If you're asking for advice from *competitive* age groupers, I surely can't help you. Me personally, I look for flatter courses. That just suits me better, but I'm at best a middle-of-the-pack finisher. I have no illusions about podium finishes.

I suppose I would suggest you look for courses that suit your strengths. Like if you're a strong swimmer, look for courses that may be more challenging for those that aren't strong swimmers. If you're good at climbing, look for hilly bike courses. You get the idea.

I'm planning my first full length IM this year and looking at courses, I narrowed my search down to three events I believe would give me the best chance of finishing - Sacramento, Tempe and Panama City. Of the three, Panama City is my least preferred option. The course itself plays to my strengths, or I think it would be more accurate to say it doesn't emphasize my weaknesses. But I have family in Florida and the one weakness I can't get away from in Florida is humidity. I simply don't do well in humidity regardless of the time of year. As of right now, I'm planning on Tempe. I think Tempe offers me the best balance. But that's me and my strategy. You'll have to consider your own strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not sure what "courses are getting longer and the terrain more diverse" means. But if the main question is that you're getting more competitive now that you're 5 years in & want to think about what race might be best for you then I can offer some thoughts there.


If your goal is to qualify for 70.3 Worlds then you'll want to consider time of year/past results/courses. Early qualifiers are often times more competitive because few have their slots locked up. Picking something closer to the cutoff might allow slots to roll down. Take a look at USAT score ratings. You can race well & get buried in an amateur field & miss out on a slot. There are also plenty of races that, for whatever reason, just aren't as competitive. Then there's picking out a course that suits your strengths. If you're a good swimmer, skip the downstream races and go for something with an ocean swim. If you're a lighter rider, think about a bike course with some climbing. If you're a good runner, think about places with challenging courses but even challenging weather.


Again, not sure what is meant by success stories. Good age groupers are going to perform well because they're well trained. Sometimes finishing further down in a strong field is better than winning a local race without a ton of competition around you. PBs are nice but maybe you don't want to count a race with a short swim course. Generally, good age groupers are flocking to the more competitive races. Oceanside is a prime example of that. People in the top-20 AG can finish top-3 OA at less competitive 70.3s. But the score rating they might get dragged to at a race like that might make that a strong performance for them.

If I was trying to qualify for Kona I'd look for a new race with a priority on the race being in a far away/less affluent place. I think that same rational would apply to getting a high placement (result).

In general, the races I pick are always schedule/location dependent. 1st, does this date work with my work and family schedule? 2nd, does this location logistically make sense? 3rd, does this course and location interest me to travel to? 4th, is it cost prohibitive to travel to this location for a race?

In terms of terrain, I don't really care if it's hilly, open water, windy, etc. If it's a flat course, I'm a little excited about the faster bike time, and if it's rolling run course without hot humidity, I'm excited for the run time, but I don't target them intentionally.

I used to do Hawaii 70.3 every year, but it's such a brutal race for me combined with the skyrocketing lodging rates recently that I'm turned off of that race as an ongoing tradition now.

When it comes to qualifying for 70.3 worlds I know I'll almost always be able to place high enough to get a slot regardless of the course design if I am entering a race the same year as the 70.3 worlds event. If I'm entering a qualifying race the year before when no one else has a slot it becomes more of a crapshoot. Only had one year-before slot qualifier, and all my others have been in the year-of qualifying races.

I do have a friend who is short and runs pretty well, but bikes very well on hills and he actually likes the hillier courses because he feels his size is more of an advantage biking those courses compared to big guys who are crushing the bike on the flats. But he doesn't select them for that reason. He just feels his placement ends up better.

Can you explain what you mean regarding Oceanside. I'm considering that one myself. Mainly because the bike course doesn't look to be too hilly (not a great climber) and the run is flat.

Are you just stating that Oceanside is more competitive with a high number of participants? Or is there something particular about that race that make it more challenging?

Ya, the bike course is hilly and the run is not flat :)
I'd put the bike course as a little easier than St George but not that much more.
The run may seem flat since it's along the coast and it's not like as much obvious climbing and descent as a course like St. George, but you'll be surprised at how much you say to yourself, "I thought this was a flat course".

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the apparenty vague question. You're picking up what I'm putting down, though, especially with regard to choosing more challenging courses to suit my type, and also thinking about time of year and likely weather conditions. I hadn't considered the pressure on the front of the calendar as folks try to lock in spots. That's particularly insightful and thanks! I'm not generating crazy power but I swim pretty strong, decent elsewhere, and my fitness is pretty high for my age group. I'm fairly confident that i can podium at the 70.3 distance and I'd like to qualify for worlds if for no other reason than to know that I've done it. I've had a couple of pretty decent seasons doing locals at the international distance and missed the IM podium in Wilmington by about 40 seconds in September. Good news is that I'm still obsessed enough that coming up just short has motivated me and I'm starting to think more strategically about the racing and logistics--hence the question. Thanks again for the solid feedback!

I can definitely relate to fitting things into the calendar, although I've bumped these races up my priority lists a couple of times in the past two years. I thought my appetite would wane, but it has grown. I'm thinking a little more like your friend that likes hills. I think I need a challenging ocean swim and some hills. The big guys that are crushing the flats can put so many minutes into a lead that I'm looking at more hills to negate some of that disadvantage. I'm no featherweight but I'm definitely lighter most of the guys that are twisting their crank arms!
Thanks!

