I don't think percentages work for this comparison, because the big marathons have way more people whose goal is just to finish than any of the big triathlons.

Compare 18,000 in last year's Philly Marathon to. 2,000 at a big IM race. With just about an order of magnitude difference in the number of athletes, the percentage figure for the marathon is getting pushed to the slow side.

You may have skewed the HIM time using Eagleman, Barry.

That is a notoriously fast (not to mention notoriously drafting-plagued) course.

For those that are making some of these assumptions, do you think the logic works backwards. If you think a sub 3 mary is equivalent to a 10:30 IM, does it stand to reason that someone who can pull off a 10:30 IM should be capable of going sub 3??? It seems that most of the people responding are saying no.

I think that very much depends on whether you are a bike or a runner. i did 10:17 at AZ, but it was all bc of a sub 5 bike, and a >4hr run. My open marathon expected times are in the 3:15 range- so my guess is the answer is "yes it runs backwards if you are a better runner than cyclist but not vice versa"

Personally i would vote for: 10hr IM, 4:30 HIM

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Cartels: Serotta, Zipp 2001, Guru, eh?
-"It was kinda long and then i got really tired"

I tend to agree. For example, someone like Oprah has done a marathon but I can't imagine her ever attempting an IM.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Yeah, but I figured the Philly Marathon is a fast, flat course as well. I'm mainly just throwing it up there for information. I think this is all very subjective.


As stated earlier, for some of us a 3:00 marathon seems much easier than those tri times, while others find the tri times much easier.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Man, I cannot believe all the 4;30 1/2 responses to your question. I think a lot of folks must be using Clearwater or other Florida races as a bench mark. Let's use a real 1/2 time, like Oceanside or Wildflower. 4;30 on a legit non drafting course is not that easy, and is approaching a back of the pack pro time, and a winning womens time. A 3 hour marathon is not that hard if you just train a little, and have some background in running like any triathlete would have. I think I would go with the 4:45 number on a legit course, and certainly a sub 2:00 olympic is waaay off the mark. Once again, a non drafting legit course is super tough to break 2 hours. You are beating all but the few best women pros, and they are pretty fast. For an olympic I would say about 2:12 or so..I think people have been cheating so long, and using phony pr times from short or drafting courses, that most have lost all perspective on how hard a real 4:30 or sub 2 hour really is....Just my opinion anyway, you asked for it....

Except for BarryP with is 97.34th percentile :) and a few others, I think many of us are using our own personal experience or the experience of other athletes we know. That's why you see such a large range of times. Some of us (i.e. me :) aren't cut out for marathon running (I've run three, admittedly undertrained, but have never gotten even close to 3:00) and we low ball the equivalent triathlon time (my PBs are 4:20 and 2:01). Others perhaps don't swim and ride as well as they run and they inflate the equivalent triathlon times :)

I think many of us are using our own personal experience or the experience of other athletes we know. \\

Fair enough, and of course I'm using my own personal expirence and history in the sport to come up with an across the board answer..For me personally it was much easier to run a 3 hour marathon than to do even a 4:50 1/2, and running was by far my worst sport. I was trying to look at it from an overall perspective, and not just my personal one. Of course there will be guys like you that always had a hard time running, and there will be ex runners that compare their 2;30 marathons to a 5;20 1/2. Somewhere in the middle is a general rule, I was just trying to guess where that might be....

A 3:00 marathon is 1.45 times the men's world record. Multiplying the men's ironman and olympic distance world records by 1.45 yields 11:23 and 2:25, respectively. Of course, this assumes we are talking about fast courses. I still tend to think people are over estimating the relative difficulty of a sub-3

sub 3 isnt hard at all. the only people who are saying its tough havent run 70+ miles a week for a few weeks.

i come from a swimming only background and my first marathon was under 2:55.

putting together and executing a proper 4:30 or 10 him/im is so ridiculously hard, so the ones that do it get the kona slot (give or take 15mins)

One of my favorite exchanges was from a training partner of mine to a guy in our local running group.

John: "Man, you looked like you got run over by a truck as you struggled to finish that marathon. I guess you blew up pretty bad, huh."
Marc: "Yeah. You know, I never realized how much one could walk in a marathon and still break 3 hours."
John: "Hey!! I've never broken 3 hours!"


