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

I understand that a hot/hilly ironman under 10 is more impressive than a flat/cool marathon and that

a hot/hilly marathon under 2:40 is harder than a flat/cool ironman.

So without getting into the details, just tell me what you think is more impressive.

Sub 2:40 Marathon

or

Sub 10 Ironman

ive been close to sub-2:40, but i just cant imagine doing an ironman in sub 10, let alone sub 20.

For this purpose please assume they are equal in terrain, temperature, wind and humidity.

Assume both are flat, fast, cool and run in calm conditions.

Hands down its the Ironman. Make it a sub 2:25 or 2:10 and we may be getting on equal terms; but 2:40 to sub 10? No. Easily sub 10.

Off the top of my head, the sub-10 sounds much more impressive. BUT, a 10 hour ironman is roughly (World Record) * 1.25. A 2:40 marathon is also fairly close to (World Record)* 1.25 (ok, it would be more like 2:36). So maybe they are not too different if you are equally well prepared.

I know a 42 year old dude who went 9:22 at last year's Hawaii Ironman, and having raced him a few times, I'm basically positive he couldn't go sub-2:30 in the marathon and it's very very likely he wouldn't go sub-2:40...he's more of a 2:50 type. But, his IM was obviously pretty sweet.

no comparison...the sub 10 Ironman is much tougher.

For one, running 6:00 pace for a marathon is an easy run for a good runner, but that same runner would have to learn to swim, develop some serious biking endurance, and still be able to run a marathon in a triathlon around 3:00.

and if you were trying both of these: you would need to train considerable more before even attempting the ironman goal and maybe do one or two a year, but a marathon of that level can be tried once a month on a few months training for a decent runner.

How many people have done each.

Taking the WR as a baseline is one possible way to compare the two.

However, since few Ironman races are run in cool conditions, I give the edge to the Ironman.

It depends on the elevation change on the swim course.

I'll say sub 2:40 is tougher. I worked my ass off a few years ago trying to go 2:35....only managed a 2:41. Meanwhile I've gone 9:48 and 9:52 on pretty tough days and I can't remember how many times I've gone sub 4:25 for a half ironman. The long distance tri training takes a LOT of time, but 90 mile run weeks, 2 a days and all of those track workouts seemed tougher. Maybe it's just tougher for me @ 6'1" and 165lb?

having done both (2:34 and 9:42), i'd say that doing a sub 10 Ironman is much harder given the length of time and room for error. it was definitely much harder for me. from my perspective, i'd equate a sub 10 more impressive than sub 2:40, and by comparison, similar to a sub 2:30...neither being world beaters, but in terms of how they are viewed by the masses and the # of proportions of people that seem to do it.

sub 10 iron man is much tougher.

say you swim 30 min pace for the swim which ends up being 1.2 hours. then 20 mph for the bike which is 5.6 hours. then 3.2 hours for the run. these are all pretty quick and it adds up to 10 hours. plus you are excercising for and 4 times longer. also the training and discipline needed is much harder.

The question wasn't which is TOUGHER, it was which was more impressive. Obviously being out for 10 hours is more difficult than being out 2:40. As far as prestige, it's a slight lean towards a sub 10 but not much. Having competed in both events, I'd say you need to be sub 6 pace (2:35-ish) to match a sub 10. Obviously this is subjective though.

I've done sub-10:00 Ironman 5 times, a 10:05 once, and a 12:31 death march, with a best of 9:49. I did 2 of those sub-10:00s on the Lake Placid course, which is pretty tough.

I've done 1 marathon, this year at age 40, in 2:41 on a tough course. I was not impressed and am convinced I'll run 2:32 in Memphis in December.

Triathletes seem to be impressed by the sub 10:00 IM, because you have to be a good all-around athlete to do that--no glaring weaknesses. In fact, I ran a 3:13 in my PR IM.

That said, I'm pretty impressed by a sub-2:30 marathoner, which is about the potential my shorter PR's suggest I could have done in my better days. I'd change the comparison to around that: sub-10:00 and sub-2:30. I think that's a lot closer to an apples to apples comparison.

