Which one is easier to "just finish"? Ironman or 100 miler?

Both events finish with the same discipline and distance

Can we simplify this debate by asking "What's easier to finish, a 73.8 mile run/hike or a 2.4 mile swim followed by a 112 mile bike?"

Swimmin 2.4 miles may sound terrifying to a runner, but it is really the easiest part.

I have trained for an Ironman on a whim out of a pure running background. After ~6 months of training with 0 swimming background I have been able to complete the open water swim (in the ocean BTW) without a wetsuit well within the cutoff. You can pretty much toast your arms and shoulders on the swim, as you are not going to use them anymore in the rest of the race. The hardest part has been actually RUNNING the marathon after the bike.

I have never run a 100 miler, but I have run a few 100km races and I would rank them as comparable to an ironman. I have no doubts that a 100 miler would be way harder.

It's easier to finish a 100 miler. Go to the finish line of an Ironman and then to a 100 miler. Wait for the very last people to cross. There are usually some very feeble-looking 80 year olds finishing the 100 miler. It's basically a long hike in the woods and you only need one skill set: walking without getting bored. These back of the pack ultra people would likely drown before swimming 2.4 miles and would definitely crash their bikes at some point during the 100+ mile ride.

So the 100 miler is much easier to "just finish".

I've never done either, but my girlfriend has done both multiple times, so I have some insight. 100 milers beat her up so much that it would take her weeks to feel back to normal. Ironmans are so much easier on her both mentally and physically. For me personally the 100 miler would be easier, but that's only because I'm an extremely poor swimmer. I literally have trouble doing a lap of a pool, let alone 2.4 miles in open water.

bigtool05 wrote:

I've never done either, but my girlfriend has done both multiple times, so I have some insight. 100 milers beat her up so much that it would take her weeks to feel back to normal. Ironmans are so much easier on her both mentally and physically. For me personally the 100 miler would be easier, but that's only because I'm an extremely poor swimmer. I literally have trouble doing a lap of a pool, let alone 2.4 miles in open water.

Was your "girlfriend" just trying to finish though?

Because that is the question. If she had any kind of pace goal at all then the anecdote about your made up girlfriend is not very useful in this thread.

Big Bad Bart wrote:

It's easier to finish a 100 miler. Go to the finish line of an Ironman and then to a 100 miler. Wait for the very last people to cross. There are usually some very feeble-looking 80 year olds finishing the 100 miler. It's basically a long hike in the woods and you only need one skill set: walking without getting bored. These back of the pack ultra people would likely drown before swimming 2.4 miles and would definitely crash their bikes at some point during the 100+ mile ride.

So the 100 miler is much easier to "just finish".

I agree, based on the way the question was asked. The issue that I have with the question is that in an Ironman there is no "just finish." It is "finish within 17 hours," with two prior checkpoints (and the swim time is 2:20, not 2:30 as some suggested earlier in the thread).

I looked at a few 100-mile-race websites and found that you are looking at about 30 hours to complete the race, need to get through halfway in about 15 or 15.5 hours, and about 80 miles in 24 hours, depending on the event.

So, the question could be; finish an Ironman in 17 hours or run 100 miles in 30 hours, and hit the checkpoints in both events or you are done immediately ... which one is easier?

If someone told me they are thinking of doing one or the other and want to know which is easier, I would ask how well they swim. For a good to great swimmer I would have one answer. For a poor swimmer I would have the opposite.

VegetableSoup wrote:

Both events finish with the same discipline and distance

Can we simplify this debate by asking "What's easier to finish, a 73.8 mile run/hike or a 2.4 mile swim followed by a 112 mile bike?"

Or, is it easier to complete a marathon after having already done approx. 3 marathons or after having swum 2.4 miles and biking 112 miles?

I'm impressed it took more than 2 posts in this thread before anyone hinted that running a 100 miler was relatively easy.

Probably only need to go another couple of posts before someone suggests a college runner could win either event easily.

