You state: "A main reason many of these races sell-out so fast is that competitors entered in the current race are often given the opportunity to re-enter for the coming year and the remaining spots are left for GE (in IM Austria they now offer this before he current race has been completed)."

The main reason many of these races sell out is because it is a global brand with excellent marketing that sells an opportunity for you, Joe Blow, to become an IRONMAN! Not only that, they put on good races. And if you think I’m just drinking the Kool Aid, I’m not. I raced in the Triathlon 101 series last year because I don’t need to prove that I’m an Ironman, I just like to race. Unfortunately, the series did not survive more than two races. And to be honest, if another new series pops up, I’ll be reluctant to sign up for fear that it might get cancelled. Triathlon 101 solidified the reason to race an Ironman branded race.

To the average person, triathlon and Ironman are synonymous. Until that changes, these races will continue to sell out quickly.

I personally agree with you but this is not really the case. While 140.6 and 140.6 are the same, you can't say you've done an Ironman. You can say you've done Vineman, Silverman, etc., but Ironman is Ironman. Unless you lie, the conversation will go something like:

Joe Blow: Have you done an Ironman?

Me: Technically, no but I've done an iron-distance race.

Joe Blow: So you have or haven't?

Me: Ironman is a brand and blah blah blah...

Joe Blow: (glazes over with boredom)

It's a brand, it's not a race or a distance.

And then there's the guy who said you haven't done an Ironman unless you've done Kona. It's THE Ironman, not just any Ironman. But that's another story...

I seem to recall that Ironman was the title bestowed on anyone who finished the distance.... before it became an incorporated money maker. (WTC Bought the race in 1990. Source: Ironman.com)
Like you suddenly incorporated "5K" and you had to do a specific companies incorporated one to be able to say you had run a 5K.
The distance is the distance.
If you ( a general "you", no one specific) have to justify feeling good about all that money you spend to do an IM by saying that other races of the distance aren't really an Ironman...you need to relax. And who cares what the uninitiated think...YOU know what you did.

1. Agree with Cayman & Anton 100%. If you go 2.4/112/26.2 in the time allotted, you have done an ironman and are an ironman. I don't care who has trademarked the name. (I call all facial tissues "Kleenex," too. I'm a rebel that way.)

2. To the OP's point, yes, races in North America sell out quickly (except for Louisville and Arizona for now). Unfortunately for those overseas, being on-site 1 year beforehand is currently the best way to get a spot.

As far as a lottery--I'm not sure that IMNA/WTC really wants this. Think about it: they get guaranteed spectators/volunteers for onsite signup every year. The leftover online spots function as their own "lottery" of sorts. You certainly need a lot of luck to snag one.

I doubt they'll ever require qualification at a 70.3 event. IMNA doesn't run many 70.3 races (those are all WTC) and WTC only runs 1 North American Ironman (Louisville). There may be a validation requirement similar to what Kona lotto winners have to do, possibly, which I think has some merit.

More events would be awesome. The final possibility, raising prices to ease demand, would be much less awesome.

You would be surprised at how many people DO drive or fly up just to register the day before. Last time as I was camping in line(and there were at least 1000 people), I chatted with people from all around the country who came up just to sign up. When we crossed the border the night before and told the guard we were going up for the race (obviously not RACING) he asked if we were camping out in line. I had 2 different sets of friends, one from Colorado even who drove up. Thats how the race fills up. I have done it myself 2x since I like the idea of taking a year off between races.

Now my BIG question. Should I drive to CDA to register for next year or take my chances on line??? Is there really a chance I might not get in if I try on line?

Well stated TryScott. I agree. This topic often resurfaces and it's never made sense to me. Technically "Ironman" is the brand as Boston is the brand, as Xterra is the brand, as Eco-Challenge is the brand etc. If I've done one of those races than I can say if asked I've done an Ironman, or I've done an Xterra. I'm not an "Ironman", I'm not an Xterrian, I'm not a 70.3er or ist... I'm a triathlete whose done Ironman events (long and short) and non Ironman events (long and short).

Too much stock in that label as an identifier. It's simply a brand.
BTW, any here can call themselves a Trifueler no matter the distance covered, but... still a brand :)

I personally prefer my approach. I just say I'm an ironman, even though I've only done sprint tris. I feel like dishonesty can save a lot of trouble.

If I do an Ironman someday, I hate to admit that I really would like to do an actual Ironman. Call me vain or whatever, but "running" across the finish line and hearing "Chunky B, You are an Ironman" would just be awesome.

I have been planning on doing an official IM as my first in a couple years...for two reasons 1) The guarantee of a great atmosphere, and 2) IM Louisville is in my hometown so family support will be awesome as well as knowing the course.

However, I think if you cover the distance in a non-IM sponsored event, you definately deserve the right to be called an Ironman. And if I were asked had I done an IM before by someone not in the triathlon community after completing an independent, I would simply say yes since I consider them the same thing.

