It's impressive to the 70 year old.

What do you care what time other people finish?

Ironman's all about personal achievement, quit worrying about what other people do.

Dude, it's impressive that a 70-year old can stay awake for 17 hours straight.

IM is a huge accomplishment whatever the time.

---

_______________________________________________

What do you mean "today's 17 hour cut-off". Have they been extending th cutt-off?

I have to agree. How is not impressive that a 70 year old swam, biked, and ran nearly 140 miles in less than a day?

I'm pretty new to this forum, but I'm not heartened by the elitism I've seen in recent threads. "Lower the cutoff." "Make it really hard to even race in an Ironman." "Make it cost more."

I'm kind of baffled how other people's participation in these events diminish anyone else's performance. If you win the race, what possible effect does it have on you and your time if the last person crosses the line 5 hours after you or 8?

I believe IM's usually start at 7am and end at midnight (17 hours). If you can't finish an IM in under 14 or 15 hours (as long as you have no injuries), you probably shouldn't be doing it. Unless you really like to punish yourself, that is.

No finishing an Ironman in less than 17 hours is only not impressive to someone who has a PR of 11:00. . For someone who has zero athletic talent it takes every bit of effort if not more to finish in 15-17 hours as it does for someone who breezes in on a bad day in 11 hours. I remember watching one of the IM shows on NBC and one of the participants and I think organizers of the first IM didn't finish in 17 hours.

Get a grip on reality - most people can't fathom running a 5-10K much less doing an IM. Threads like this come up after each IM and they never let me forget the elitist snobs that exist in the world.

The fact is, somewhere along the line, the idea that this is a race has been lost....and just to finish is not difficult for anyone in reasonable shape. Most "athletes" can walk 26 miles.

I once heard Bill Rogers say he was more impressed by the people who ran as fast as they could for 4 and a half hours than he was by the 2 and a half hour marathoners.

---

don't just do something..... sit there

They should do more to ensure that triathlon is a sport for middle to upper class white folks between the ages of 20-50. Oh wait ... =)

How is it not impressive that a 70yo person completed an Ironman. Ever hang out with someone that's 70?

This sport is about as elite as a sport can be, and with the increase in popularity .... it's likely to become even more specified.

I can agree that perhaps Kona should have a much lower cut-off ... but not for the same reason mentioned earlier ... but b/c it's the world championships. More prestige. Higher standards. Plenty of other races for finishes to get their mark.

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

1. Getting to the finishline is still impressive to me.

2. About 10 years ago, Outside Magazine had an article on what was still impressive in terms of outdoor adventure challenges - Climb Mt Everest, Doing an Ironman, Running a marathon etc . . I seem to recall that even then, Ironman was already being written off, as not being impressive simply because too many people each year were finishing it and that was before the recent proliferation of IM Franchise and other long distance events.

.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

I agree...it is barely a race anymore and just an event that most can slog through. I have "raced" my share but am also guilty of slogging through a few where I didn't feel too deserving of being called an "Ironman".

I disagree completely.

I've completed 7 Ironmans (including Kona). At every race, my wife and I make it a point to watch the final 2 hours. Quite honestly, they are the MOST impressive finishers.

For a 30 year old male with 5% body fat, Ironman is "doable." Let's face it, guys (and gals) like us were BLESSED with bodies designed/optimized for this type of event. Watching cancer survivors, amputees, people who have lost 100 lbs, and the myriad of other obstacles the later finishers have overcome is PRECISELY the spirit of Ironman.

Rather than criticizing, you should be applauding these efforts.

---

http://wattieink.com/elite-team/
Raising funds to help wounded veterans and racing RAAM 2013 with http://team4mil.org/
"If you are gonna charge... CHARGE HARD!"

    I agree with some of the other posts regarding the 70 yo's, etc... completing this race in under 17 hrs. I will predict that those individuals who would like to shorten the cut-off time are less than 35 yo, work 9 to 5, and have no kids. I am a 44 yo physician with 3 kids and did my 2nd IM in 12:45. Though I hope to continue to improve my time, I also recognize that age is working against me. I hope that some day when I am 70, my health and fitness is such that I could still do an IM race in less than 17 hrs. Shame on those who have made negative comments about older folks doing this race!