Good question. Personally I'd say a sub 10 Ironman is more impressive than a sub 2:40 marathon because it seems like a lot more can go wrong to derail a sub 10 Ironman; bike problem, nutrition/hydration over 10 hours of competition, etc. This is not a judgement of which is harder, just an opinion on which I feel is more impressive. Plus "sub 10" has a more impressive ring than "sub 2:40" around the water cooler. And I know you said not to get into conditions, but it seems like most Ironmans are conducted in warmer conditions than major marathons due to needing to be near reasonable water temps.

Having said that, statistically it would seem that a sub 2:40 marathon puts you in more exclusive company. Looking at some recent race results, Ironman Arizona (4/06) had 58 of 1726 finishers sub 10, 3.4%. Ironman Florida (11/05) had 128 of 1935 sub 10, 6.6%. Boston Marathon had 137 of 19688 finishers sub 2:40, .7%. Chicago Marathon last October had 141 of 32995 finishers under 2:40, .4%. Of course, you're dealing with a much larger pool of runners for marathons as opposed to Ironman racers. And of that pool there's a certain amount of marathoners just in it for the experience, whereas I suspect in Ironmans you'd have a much smaller percentage of entrants who just want to finish.

Personally I think they're both pretty darn tough and give a lot of respect to anyone who accomplishes either. I was a 2:54 marathon, 4:52 half-ironman guy, but even on my best day and if I had been able to train optimally I don't think I'd have been able to achieve 2:40 or 10 hours. Damn genetics!

d2xccoach wrote:

And of that pool there's a certain amount of marathoners just in it for the experience, whereas I suspect in Ironmans you'd have a much smaller percentage of entrants who just want to finish.

Actually, I think that a rather large percentage of IM participants seem to be out there for the experience, just to finish. Most of my friends who did it were 12+ hour guys, which is analogous to the 3:30+ marathoner.

Sub 10 just takes a lot of time. That's it. Even if you suck in the water, the race is all about the bike. If you sit on your bike for 7-10 hours every weekend for six months, you can ride 5:15 (that doesn't even mean riding hard -- that just means going out and tooling at 17-20 mph for 150+ every weekend). That leaves you 4:30 hours to run a marathon and do the swim. A shit shit swim is 1:15 and a shit shit marathon (totally dehydrated, lost focus, Julie Moss type run) is 3:30. Assumming everyone on this board is a runner and many are sub 2:50-2:40 types, a 3:30 at the end of the Ironman is all about knowing how to eat and stay hydrated. 3:30 pace is so painfully slow that it's something other than running for 90% of the people here. Now that gets you to 10:00 without some transitions, but swim a few minutes faster (not hard that that sad sad sad pace and run a few minutes faster and you have it). Now, having said all this, you still have to go out and ride your bike for 250-300 miles a week, but that just takes time.

To run a sub 2:40 you have to plan and you have to stay healthy. You need leg turnover and strategy. You don't think you can get there by just running 100 miles a week for six months. I think you need some skills.

flagga wrote:

A shit shit swim is 1:15 and a shit shit marathon (totally dehydrated, lost focus, Julie Moss type run) is 3:30. Assumming everyone on this board is a runner and many are sub 2:50-2:40 types, a 3:30 at the end of the Ironman is all about knowing how to eat and stay hydrated. 3:30 pace is so painfully slow that it's something other than running for 90% of the people here.

I was going to disagree with you, and then I read it all again, and you're right: for your audience here, a 3:30 is pretty slow and painful. I did go sub 10:00 with a 3:13-3:30 marathon, but I had to bike to do it.

I do disagree with you on the bike. A 5:15 on most courses is a top 25-50 bike split, even at a race like Lake Placid or CDA. That means you're riding pretty freaking hard--to go 5:15 at LP I had to bust my balls, and I rode with guys who later rode 4:50 at IMFLA. You're right that a lot of the race is about the bike, but it's that bike ride that complicates things, that makes the IM such a tricky thing to get right.

I never want to do another one!

The Ironman is definitely tougher. I'd probably drown before I even got on a bicycle.