So there is no "just finish' in either event. Typical 100 cut-off is 30 hours. I think Hardrock and a few others extend out farther, 60hrs for Barkley if you want to go to the crazy side of things. In course cut-offs probably vary by aid station set-up. Ironman has a 2:20 cut-off for swim, so if you're not drowning, you're probably going to make it. The ride cut-off is 8.5 hours, 13.7 mph, different courses make that easier or tougher. The run is 6.5 hours, may be a full marathon, or not. But even trotting the first part and walk/jogging it home is doable.

I've done them both and was just average for both. I effed up my nutrition on the bike in the Ironman and paid for it on the run. Over-all the 100 miler was definitely more enjoyable for me. But either event is very doable by most semi-athletic people. Just look for all the tats and car magnets. They're not all Chrissy Wellingtons/Mark Allens and Jaguar1s/Sage Canadays driving those mini-vans.

30 hours for a 100 mile ultra is about as close to "just finish" as you can get.

I'm talking your average course, not some crazy particular race.

To finish a 100 miler in 30 hours you can walk the entire time and take many breaks at aid stations.

You can also have a big crew helping you out with whatever you need, even walking with you for the last half of the race of so.

The only time it is at all difficult to finish a 100 miler in under 30 hours is if you actually tried to finish with a decent time and bonked. But that scenario is not what this thread is about.

Pink Lloyd wrote:

30 hours for a 100 mile ultra is about as close to "just finish" as you can get.

I'm talking your average course, not some crazy particular race.

To finish a 100 miler in 30 hours you can walk the entire time and take many breaks at aid stations.

You can also have a big crew helping you out with whatever you need, even walking with you for the last half of the race of so.

The only time it is at all difficult to finish a 100 miler in under 30 hours is if you actually tried to finish with a decent time and bonked. But that scenario is not what this thread is about.

You can do the equivalent effort for an Ironman and still finish. My wife did Ironman Wisconsin and it was freaking hot out. Triathletes were sitting in the shade in and waiting for the sun to go down to start running again.

2.4 miles of swimming is honestly no joke, you're not going to take a rest sitting on your butt

Unfit for human consumption wrote:

2.4 miles of swimming is honestly no joke, you're not going to take a rest sitting on your butt

Yep. Exactly why I would want to know the person's swimming ability before answering. The people who sat in the shade waiting for the sun to go down had already passed the first two tests. A poor swimmer can't decide that the water is too choppy or the current too strong and just tread water until it gets better. A triathlete earns the "luxury" of pacing out the marathon by swimming and cycling well enough. And people doing a 100-miler certainly sit around at times to eat, cool off, change socks, whatever. They could certainly wait awhile for the sun to go down before resuming, same as the triathletes.

I skipped the last 2 pages, so I apologize if I'm repeating what's been said, but an IM is easier. I finished Louisville Oct 9th in 11;29. I'm 57, finished in top 500 out of 2700, top 10 percent in age/gender (winner around 9:00), but to make the 17 hour cut off you can walk an 8 hour marathon.

A 100 miler beats you up, so much repetitive weight bearing.

I've actually done both before. Just finishing both of them was pretty easy.

What is the DNF rate of a famous IM vs 100miler?

Whoever said there are no easy 100mi courses, is unfamiliar with the world of 24 hour competitions; competitors chasing spots on the US team for Worlds routinely compete on easy, flat courses to get the fastest times.

You can run a 100-miler on a track, dead flat.

Pam Smith went through the 100 mile mark in just over 14 hours last year on a track in Philadelphia. Just recently Gina Slaby went through the 100 mile mark in under 14 hours at Desert Solstice.

However, dragging Hardrock into this isn't really sensible, and dragging the Barkley into this is insane--it's not an ultra, it's a masochistic exercise in hiking futility put on by a lunatic.

Just because it's on a flat track, doesn't mean it's easy

Yes, it's easier than, say, Hardrock, but a flat track 100 miler is still far from easy