it's all about the money money money...

mossym

When Marc Blumencranz had an opportunity to compete in the 2013 Ironman Triathlon World Championships in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, he spared no expense in his preparations to go the distance.

His outlays for the race — known simply as “Kona” among triathletes — went far beyond a wet suit and a new pair of handlebars for his racing bike. To help acclimate to the Hawaiian heat, he rented a house on Kailua-Kona’s fashionable Ali’i Drive, as well as a block of hotel rooms for the 10 days leading up to the race. He also hired a private chef to prepare his meals, then flew to Hawaii and housed not only his wife and daughter, but also his coach, massage therapist and physical therapist.

Total estimated cost: $100,000.

A 2015 survey conducted for the World Triathlon Corporation — the Tampa, Fla.-based organizers of Kona and other Ironman races — found that the average annual household income for Ironman participants is $247,000

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/your-money/when-amateur-ironmen-pay-for-the-elite-treatment.html?_r=0

Bambaata

He obviously went sub 8 then yeah?

I see it was 13 hours 19 minutes 56 seconds. You'd think with that kind of cash he'd have installed a motor at least!

mossym

On race day, Oct. 12, with his coach cheering him on, Mr. Blumencranz finished in 13 hours 19 minutes 56 seconds

mossym

rather than the idiot spending 100k on Kona, the average income was the eye opener in that piece for me. Triathlon is often criticised for the money people spend on gear, with many saying you should get train rather than buying expensive seconds. thing is, with incomes at that level, the free time isn't really that expensive for a lot of people

Bambaata

Id make do with half that :P

I think there's a difference to US and European averages but id still imagine European averages would be a lot more than most sports. the sport can be done cheaply but when you have 30+ year olds suddenly descend on triathlon after years of having a bit too much excess you're always going to have those P5-Six 2hr+ Olympic bike leg athletes

peter kern

so you think he is an idot
a quick 10 second googles search showes he works in sport and entertainment insurance he got an article in the new york times . I guess he will get this money back. if he gets one good sale from all this.

mossym wrote: »

rather than the idiot spending 100k on Kona, the average income was the eye opener in that piece for me. Triathlon is often criticised for the money people spend on gear, with many saying you should get train rather than buying expensive seconds. thing is, with incomes at that level, the free time isn't really that expensive for a lot of people

mossym

peter kern wrote: »

so you think he is an idot
a quick 10 second googles search showes he works in sport and entertainment insurance he got an article in the new york times . I guess he will get this money back. if he gets one good sale from all this.

you're assuming he knew he'd get an article in the NY times when he spent the 100k. i'd say it's just luck that it got picked up. so he's a lucky idiot.

in contrast a full page ad in the new york times costs less than 100k. and that would allow you to put a positive spin on any story you want.

yup, i think he's an idiot. but that's my point. spending 100k from my viewpoint on a race is daft. for someone making 7 figures, it's nothing. in which case he's not an idiot. same as people criticizing those who buy expensive gear, to some it's not that much at all. especially if you are on 240k household income.

not that anyone would criticize people for buying expensive gear

BennyMul

slightly off topic, but I remember a few months after the 92 Olympics talk to a gentleman from Dublin who just bought the road version Lotus frame Boardman used in the pursuit (it was lovely) but savage expensive, I asked him why buy it since he was only really going to use it in the Gorey TT (4 miles) and a few vet. TT over the season, his response was lovely
If you can justify it to your self and family then fcuk everyone else.

rooneyjm

$247000. Doesn't do anything to dispel the perception that Triathlon is elitist

sconhome

rooneyjm wrote: »

$247000. Doesn't do anything to dispel the perception that Triathlon is elitist

Oh that's not a perception. Its a reality.

It always was a sport for people with higher than normal disposable income. Bit like golf or sailing would have been (or still is).

I like the quote Benny mentioned earlier.

mossym

BennyMul wrote: »

If you can justify it to your self and family then fcuk everyone else.

aye, heard that one before, and the flip side, the old joke that every bike owners fear is that when they die their better half will sell the bikes for what they told them they were worth

griffin100

I've a couple of mates with cars in the €100k plus range, they think I'm mad for driving a car I paid less for than my new bike. In fact they can't get their heads around the fact that a €3k bike doesn't come with pedals :pac: Different strokes for different folks.

mossym

actually.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=98727007&postcount=1

Clearlier

mossym wrote: »

When Marc Blumencranz had an opportunity to compete in the 2013 Ironman Triathlon World Championships in Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, he spared no expense in his preparations to go the distance.

His outlays for the race — known simply as “Kona” among triathletes — went far beyond a wet suit and a new pair of handlebars for his racing bike. To help acclimate to the Hawaiian heat, he rented a house on Kailua-Kona’s fashionable Ali’i Drive, as well as a block of hotel rooms for the 10 days leading up to the race. He also hired a private chef to prepare his meals, then flew to Hawaii and housed not only his wife and daughter, but also his coach, massage therapist and physical therapist.

Total estimated cost: $100,000.

