Which is more impressive a sub 2:40 marathon or sub 10 Ironman?

for perspective guys, I ran a 2:40 marathon as a 33 year old mom. Yeah, it was tough, but I couldn't imagine doing the swim, the bike and then doing a marathon, especially in Hawaii, because I never even ran Honolulu faster than about 2:45 or so and it wasn't even a warm day. That ironman thing is a beast.

its not all about the bike...its more about having the ability to ride solid, but not shoot your wad on the bike and have enough left to run decent. you don't have to fly in either, just stay steady at a solid pace...most of all, don't f- up your nutrition. that has what burned me on the death marches i have had. 2 races i was really happy with below 10 hours and 2 races i was utterly miserable during of 11.5 and 12 hours (one i started puking at 90 miles into the bike and didn't stop until 13 miles into the marathon, all of which was walking).

Most impressive is the fact that you or the previous posters even care!!

One more time, for those with serious reading comprehension problems: the poster asked: which one is more "IMPRESSIVE"......! Got it? Sound it out "IM-PRESS-IVE". Meaning: qualitatively (now there's a big word for you), which is better: 10:00 IM or 2:40 marathon.

You all still there? Did I lose anyone?

So.....all you people mumbling about "gee, I dun know how dem folks don't drown out dere in da watur" and "IM takes a lot more of that traaaain-ing," SHUT UP!!!

IM-PRESS-IVE.....better qualitatively, NOT....which takes more time to train for, and NOT which takes more total skills, and NOT which hurts more for a longer period of time. Hello??! Can't anyone answer a simple question!!

Because based on the logic of some of the people on here, a 10:00 IM is more "impressive" than, say a 46 flat 400m run. Because after all, to run a 400, the training does not hurt that much. Seriously, how many miles a week would you run? 40-50 max? And weight training? What takes more out of you, a few sets of max squats, or an 8 hour bike ride?? So based on the logic of the geniuses on THIS board, a 10:00 IM is more impressive than a 46 flat 400m....except it isn't. (OF COUSE the IM takes more time to train for than a marathon and takes longer to finish......DUH!!!!)

And many of you are forgetting that just like there are some people born to go fast, others have insane natural endurance, and doing efforts on the bike for many hours a day at sub max efforts is a lot easier for them than doing all-out 400 or 800 repeats. They LOVE the former long workouts and HATE the latter short intense ones. To each his own.

Bottom line: as an earlier poster explained: compared to the best ever performances in the respective events, the 2:40 marathon and 10:00 IM are about the same in terms of QUALITY of performance. This is the fairest way to compare.

(one caveat: the marathon has been around for a LOT longer, and has attracted a more talent for longer. If the ultimate IM talents, guys equal to the Kenyans in running [like Lance or Mottram. Not saying absolutely those two, but you get my drift....guys like them who were pulled to individual sports] had been doing IM's, I would think the WR would be about 7:40, in which case the 2:40 marathon would be better.)

I haven't done either, but to ME, the sub-2:40 marathon is more impressive. I've been a runner/triathlete for over 10 years. I finished my one and only ironman race (lake placid, '00) in 11 hours. My p.r. for the half ironman is 4:39. I think that I could possibly break 10 hours on a perfect day for the ironman. My marathon p.r. (4 marathons) on 40 mpw is 3:13. I think I could possibly break 3:00 on a perfect day (with better training), but I think 2:40 is really damn fast and beyond my capabilities. 6 minute miles might be easy for you post-collegiate guys, but for this 35 year old recreational athlete with job and family, that is hauling! To me, that is the difference: there is nothing particularly "fast" about a 10-hour ironman. The paces (swim/bike/run) are not beyond what I'm capable of, but 6 minute pace for 26.2 is definitely beyond what I'm capable of and is therefore more impressive - to me.

i have run a sub 2.40 i doubt that even on my best day i could compete in an olymipic length tri. Not that i am an elite in the marathon by a long shot but i would be surprised to even place in my age group in a tri. without 3 mos. to 6 mos. of intensive swimming in open water. biking and running i think we can all do that at 20mph all day long however to get off and run within 40-45 sec. ouch

first of all, you sound like boner.

second, impressive means "Making a strong or vivid impression; striking or remarkable." If seeing hear hearing about someone breaking 10 hours in the IM makes a stronger impression on someone, it is more impressive to them.

third, you sound like a boner.

Good point Fred. A lot of the collegiate and post collegiate guys think people are born with the ability to crank out 6 minute miles no matter what the distance. For late starters like myself, 6 minute miles over any distance took a lot of work. Especially when you have no natural speed.

