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

Because of the extreme muscle and cardio specificity it takes to run sub-2:10, I honestly doubt that any one of them could even finish a 112 ride. As soon as they train enough to finish the bike, they will no longer be 2:10 marathoners.

Note that Arturo has yet to do one. There are lots of sub 2:20 guys out there, but only one guy I know of (Luc Van Lierde) has managed to run sub 6 minute miles in an Ironman.

Don't forget that it's not about finishing the bike, it's about pushing on the bike and then running. 112 miles at anything over 20 will hurt you, and it will destroy your ability to run fast.

Fact is, you can't prove I'm wrong.

noname makes a great point. The IM marathon is at the end of the day, and most IMs are held in hot weather. My 3:28 was in Florida, and by the time I started the run it was in the low to mid 80's. I finished before the sun went down, so I dealt with it the whole time, not to mention the 5 hours plus on a bike, and over an hour in 76 degree water. It's staggering how much you will sweat (and not feel it) it water that warm, and how tough it is to get rehydrated after. Managing body fluids is a sport in it's own right in conditions like that.

Oh, and Hawaii is typically MUCH hotter.

O.K. You guys are right and I was foolishly shortsighted to think a 5'-8" 135 lb 2:10 guy could remain at that weight and also ride 180k and swim 4k before running a 2:20.

It's fun watching guys with 3% bodyfat swim.

Not to change the topic too much, but since most of us here are runners, wouldn't a comparison to a DUATHLON be more relevant than a comparison to a TRIATHLON? The reason I say this is that in a duathlon there are two run portions, instead of only one in a tri. If you ask many triathletes, and if they are honest, they will agree that a long distance duathlon is much more taxing and physically demanding than an ironman because of the increased demand on the lower body (its all legs in a duathlon).

Look at these numbers, granted neither of the runs is a marathon, but they are still impressive.

ITU Long Distance Duathlon World Championships 2006

Winner: Benny Van Steelent 3:34.16

15K run (9.3 miles) 50:02

90K bike (54.9 miles) about 2:15.02 (including transition)

7.5K run about 29:12 (including transition)- plus he had a large lead at this point so just cruised to the finish.

How does this compare?

please take your BS duathlon crap back to duathlon.comclearly, you can't swim. and no one asked you to change the thread. duathlon is dying off and will always be the ugly red heading step sibling to triathlon. Xterra even kicks duathlon's ass.

Bum wrote:

It's fun watching guys with 3% bodyfat swim.

I thought you did tri's. Apparently not. Because if you had, YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT TRIATHLETES WEAR WETSUITS (negating the importance of fat for bouyancy) AND THAT MANY TRI-GUYS HAVE VERY LOW BODYFAT.

But you knew that, right??

I take a sub 2:40 over sub 10 IM. I have run 2:40 a couple of times but never the few seconds under it. It still hurts. However, I like my sub 9:50 better than a sub 2:40. Also, I still have a chance to go under 10 for a few more years and the chances of a sub 2:40 are almost gone. I can still improve a lot in the bike and some in the swim but the running is almost tapped out.

yeah, 2:40 is harder.

10:00 IM takes more time to do and prepare for, but that doesn't mean it is harder or more impressive.

The other guy was right with what he said about the 400. I'll take it a step further, what's more "impressive", Powell and Gatlin's 9.77 100, or a 10:00 IM ??? Well, if you go by how much they hurt, or how much training goes into it, then jesus, a 15:00 IM is better than a 9.77 100m. A 9.77 100 is talent and lots of sprinting in practive (which isn't hard/painful and doesn't take lots of time), and some weight work. So does that make it "not impressive." C'mon....

Just because something takes longer to do, and takes more preparation time doesn't make it more impressive.

You long distance guys are so caught up in the 'longer something is, the harder/better it is' concept.

I think a 2:40 takes more talent, and that makes it harder to do and more impressive. Many could do it if they commited their lives to it, but not most.

But almost anyone could do a 10:00 IM if they wanted to commit their lives to it. After awhile it becomes pure endurance and pure preparation time. Speed comes out of it, some talent comes out of it, and it becomes easier. And that is why so many average runners are attracted to IM's and Ultras. They don't mind spending zillions of hours training and competing, since they know that no matter how much they prepare for shorter races, they don't have the type of ability or talent to really succeed at those speed events. So they go to the lunatic fringe looooong distance events, where willingness to suffer for long periods of time is the main requisite for success.

The end....you know I'm right.

No wetsuits in Hawaii, or when the temp is over 76.

But you knew that, right????

Consensus wrote:

But almost anyone could do a 10:00 IM if they wanted to commit their lives to it.

The end....you know I'm right.