A 2015 survey conducted for the World Triathlon Corporation — the Tampa, Fla.-based organizers of Kona and other Ironman races — found that the average annual household income for Ironman participants is $247,000

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/your-money/when-amateur-ironmen-pay-for-the-elite-treatment.html?_r=0

Although the number chimes with what you'd expect it's the wrong measurement to use. It just takes one billionaire to skew the numbers. What they actually should have measured was the median income. Surprised that the NYT would publish that even if just referencing another survey. Average income in this context provides us with very little information.

mossym

can see why you'd say that, but i'd disagree for two reasons

1) given its those racing IM, it's a fairly big number, so the weighting of an individual data point will be diminished. a seriously big number could swing it but
2) think back to any survey you have done where they asked for your income. i don't remember many where they asked for the figure. it's always in buckets, 30 to 40k, 50 to 70k, that kind of thing. usually the top 1 is >500k or something like that (having lived in the states for 6 years i've seen that as the upper range on surveys). so whether you earn 750k or 1 billion, you'll be in the same bracket, which prevents a huge number swaying the results.


not many billionaires will put down their net worth for anything, let alone the last years income

Clearlier

mossym wrote: »

can see why you'd say that, but i'd disagree for two reasons

1) given its those racing IM, it's a fairly big number, so the weighting of an individual data point will be diminished. a seriously big number could swing it but
2) think back to any survey you have done where they asked for your income. i don't remember many where they asked for the figure. it's always in buckets, 30 to 40k, 50 to 70k, that kind of thing. usually the top 1 is >500k or something like that (having lived in the states for 6 years i've seen that as the upper range on surveys). so whether you earn 750k or 1 billion, you'll be in the same bracket, which prevents a huge number swaying the results.


not many billionaires will put down their net worth for anything, let alone the last years income

You can debate it if you'd like but there's not a serious statistician in the world who would use average in this case to find out if the participants had high incomes or not.

If there was a box to tick for a salary band then even the average will be inaccurate! In that scenario I would have expected a report saying that x% had an income less than/greater than etc.. That would have provided some useful information, probably more useful than just the median.

It might be right to say that people participating in triathlon come from high income househoulds, intuitively it certainly seems right. We can't know that from the information provided about average salaries though.

Usually when someone provides an average like this they're trying to make a point rather than provide accurate insight. Incompetence is possible of course but more commonly the reporter of the number is just being misleading to make a point.

mossym

i didn't debate whether it was accurate or not. i pointed out saying one billionaire could skew the numbers was off given whats typically captured.

and surely any serious satistician would accept any figure quoted in any news paper shouldn't be taken as gospel.

As the data comes from WTC surveys of it's entrants. that means it's not 100% accurate anyway, given it omits challenge and standalone race entrants, which can be cheaper and appeal more to those on low incomes. i'm not for one second saying you couldn't poke all sort of holes in that number if you wanted. but that can likely be said about most conclusions statisticians come up with, given a basis of samplings of populations sizes and confidence levels. . that debate is probably best held in the maths forum though (is there one? Kurt? )

whether the coincidentally bang on the money, or 50% high, or even low, doesn't change the original point that some of the toys deemed expensive are still pretty small %'s of

Kurt_Godel

mossym wrote: »

. that debate is probably best held in the maths forum though (is there one? Kurt? )

Maths forum is good for Countdown, and questions about the lotto odds, and general problem solving. A lot of queries come down to phrasing.

"Average" in a conclusion can come from median, mean, and/or mode, its kind of pointless debating its specificity without knowing what its underlying structure is. Show a link to the study methods and that should clear it up. Any decent study will have accounted for outliers.

VictorNeva

mossym wrote: »

A 2015 survey conducted for the World Triathlon Corporation — the Tampa, Fla.-based organizers of Kona and other Ironman races — found that the average annual household income for Ironman participants is $247,000

Is it a bit late to start triathloning at 47?

tunney

VictorNeva wrote: »

Is it a bit late to start triathloning at 47?

No. Just build in gradually and have fun.

cjt156

mossym wrote: »

...the average annual household income for Ironman participants is $247,000

VictorNeva wrote: »

Is it a bit late to start triathloning at 47?

No but the other 200k does help...

...kidding, I swear...

TopOfTheHill

VictorNeva wrote: »

Is it a bit late to start triathloning at 47?

Nope, did my first sprint last year at 46 - spent previous 25 years with no exercise at all.

Hoping to do 3 sprints this year, and then try an Olympic next year.

Building steady at a pace that I can (usually) manage. I will never win a race, but am in it for the enjoyment.

Just take your time, and don't do too much before you are ready.

shansey

700 quid for escape from Alcatraz put me off a race I wanted to do (if I was lucky enough to get a place in the lottery).

Couldn't justify it.

Also its a nice feeling passing guys on P5s on your old bike.

myate

shansey wrote: »

700 quid for escape from Alcatraz put me off a race I wanted to do (if I was lucky enough to get a place in the lottery).

Couldn't justify it.

Also its a nice feeling passing guys on P5s on your old bike.

I done Alcatraz last year...even at $450 and a week in SF it was expensive. I had planned on doing it again this year until the price went to $750. Happy to join with the SF clubs & not do it. If you're an international athlete you're almost guaranteed entry.
There is another tri in the city in August...it doesn't have the Escape name but course isn't far off being the same.