless of age, duking it out for honors. One may
be 26 versus another who is 33, or 24 versus 37
Unfortunately,
age-group categorization tends to suppress this competition, often
by starting different age-groups in different waves and putting an
athlete's true rivals out of sight during the race.
For most triathletes, it is
the goal of bettering a rival outside of their age-group who was twenty
seconds ahead of them in the last race, rather than beating another
athlete from their age-group by twenty minutes, that provides motivation
and satisfaction. And the logistics of faster athletes from later
starting waves trying to weave around slower athletes from earlier
waves is frustrating for both those doing the passing and being passed.
Simply put, it is time for
triathlon to change its racing structure to one similar to that used
in cycling. Cycling races divide road racers into categories according
to abilities. A cyclist new to the sport starts out as Cat V, then
can progress to Cat IV, Cat III, Cat II, Cat I, and Pro. Similarly,
mountain biking has the categories of Beginner, Sport, Expert, Elite,
Pro. A rider moves up to a higher category by accumulating points
based on race performances in their current category. And at each
stage, an athlete is competing against others of fairly similar ability.
And younger athletes have junior categories, in addition to the masters
categories at the other end of the age-spectrum.
Adopting a similar structure
in triathlon would go far in making the sport more exciting and enjoyable
for racers. Waves would start by category, with the faster categories
starting first, allowing competitors to truly race against their main
rivals and fostering competition among them. The current age-group
categorization for those not either juniors or masters is an ill-fitting
approach. In a sport that is now older and larger and possessing a
solid national governing organization, it is time to change the approach
to the racing categorization system.
Collegiate
Racing
In a similar vein, some changes to the collegiate racing system would
better enhance competition and team scoring.
Currently, collegiate triathlon
teams have the opportunity to compete in both regional races and a
national championship event. The addition of the regional races is
a welcome site for the sport. And it is hoped that the regional races
will gain in importance over the coming years and become better coordinated
with nationals.
And the coveted national championships,
which is becoming more and more a stepping stone for tomorrow's Olympians,
could benefit from a more streamlined assembly of the field. Nationals
in 2002 took place in Memphis, where an elite wave was instituted
in addition to a mass wave. One male and one female from each school
were allowed to race in the elite wave. However, times from both waves
went into determining overall places and team scores. It was no surprise
that the actual winner of the women's championship came from the mass
wave and many other mass wave racers displaced elite wave racers in
tallying the team scores. Instead of racing head-to-head in a national
championship, the opposite took place.
In such an important event,
there should be head-to-head racing, anything less is silly. In essence,
the idea of an elite wave instituted in this year's race needs to
go a step further. There should be a designated championship wave
that allows five of a school's top athletes (in both the men's and
women's races) to compete for top honors and team scores. (The current
scoring system combines the best three men and best three women times
to arrive at team scores.) By allowing five athletes from each school
and taking their top three finishers for scoring, the best collegiate
athletes across the country would compete directly against each other.
Then, a mass wave would include any other athletes a school brings
in reserve (for example, the University of Colorado often has up to
eighty athletes that compete at nationals, although only the top three
men and women count toward the team scores.) Dividing up waves in
this manner would be similar to varsity and junior varsity races at
cross-country meets. The championship wave would benefit from a more
streamlined field, but would still assure that a school is well-represented
and that the top athletes from around the country would line up together.
Triathlon has come of age,
and in a sport that has never been afraid of experimenting, it is
time to retool the structure of its competitive categories.
Adam Hodges
August 2002