Ummm. No.

Coming from a running background, I can tell you that triathletes as a group are far more anal about their training than runners, and there are many, many, many guys who train at least 15 hours a week throughout the year, and over 20 during an IM, and struggle to break 12 hours.

Put that much time into running and you are looking at consistent 100 mile weeks, and you are at least doing the training to get you near 2:40. Many of these guys training seriously don't feel sub 11 is reasonable, let alone sub 10. Honestly, I don't know why so many of these guys stay so slow (well, yes I do, all they do is train slow), but they just don't improve.

Sub-10 is a good race. I think sub-2:40 is good too. I haven't done the sub 2:40 yet, but think I can and will. Neither are anywhere close to world-beaters. Both events are experiencing some significant watering down though. Lots of pengiuns and gallowalkers in the marathon, and lots of people finishing their IM with 6-7 hour marathons, which means they are running into the finish chute, and not much else.

If it is true that Bum ran 3:2x on a flat IM course and had the 72nd fast run time of 2000 people in the race (no reason to believe that it isn't true), this clearly shows that most (70%-80%) of IM marathons are walked. I don't know why they even call the marathon in an IM a marathon. They don't run they walk. It's a swim, bike, walk.

I'll try to look it up later, but I'm pretty sure that was correct. Itw as definitely top 100. I was 130 something overall with that time.

Yes, for most it is a swim, bike, walk. I think you're right that 70-80% walk a good portion.

Honestly, it's float, hammer, jog/walk. But even that is tough to do for 13 hours.

Bum wrote:

Honestly, it's float, hammer, jog/walk. But even that is tough to do for 13 hours.

That's the truest post I've seen today.

And no matter how much most people train, most will not touch 10:00 in an Ironman.

I am glad you are honest and I'm sure you are right because I have had this debate many times with good IM guys and good runners. When I first started watching friends do IMs and was shocked at how little running was going on. Most guys I know that are 9:00 to 9:30 IM guys are not that sore the week after their IMs. They are very depleted and they sleep a shitload, but they are not that sore. It's because "running" at 8-9 minute pace is not going to beat you up or really tax you. Frankly, if you are running your marathon in an IM slower than 3:45-3:50 you are walking. Go to a track and run a nine minute mile and then really think about this. So really the impressive thing about an IM at 10:00 is knowing how to keep from dehydrating and knowing what not to eat and what to eat and when to do it.

Knowing these things and implementing them is not athletics. The same issues come up for Indy car drivers, around the world ballonists, around the world sailors, and Cuban who try and float to Florida. Is this athletic? Does this take athletic talent? Not sure.

When I was in college the six-pack five miler was a big end of the XC season event. Clock starts, you drink a beer and then drink a beer every mile to the finish. The worst runners on the team almost always won. Go figure. The best athletes were usually just out of it by the third beer. What does this tell you? Not much except that it's really hard to run fast if you throw in a bunch of other activities before or during the run that make you really sick, dehydrate you, loosen your bowels and change the focus from athletics to something that is otherwise foolish. I really find events that keep adding stupid irrelevent predendum to what are otherwise simple and pure athletic endeavors a preoccupation of untalented people. Why do we need steeples and a water pit in the 3000m? There is no end to this sort of thinking. Why not just have the beer mile in the Olympics or put cocodiles in the steeple pit? Why not just bring back Roman era gladiator fights to the death? The Roman's took the Greek's athletic ideals to the modern day equivalent of the Ironman, which is to say, they thought, "hey if wrestling naked with olive oil on your body is fun (the Greeks), wouldn't fighing to the death with swords and axes be a whole lot funner (not a word)?

Well, a lot of what you say is absolutely true. I guess the one thing I would take issue is the statement about knowing how to keep hydrated and fueled not being athletic. It is true that its knowlege, but its knowlege learned athletically through trial and error. Those who go sub-10 or faster for the most part practice the nutrition as much as any of the 3 disciplines.

It isnt so much that the nutritional side is something you learn, the athletic side is "how do I continue at a pace that will get me a sub-10 even though my body is falling to pieces". Finding an 8 minute mile when you have completely blown to bits is wholely athletic - pure guts.

I blew some serious chow in the ocean during the swim one year. Set out a massive chum line. I got sea sick so bad I couldn't keep down my breakfast. I came out of the water a wicked shade of green. What on Earth was I supposed to do nutritionally then? I had 9 hours (at least) and my tank felt pretty empty. I also knew better than to start pounding down stuff to make up for it on the bike. I ended up going completely by feel, listening to anything my body was saying to me. Ended up just a tad over 10 hours, but I was damn happy with that race. I think that one was all athletic. Just my take.