I'm just asking how people approach race selection, as a general matter, and even with the thought in the back of their mind that they could get toward that top step in their AG on the right day. I agree that trying to optimize strengths and minimize weaknesses is the ideal scenario but when shopping, my calendar reduces the options in a way that makes them a little annoying to compare. I was having a goldilocks moment so decided to put it the new group for some additional input.
Thanks for the feedback!

If you want a great course with a challenge try St. George. The bike is always challenging and depending on the weather you can have some pretty serious waves. Usually the swim is uneventful, but there have been a few years the wind in the aptly named city of "Hurricane, Utah" has made ocean like waves in the lake (reservoir). The run is hilly too. Assuming you're in the US and looking at 70.3 that is....

Agreeing largely with what Lurker said, proximity (or drivability/nearby friends) is probably more important than course selection. Having 2 good courses in the budget is better than having 1 great course.

A simple metric to pick the course that sucks you the best is to ask what your strength is and then which course has the longest relative leg of that strength. That means a guilt race for a good cyclist, a hot race for a good runner, a non wetsuit swim for a good swimmer.

Yeah it's more complicated than that but the margins between 70.3/KQ and not have much more to do with field quality than course, so it's somewhat immaterial past a certain point.

Oh wow. Thanks for that warning. I may still do it, but at least I won't be surprised by the deceptive description.

I did Indian Wells last month and I did pretty well on that right up until the run. I do not run well uphill. In fact, I really don't run up hill at all. I really did the run/walk/run, or more accurately the jog/walk/jog, strategy there. I was actually on track to finish the run in three hours at the half way point, but just after starting that second lap, I just hit a wall. Not too bad, but it's not like I was going very fast to start. Ended up finishing the run in just about 3-1/4 hours. Certainly not threatening any podium finishes there but I did have plenty of time to spare.

I've got a couple training buddies that raced worlds St. George. All in agreement that the course is hard AF. Thanks, again!

Agree field makeup is a key factor. There are loads of folks in South Florida that monitor race registration before deciding whether to race lolz. While a key factor in outcomes, it's one well beyond my control and I'm content to get what I get as far as that is concerned. In any event, I like to see the AG badasses in action and hopefully chat with them re: background, training, diet, equipment, etc.....
Thanks!

The thing about St George is its hard but forgiving. Right out of the swim, you have a little climb and a decent, followed by a big climb and big descent. It pretty much repeats that pattern the entire bike with only a mile or two of flat riding the whole time. So every climb of a minute to ten minutes (or 20ish in snow canyon) always has a nice reprieve after it to freshen the legs back up.

The run is easier than it once was, and the uphill is challenging enough to make you feel it but most (now) aren't so bad that your pace falls completely off. And on the return back down you can really open up and use the gradual long descent for speed and recover. I nearly PRd my half marathon there.

Speaking as once "AG badass" all those guys are doing 90% the same thing. Big volume (20ishh h/w), a balanced SBR ratio, and somewhere around 80/20 intensity, most of that 20% being closer to threshold than VO2(for long course). Progressive overload leading into big events. You'll probably find most of them train with groups frequently as well.

They all eat in a way that most normal people would consider healthy, with the exception of a boat load of carbs. We all know what healthy eating is, AG1 is no excuse to have ice cream and pizza for every meal. Dr. Alex Harrison is a genius and treasure trove of info who interacts regularly here. I'd trust him on diet way more than any fast AG.

Equipment IMO can be simply simplified to Chung testing. Sitting on a flashy bike with whoosh whoosh wheels is great, but a great aero position on an old P3 beats a standard bike fit position on the most expensive tri setup. Get your position dialed aerodynamically and get comfy from there.

Once you nail down those fundamentals I think you'll find that the difference between 3x20 vs. 4x15, or tri spoke vs deep dish, or Maureen vs GU is hardly worth the worry.

(Apologies for the typos in my first post, was on my phone in an Uber)

The Oceanside bike and run are definitely not flat. The bike doesn't really get flat until the end. The run is constant up and down and by the second loop it feels anything but flat.

---

Team Zoot 2023

Thanks for the input. I did spend three years at Pendleton (30 years ago) so I'm reasonably familiar with the territory they're talking about. I get that it's hilly, but at least it's not mountains. That bike course at Santa Barbara is the suck. I swear they found every mountain within 15 miles for that ****ing ride!

Last year was pretty slow as once you got on base it was bad enough that it's a false flat for a long time, but there was a headwind the whole time in that section. My bigger complaint is the road conditions at Oceanside are horrendous. Saw three ambulances picking people up who had crashed. Not surprised though as there were potholes feet wide and several feet long.

---

Team Zoot 2023

Oh jeez! So maybe pass on Oceanside then?

Oceanside is more competitive up front. There's more depth within age groups. People who finish off of their age group podium there finish on it at other races. But I don't think it's any more challenging than other 70.3 courses. It's an honest course with a (somewhat protected) ocean swim, some hills on the bike, and a mostly flat run. You typically get much cooler weather there than a lot of other races so that can make the run fast. Idk why people are saying it isn't a fast run: Jewett ran 1:12 & West ran 1:07. Lots of pro men under 1:15 & pro women under 1:20.

Oceanside has a pro field. Anytime you have a pro field you're going to have fast AG's chasing their pro cards by getting top 3. Morro Bay is a month later and probably will have a much weaker field.

Hahaha! I’ll keep an eye out for the doctor’s input. FWIW— there are so many charlatans in the nutrition space I just like to hear what people are doing and then assess on my own. Jaded? Ya. But I’ve lived in South Florida for 15 years, so basically 24 /7 on the lookout for frauds.

To the rest—thanks!