What is more impressive: finishing the Tough Mudder or running a 3:30 marathon?

neither

A Tough Mudder requires a level of "athleticism" that a marathon can't remotely approach.

codger wrote:

A Tough Mudder requires a level of "athleticism" that a marathon can't remotely approach.

Wrong. It requires patiences waiting in line for obstacles you don't even have to complete and a very small amount of not being afraid to be shocked (very minor shocks).

Just like when one finishes a marathon, one does not have to run the whole way, one can finish a tough mudder with lots of walking and not even trying the obstacles if one chooses. Those are the facts. To get credit for finishing, you need to get from start to finish, about 11 miles usually. Again, lots of breaks and some fun "obstacles". If you fall in some water trying, so be it.

So a 3:30 marathon is MUCH harder. It takes a good amount of endurance. I would estimate 99% of tough mudder finishers could not do it. I say that confidently. So I guess that settles it.

"finishing" a tough mudder? It is about 60% shorter distance, and you get lots of breaks. And occasionally you crawl in some mud or climb a wall or try to go across some monkey bars, like you did when you were 5, or 8, or 12 years old. Not hard. Still, better than a jog around the block. And yes, pretty fun and funny.

As one who has completed both...multiple times.

Tough Mudder.

The Tough Mudder is so hardcore they don't even have times or winners. Tough stuff man, tough stuff.

tough guy2 wrote:

As one who has completed both...multiple times.

Tough Mudder.

Explain to us why you think so (this should be hilarious). I already explained how you are wrong. Show me why I am not right??

(remember, "finishing" a tough mudder means you can walk the entire way and skip obstacles. How is that "tough" or hard or "impressive." ?? again, I guarantee you any amount of $ that 99% of tough mudder finishers could not break 3:30 in the marathon. And the flip side: 99% of 3:30 marathoners could "FINSIH" [remember what that means] a tough mudder)

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

And the flip side: 99% of 3:30 marathoners could "FINSIH" [remember what that means] a tough mudder)

I get you, but I don't remember what that means either.

I assume you've never done one. More than likely you haven't done either. Have you?

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

tough guy2 wrote:

As one who has completed both...multiple times.

Tough Mudder.

Explain to us why you think so (this should be hilarious). I already explained how you are wrong. Show me why I am not right??

(remember, "finishing" a tough mudder means you can walk the entire way and skip obstacles. How is that "tough" or hard or "impressive." ?? again, I guarantee you any amount of $ that 99% of tough mudder finishers could not break 3:30 in the marathon. And the flip side: 99% of 3:30 marathoners could "FINSIH" [remember what that means] a tough mudder)

A bunch of my friends did a Tough Mudder last year. Most of them couldn't run a 5k at 3:30 pace. So, 3:30 marathon by a long shot.

Who cares about actually finishing a Tough Mudder when you have this to look at while you are doing it?!?

http://toughmudder.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/20110724-ToughMudderWI-Gudkov-1240.jpg

I was a D1 xc/track athlete at a top 30 program. I have never run a marathon, but have completed numerous 18-22 mile runs and one 25 miler (got lost). Anyways, a tough mudder or a marathon can both be made easier or harder depending on the effort one puts into it.

I did the TM with co-workers last year and it was easy-mostly because I am in much better shape than them and they ran at 10+ min avg pace (with walking sprinkled in).

If I had "raced" it I think it would be harder than a 3:30 marathon (but only because that effort would not have been a hard one for me). I think it's very hard to compare the two events.

If I was back in 2:3X marathon shape it would be hard to recreate a comparable effort IMO.

*We only waited in line for two obstacles the entire time

Anyone who think the Tough Mudder is more difficult just wants to feel cool for having done it. I haven't competed in one, but have you seen the people doing this? They are not athletes. Considering the people I know who did the TM didn't train for more than a few weeks, if at all, I think it's fairly obvious that it's easier. We're talking about a 3:30 marathon here? Perhaps a 4:30-5hr marathon would make the debate a little closer. Anyone running a 3:30 marathon has to train more than someone who completes a TM.

3.30 marathon, next question.

8/10.

The specific question was, /finishing/ TM (not racing) vs. 3:30 marathon (no faster).

3:30 marathon is harder, hands down.

78%: Average percentage of participants who finish a Tough Mudder

4:27, 4:54: Average marathon finish times for men, women.

10.2%: Percentage of marathoners who finish under 3:30

Not even close. 78% > 10.2%. 3:30 is the tougher feat.

According to the stats, finishing a tough mudder is on par to a sub 5:00 marathon.

Sources:

http://www.marathonguide.com/Features/Articles/2010RecapOverview.cfm

http://toughmudder.com/press-room/tough-mudder-facts-and-figures/

3:30 marathon hands down. It's over twice as long and requires much more endurance. Having done both, I did have to train for the marathon and did almost nothing for the Tough Mudder specifically.

Anyone who think a 3:30 marathon is more difficult just wants to feel cool for having done it. I haven't competed in one, but have you seen the people doing this? They are not athletes. Considering the people I know who did a 3:30 didn't train for more than a few weeks, if at all, I think it's fairly obvious that it's easier. We're talking about a TM here? Perhaps a Euro XC 10K would make the debate a little closer. Anyone doing a TM marathon has to train more than someone who completes a 3:30 marathon.

lol