personal experience:
I've done 4 full distance triathlons (only one was Ironman branded) and completed all of them in under 12 hours.a
I've entered 100 mile races twice, with a DNF on each one. (although one of those was due to a snakebite - I was feeling pretty good up until then)
the 100 mile is so very much harder.
I've done an IM and a 50 miler and I'd say the 50 miler was a bit harder. 100 miles would without a doubt be harder.
Assuming that there are no time constraints, the 100 miler would be easier. With the 100 miler, you can move as slowly as you want and take as many breaks as you want. The swim portion of the triathlon forces you to continue moving at some minimum pace for a portion of the event. If finishing is my only goal, I could grab a tent and hiking backpack and take a week to finish a 100 miler. The same option isn't available during an event that is 1/3 in the water.
100 miler is by far easier than the ironman. Any loser can jog/walk at 14 minute/mile pace for 100 miles. You do a little training and you can go 12-13 minute pace.
That gets you to the finish line well before the 24 hour mark.
I'm 100% certain you've never done one
I could walk a 100 mi wrote:
Assuming that there are no time constraints, the 100 miler would be easier. With the 100 miler, you can move as slowly as you want and take as many breaks as you want. The swim portion of the triathlon forces you to continue moving at some minimum pace for a portion of the event. If finishing is my only goal, I could grab a tent and hiking backpack and take a week to finish a 100 miler. The same option isn't available during an event that is 1/3 in the water.
There are cut-off times and over-all time limits on 100s. Don't nap too long. And the swim of an Ironman hardly makes up a 1/3 of the event, time-wise or distance-wise.
So I'm not going to say I set any land/triathlon speed records or anything, but I will say this.
Training for an ironman is way more of a pain in the ass/time consuming than training for a 100 miler.
Finishing a 100 miler is way more of a pain in the ass/time consuming than finishing an ironman.*
* Assuming that during the course of an ironman:
1. You don't get your goggles kicked off in the middle of your 2+ mile swim and have to do the rest without goggles, in salt water
2. You don't get a flat tire and spend 30 minutes changing it
3. You don't get your bike run into and ruined by another rider, which will finish your day.
As an earlier poster said, lots can go wrong during the course of an ironman that will make your day miserable. That being said, completing a 100 miler is physically harder. And walking uses different mechanics than running, people who think they can walk 100 miles in 24 hours is nuts. Not happening.
I'm cracking up at the number of people here who think just finishing a 100 miler is so incredibly hard. You sound like the girls at the office who think just finishing a marathon is an incredible achievement.
The question wasn't whether it's easier to finish middle of the pack, or if it's easy to finish the hardrock 100. The OP said "just finish." Pick an easy 100 miles--25 times around a 4 mile flat loop, and take the full time allotted--probably 30 hours.
Then go and google "how easy to run 100 miles" and you'll find a dozen articles of people saying you really don't need to train all that much, including those who say they train less for it than when they were running fast road marathons.
no contest bro wrote:
Even a 50 miler is way harder than an ironman.
BS.
In terms of difficulty to finish, it is 100 > IM > 50.
I've done both and they are both equally easy. It's like asking what is easier, 1+1 or 2+2. They are both so easy it doesn't really matter. Pick one, or both, and do them. Just know if you DNF, you are pretty much a loser.
100s are so easy that even the great Parvaneh Moayedi has done a few.
sbeefyk1 wrote:
100 miler is by far easier than the ironman. Any loser can jog/walk at 14 minute/mile pace for 100 miles. You do a little training and you can go 12-13 minute pace.
That gets you to the finish line well before the 24 hour mark.
Congratulations!! You have just earned the Idiot of the Day award!
Ironman is easier.
Not a good swimmer? Wear a wetsuit. You get 2:20 minutes to finish the swim. You will not be eligible for Kona or AG awards with a wetsuit. But this will stop you from drowning.
That swim-bike-run is more like float-draft-walk for a 17 hour finish.
100 miler gets hard after midnight. If you finish just at the 24 hour mark, that means your last 20-25 miles are from midnight to 6:00 am. Just at the 30 hour mark means your last 40- 50 miles are from midnight to 12:00 noon.
You can test how hard it is to finish any day(night) of the week. Just go out at midnight and start walking for 6 or 12 hours. It's also harder by yourself in the middle of the woods.
I've done two full IM's. I have never done a 100 miler.
I can't see how the 100 miler isn't harder.
takes twice as long
pounding on legs the whole time
sleep deprivation becomes a factor
Then again, I'm a decent swimmer. An OWS in the ocean is no joke, as others have pointed out. But even that is manageable for novices wearing a wetsuit.
Hobby100 wrote:
The vast majority of ironmans are not open water ocean swims. They are 2 laps in a lake or protected harbor. One is a downriver course--an unaccompanied pool noodle recorded a 1:07 time.
lolwut
link please
Done Both As Well, Many Times wrote:
* Assuming that during the course of an ironman:
1. You don't get your goggles kicked off in the middle of your 2+ mile swim and have to do the rest without goggles, in salt water
2. You don't get a flat tire and spend 30 minutes changing it.
#1, take a second pair around your neck
#2, that is way too long to change a flat, 10 min if you know what you are doing
I did my first 70.3 this year (about 5.5 hrs), I rather doubt I could do either and suspect the 100 miler is much harder ESP the ones they do in the mtns
The 2.4m swim would be a yawner but after 112 on the bike my chances at the marathon are pretty remote, and I'm only a 3:45 marathoner anyways (grand total of 1 completed lifetime)
My guess is the 100m is probably harder
Whoever said the swim is the wildcard hit it dead on.
For swimmers (such as myself), the ironman's main challenge is being able to sit on a bike for that long (which requires sufficient training so the butt can survive the time on bike).
But for non-swimmers, the ironman is well-nigh impossible, and for the average hobby triathlete who considers the swim the tough leg, the open water ironman swim is often a major challenge (and a really frightening proposition).
It's hard to exaggerate how many hobby triathletes are just not strong swimmers.
(Probably things are quite different at the elite & pro levels.)
Is there any 100miler that doesn't involve running on trails or huge elevation gains?
It could make a bit of difference.
Ironman is easier to finish. Think of it as a long day hike with 70% of it off of your feet and a mobile buffet to cater to you eveey few miles