I did not state that the 70 yo who finished was not impressive..I said the Race itself is not impressive.

Because a 15-hour IM isn't punishing... ;)

---

_______________________________________________

My mistake. I didn't realize that Ironman events, and by extension I assume all other tri's, marathons, 10k's, and 5k's are only supposed to be completed by people who are "racing" them. Digging deep and having the conviction and determination to finish when your body is begging you to give up doesn't mean anything. You're not an Ironman because you're slogging.

This eltist "get off my course because you don't belong here" crap makes me want to puke.

"Finishing an Ironman with today's 17 hr cut off is not that difficult and the event has lost some of its luster."

Why thirteen hours? Why not put the cut off to 9 1/2 hrs to keep out the "poseurs".

Scuba diving was once considered a very extreme sport but now with organizations like PADI and the changes in modern equipment, almost anyone can do it. Does that make me like it any less? Not one bit.

If you had been denied the chance to call yourself an IM at 14:53 would you have returned to try again? Probably most people wouldn't. They'd either be too discouraged or p*ssed off to ever train for another one.

Only .005% of the population will ever do a triathlon, let alone an IM. That's a unique achievement in itself.

You are a real triathlon snob!!

I think you are a show-off that suddenly worried to find that many others can do what you have achieved, instead of pushing yourself to higher places, you are trying to restrict less gifted or significantly older people from achieving the same. Find yourself a new sports that only young people do and leave the rest of the world alone.

My grand-dad is 92, he walk 5 miles everyday and swim in the sea every morning at 6:00am for 5-10 minutes. There is no way he could run and he has not cycled for probably 30 years. I doubt you will be as fit as he is now when you are 70 (if you make it with these attitudes).

Completing an Ironman at 70 even is amazing whatever the time is - you are not an ironman at all because you are not what I call a man. Have some more respect to people who do it as a personal achievement - you don’t know their background and why they are doing it.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"This eltist "get off my course because you don't belong here" crap makes me want to puke. "

Ditto.

I completely disagree. Not only are the individuals and their accomplishments impressive, the race is, too. Though I'm sure there are some people out there that are undertrained and have not taken the race itself seriously, I think that most train hard and race hard. What you can't prepare for in advance are blisters that make you hobble, back pains you've never experienced before, problems that crop up during the race that you deal with as best you can and just keep going.

Even putting aside physical issues that crop up during the race, the idea of doing a race such as Ironman is just so foreign to most people that when you talk with them about it they just have no frame of reference for it at all. It's really beyond comprehension - I'm sure most people have heard someone else say that "Just talking about it makes me tired." I think that being involved in the sport for any lenght of time makes you so immersed in it that you become oblivious to the fact that it's not even on the radar screen of 98% of the world's population.

If it takes 16 hours to finish it, well, congratulations to you. Maybe next time it'll be 14 1/2 or 12 1/2. It's an accomplishment either way that has impacts beyond athletic achievment.

I would be proud to finish my first IM in 17hrs - for me its all about the finish line.

I suppose that completing an Irondistance isn't the same as completing and Ironman, too.

I finished my first "Irondistance" race in 13:52, and hold that as my biggest personal accomplishment. No matter how many more I do, that will always be the most gratifying one. Now your saying that they should make a cut off.

I guess they should drop the 1/2 cut-off to 6 hours also, don't want that to lose its luster. because if you can't finish a 1/2 in hours, chances are you will not finish a full in 13hrs.

Mark

Don't do them anymore.

---

----------------------------------------------------
Striving to have sex more than 66 times per year

Perhaps you should find a different sport -- one that's not all cluttered up with inferiors; one that makes you feel like you've accomplished something. Because the problem here certainly couldn't be with you -- it definitely rests with IMNA.