I actually feel like completing independent 140.6 distance races seems like it involves more mental toughness since the crowd and number of competitors is way down, and the finish line is very subdued, you have less pushing you other than yourself

Personally, I think the time is just about right for a challenger to the Ironman brand. With races selling out as quick as they are, you may see a Life Time fitness take on Iron distance races. All it takes is connections to get sponors (and non-triathlon specific sponsors) and attract the big names away from Ironman.

Every popular sport that has professional athletes that particpate in it goes through a growing phase. In my mind, Triathlon has just begun to gain momentum to attract some of the big time sponsors needed to attract the best athletes. The NFL wasn't always what it is today. There were two different leagues that converged. The next step in Triathlon would be to start another league based on the same rules.

I respect all opinions stated above, but I still don't get the controversy over the Ironman label, but am enjoying the discussion. I have always perceived the accomplishment of completing 2.4, 112, and 26.2 in under 17 hours to that of earning the label Ironman. I do not see a difference in where this event takes place and who is in charge of directing the race as having any bearing upon what title is earned, except in the case of Kona. That is the world championship and should be held to a higher standard (One in which I am incapable of achieving and therefore will not enter the lottery. Not to disparage those that do. Just a personal opinion). What if a corporation bought the term "marathon"? In a few years would we be debating wether people finished a marathon or a 26.2 mile race?

if they bought the name...who'd they buy it from? (sounds like it was always a private enterprise)

[BTW, I call anyone who's done the distance "Ironman"]

If I'm not mistaken, Ironman was originally the title given to the person that finished an organized triathlon consisting of the famous 2.4/112/26.2 split. It may have been branded in the early 90s, but the name will always be synonymous with the 140.6 mile race. If you go to certain parts of America and someone offers you a Coke, they may follow it up by asking "what kind would you like." Coke (definitely a brand name) has become synonymous with soda in many places, meaning that if you ask for a Coke, it's implied that you want a soda. You don't want half soda, half cat pi$$. You want soda. It's associational convention, not branding.

Fundamentally, Ironman and 140.6 are the same thing. Anyone that is remotely educated on the matter will understand the convention and should recognize that completing the distance is a feat worthy of calling yourself an Ironman, an Ironwoman, or an Ironturd if you're so inclined.

I've done the Ironman thing three times and am thinking Indies for me from now on...Have some good ones in driving distance that allow camping and are cheaper... Racking up multiple IM's in this day and age, with $500 fees, most hotels requiring a five day stay or greater...is really more function of how much cash you have access too, not your athletic ability. You can train minimally and still finish in 17 hours. Those guys with fifteen, twenty or more finishes were lucky. They started years ago when it was much less expensive and you could still get a slot weeks after registration opened.
I predict it will go back that way... folks are fickle, economies falter, and they'll move on to other things. We're in the third running boom of my life time. Climbing was a hand full of geeks when I started (1969) then skyrocketed and is on it's way back down now... Less people are going into the back country based on NPS statistics. Cycling is rising again as it does every ten years or so...

Oh..and love the avatar Hawaii 50!

I know it's a crappy reference, but compare Ironman to the big oil companies. They have a product with high demand, they charge a premium price, and they always meet (or exceed) their profit margin. While the availability of gas is not currently an issue, it is very possible that it will become one in the near future. When people want lower price or greater supply for gas, the simple answer is to increase the refining capacity. Oil companies will not increase refining capacity because it's a cost to them and it will drive the price (i.e. their profit) down. I know it's apples and oranges, but if Ironman increases their capacity, lets in more new people, and lowers their prices, they stand to lose money. Even if they charge the same, it effectively reduces the profit margin. As long as entry slots are worth $1000 to a charity participant, I don't think they're going to budge. On the other hand, if they begin to see repeat entrants and a lot of no-shows (simply people ensuring their spot for the following year), then they may act on that because it adds no value to their product.

Actually, they have very little product. I think WTC only owns three races (anyone?). They license the brand to NAS who has the majority of the races. If NAS decided to walk away to say the Rock N Roll Marathon people, WTC would stand to lose 90% of their revenue.

[Note: I could be way wrong on my info. I read an article a long time ago and I'm recalling this from my dusty memory banks.]

Tons of good points in this thread. My last $0.02 on the matter ... if I complete a race that requires me to swim 2.4 miles, bike 112 miles, and run 26.2 miles - all in under 17 hours - I'm going to call myself an Ironman regardless of the name on the finish line chute or the logo on the souvenir t-shirts. As far as I'm concerned, the title "Ironman" is reserved for the athletes that complete the race, and not the sideline suits that seek to profit off of them.

I have done both a branded Ironman Event (IM Florida) and an Independant (ChesapeakeMan)
140.6 is 140.6, distance wise.

Yes, the courses are different from Ironman to Ironman, as is the difference in Independent, iron distance or ultra distance courses.

Because of the popularity it is more difficult to get into an 'Ironman' branded race. Why not give an indy event a try. I had a great time at the ChessieMan. I felt great crossing the finish line there after doing the 140.6(+5 but that is another story)

Trisooner wrote;

"Oh my friend, there is a difference. The distance is the same, the experience is not. IMHO, the finish line is the payoff for the $500 entry fee. (And that's why I loathe children and families and non-competitors in the finish chute, but that's a different topic.) Look for "Ironman Finish" on youtube and watch some of the amateur footage of the finish chute of any IM branded event. They can put on a finish. (It is so loud that I have never actually heard, "Ryan, you are an Ironman." But I know it is there.) Then look for any other 140.6 distance race's finish video."