Sub-10h Ironman is more impressive than a sub-2h40' Marathon.

some people are just better than others, or strain that way so get over it, if you say u can do a sub 220 or whatever marathon, train for tjhe iron getaspfd

gfdghgfhgvjhbgjhgj mj

The consensus seems to be that the 10 hr IM is more impressive, and that a 2:30 marathon is a closer equal.

I could manage a 1:15 swim and maybe a 3:15 marathon, but I would still have to crank out 21 MPH on the bike, and there is no way I could do this now. The 10 hr. IM is definitely pretty impressive.

OK, I've done a sub 10 on one of the faster IM courses (there is no such thing as an easy IM, but some courses are faster than others). My splits were roughly 1:05, 5:10, 3:28, with some transition time. I only do maybe 1 open marathon a year, and don't really train for it, and could probably do upper 2:40's now on a flat course, although my PR is several minutes slower.

My take is that the sub 2:40 would be easier to do if I concentrated on the marathon like I concentrate on IM racing, although it's a really close call. The only reason I say IM is tougher is because more can go wrong during the race, and it's much tougher to make it to the starting line of an IM - the volume you have to do in all 3 disciplines makes the injury potential go way, way up.

By the way, the sub-10 was easiest of the 5 I've done. The ease was definitely inversely proportional to the time. I just floated along effortless during the sub-10 - everything was easy. I was an hour slower on the same course once, and nothing was easy.

For what it's worth, the recovery time after an open marathon is way longer for me than an IM. The pounding is awful. 8 minute miles don't tear you up like 6-somethings.

This is just a bad, uninformed post. About 2000 people do each of these races, and just about all go through the training described below. I ran a 3:2x on a flat course in an IM, and had the 72 fastest run split of the race, and that included nearly 50 pros. Holding 8 minutes is not easy if you've been going hard for over 6 hours. To have a decent bike split, you need to be at least 22mph. Go do that for an hour, then try to run around the block and report back here. Your tune will change big time.

For most runners, riding for 5+ hours at 21-22 mph is much, much harder than you might think. Even on an "easy" course, there are so many variables that impact the bike split: turns, wind, crowds. I've done an IM in Florida where if you get out of the water in 1:05-1:10, you'll be in serious cycle traffic on narrow roads with a ton of turns for the first 60 miles. That slows you down.

In Lake Placid, the last 20 miles of both loops is uphill, meaning you start the run a little bit tanked, since you really have no place to get your legs back prior to the run. In 2001 I started the run with Heather Fuhr, the former world champion. I knew that in an open race, I could outrun her, so I figured it would be a good idea to hook up with her. We went through the (fast) first two miles in about 12:00, and I intelligently "let" her go on. I ran about 3:20, while she ran about 3:05, I think. It was impressive. Some people have the ability to run off the bike--it's a strange phenomenon.

People who have not done one have no idea. I remember that Arturo Barrios, the former 10,000m world record holder, said one time that he might want to do and IM and though that someone should be able to run 2:15 off the bike. Right. The current WR for an IM marathon is around 2:35.

I've run 2:27 on 70 casual miles a week (i.e. I was just running easy every day and racing occasionally, and a few long runs)...and there is no way I could do an IM sub-10 without serious training...if ever. I'm not even a really talented runner.

So a sub-10 is way more impressive, just because you can't coast to a sub-10 on minimal training like you can for a sub-2:40.

Having come "pretty close" to both, I will give you my answer based upon which one I think I could do. I did a 10:16 at Ironman Canada (and that included a short "bonk" at mile 90 of the bike). I did a 2:49 at California International. CIM is a pretty "fast" course. IMC has some decent climbs on the bike and the winds can be a bit of a challenge. So, I'd say IMC is relatively a harder IM course than CIM is a marathon course.

That being said, I do not see the day of me ever breaking 2:40 in a marathon. I do believe that I could go in the low 9:50's on IM. So, I am personally more impressed with the sub-2:40 marathoner.

What a lot of runners don't understand about IM, is that the marathon is not only run on pretty trashed legs, but the stomach is usually the limiter. My stomach craps out and shuts down way before my legs do. There's nothing like running for 3 hours wickedly nauseous (and probably puking on occasion). I've never been nauseous in a marathon, but it's there like a shadow in IMs. Runners think, "I'll just run slow as I can and I'll break 3:30". Tell that to me next time you have the stomach flu. Running an IM marathon for many is like running with the flu. The human stomach has a wicked hard time staying funtional after the 6-7 hour mark.

That being said, I may be inclined to trade my 9:5x for a 2:36 marathon. Going sub-6 in a marathon is very impressive to me. I hope to pull it off before father time says "NO".

That should read "sub-6 per mile".

Yeah but what was the guy's PR who ran the 2:35? I think Arturo is on the right track, but not as fast. I'll bet one of the faster marathoners (sub 2:10) could manage a 2:20.