Marc was probably in 2:35 shape but went out at about 2:20 pace.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

I disagree. Sub-3 is hard for a lot. Else a lot of people would be doing it.

I trained pretty dang hard on marathon, getting up to 100mpw, and going thru Pfitz Advanced marathoning 70mpw and beyond 3 times. Got my marathons from 3:55 to 3:40 to 3:20 to 3:16, but still a long way off from sub-3. (My HM got as low as 1:25 though.)

I'd say anyone who trains for real for their first marathon and comes in over 3:45 is in for a rough time trying to go sub-3. 45+ minutes is a lot to cut off unless you were really undertrained for your 1st.

have you ran 70mpw for 6-8 weeks?

if not, do it then tell me how your next marathon goes.

it starts getting hard once you break 2:45. then you have to do quality workouts and even more mileage

Whle sub 3hr has a definate sound to it, that time isn't super fast for a marathon. Depending on the course I would go sub 4:50 to 5 for a half and sub 10:30 to 11 for full.

It's an interesting debate... for some running a sub-3hr marathon is easy but getting under 10hrs in IM or 4:30 70.3m is real hard because they may come from a running background and suffer on the bike and swim. From my own experience I can't imagine running 60-70 miles a week but have gone 2:40 marathon, 9:56 IM and 4:19 70.3m.

Ah, but you can't use the same 1.45 factor for the swimming and cycling because of the exponential nature of the primary resistance.

I think this really depends on the course, 10 hours at IM Florida is not really special, prob equals 10:30 + at most other IMNA events.

Running 3 hours is really not very fast "IF" you can manage to get your running mileage up for a good 6-12 months.

I would guess that

3:00 = 10:40 standard IMNA course

2:45 = 10:00

I did the Pfitz 18wk/70mpw per week program (max 70) twice, and then did Pfitz 18/80-100mpw (custom) once, over a 2 year period. Cut 50 minutes off my first real marathon, but still 3:15 - not too close to sub3. It's hard for us less gifted, and I wasn't a terrible athlete to begin with.

Blimey I never realised a 3hr marathon was so easy! Seriously though, I am miles off that but did a 10:06 at IMNZ and a 4:48 HIM on a hilly course last season. My running speed is not high (marathon PB only 3:39, admittedly I didn't know how to train in those days) but I can run close to that speed no matter how hard I go on the bike.

I would say these are equivalent assuming all are on flattish courses:
3hr marathon
2:07 non drafting oly tri
4:40 HIM
9:45 IM

18,000 is the combined field limit for the Philly Marathon *and* Half Marathon. According to marathonguide.com, the marathon field was just over 7,000.

Using the 97.34th percentile time at the Pigman (lake swim, usually wetsuit legal; gentle rolling hills for bike and run; not a super fast course but by no means slow; the local pro, David Thompson, has gone under 4:00; the winning amateur time is usually around 4:10; the size of the field is usually around 500) for the last 10 years gives 4:27, 4:30, 4:27, 4:41, 4:31, 4:28, 4:29, 4:28, 4:34, 4:37.

I stand corrected on the absolute number, but it doesn't change my point. Before you start picking out percentiles and comparing them, you have to make sure the distributions are shaped the same.

i agree, I ran sub3:10 for my first marathon and it took another 7 marathons to go sub3 and I was very familiar to average 80-90 weeks and 20+ every weekend. I think it's easy to go 3:45 to sub3, if you trained like a complete idiot the first time, but if you trained correctly, it's hard to shave off minutes.

I am a 2:51 runner... and I have yet to hit 4:30 , while still hitting close to 25mph in a 20K TT :(

Really bad swimmer.. you betcha

---

___________________________________
Mizuno Running - http://www.mizunousa.com/running

I had four 70+ mile weeks for Boston '07 and several more that were almost that. 3:33. I don't think the lack of headwind would have bought me 1/2 hour. Don't get me wrong...the mileage was very beneficial and moved me to a different level, but unfortunately that level was nowhere near sub-3. Sure, take a 40min 10K guy and slap 70 mile weeks on him and it's probably there, but take a 43min 10K guy (like, say, me :-) and slap 70 mile weeks on him and you get 3:20-3:30.