No two race experiences are the same, and the finish at IM Florida was much louder than my finish at the Chessieman but that was a small difference to me. They are just nameless voices.

Same with marathons. I have not done the 'Boston' marathon and I know it is a very difficult, prestigious event, that I would like to do someday but it is just 26.2 miles. There are other marathons that are 26.2 less prestigious and more difficult, but 'Boston' is a name and a brand.

I respectfully disagree with Trisooner about the 'Ironman experience'.

The last 1 minute of both races before I cross the finish line is amazing, but is not what makes the experience for me.
Neither is having a loud crowd or a cool amateur finisher video on 'You Tube'.
What makes the experience is the years of training, mental discipline; miles running, cycling, and swimming with only a few members of my family and some friends following my progress.

The race and the finish are just the icing on the cake.

I also disagree about having children and families cross the finish with competitors if they wish.
If it is against the rules, the so be it. I won't go against race rules, but if they allow it why not.
I make sure I am not interfereing with anybody achieving their desired finish. In fact I make sure I step aside and cheer the person passing me.

My family has supported me and provided me the emotional energy to get to the event and through it. Sharing the joy of my finish with them is giving them back the emotional energy they give me everyday.

Considering inflation, that is my 23 cents ;-)

Anyone read about the guy from Belgium attempting to complete 20 iron-distance races in one 12 month period. This dude has already done some serious miles - IMWA, IMMalaysia, IMNZ, IMOz, IMChina, IMLanzorate. Still to come is IMGermany, IMFrance, Almere, Elba, Finland, IMFL and so on. His website is in Flemish or Dutch but the itinerary alone makes interesting reading...

www.worldtour2008.org

Just thinking about the cost of entry alone is staggering. He obviously had no entry problems!

Vincenzo Catalano of Italy holds the world record.
In 2004 he set it by doing 35 Iron Distance races. In 2006 he did 40.
This includes doubles and triples and the deca- iron as well as your regular old IM.
I met him at last years triple...he's just a normal guy, not fast but focused and consistant.
And all that with no hype.

I got those numbers from the IUTA. But I'm not surprised that the numbers on his site are off...he's a bit of a slacker if you can believe that...probably hasn't updated!

With regard to Kona I have a strong belief that as the "World Championship" of ironman (and iron-distance racing IMHO), its participants should only be competitive qualifiers. It is a bitter pill to swallow to miss out on a Kona spot by one-place or a few seconds in a qualifying race knowing that others have gained entry through the lottery, the CEO challenge, military spots, sponsor spots, or because they happen to be a celebrity and are someone who will bring publicity to the event. Do not get me wrong we all tick the yes-box for Kona in full knowledge of the above regime, and I personally am rapt for those who win a lottery spot as it often completes a dream for the lucky individual/s...but (yup there's always a but) it is exceedingly frustrating to miss out on a dream Kona ticket via competition knowing others have gained entry because of who they are or just dumb luck. I think that the Hawaii Ironman as the World Championship (and indeed the holy grail for most endurance triathletes - well perhaps not for the ultra/deca-man gang) should be reserved for those who gain entry through the established qualification series. Surely the event is popular and big enough by now to stand up by itself without the need for celebrity or sponsor kickbacks - sure, give them VIP treatment but just not race entry unless they qualify like most other triathletes. Would such a move have a detrimental affect on TV ratings or sponsorship dollars? I hardly think Ford sponsor the Hawaii Ironman (or the North America Ironman races) because a former Baywatch babe / or dude is racing (for me this is akin to the US Open golf or Wimbledon tennis tournements offering guest spots to sponsors or celebrities)! The Hawaii Ironman is already iconic, it has a place in the psyche of millions of sports consumers just as the Tour de France or the Super Bowl do. Furthermore, restricting entry to only the athletic qualifiers would free-up some of those limited Kona starting spots allowing the WTC to either offer its bigger qualifiers more Kona spots or expand by giving them to a start-up race (the financial benefits of a new race that sells out would surely exceed any dollars that maybe lost through denying sponsors and celebs a gift Kona spot). Finally, and this is topical as I have just read that the WTC is again giving the St Croix 70.3 race Kona spots for 2009, I believe that qualification for Kona should only be earned through the full-distance Ironman series. Let the 70.3 races populate the Clearwater 70.3 World Championship!

Maybe once or twice ;-)

Still, doing more than one or 2 IM's a year is pretty impressive.

Did this guy win the lottery or something?

I'm curious as to how you feel about the roll down then. It's sort of like the slot being given to you since it wasn't technically earned; it was just not taken by the rightful winner.

As for the issue of lottery slots, I think the process is fine. It's an established procedure that permits everyman to make it to Kona according to the wishes of the starters of the race, taking into account the slower and midpackers that can not meet the qualification option. Processing the Kona spots in any other manner might be exceedingly messy and biased.

I'm just saying... it does kinda work for both ;)