In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter? I guess if the rules say 17 hours...then 17 hours or less makes you an Iromnan (copyright). If Rev3 calls you an official finisher at 24 hours, then yes -- you are a Rev3 (copyright) finisher.

If you finish an Ironman in 16:59:59 or 9:59:59...they still refer to you as a finisher.

Personally, it is all about the mirror. Can you look at the person in it and say, "did I give it all that I had?"

I'll bite.

If you complete the event in the allotted time and within the rules, then you have completed an "Ironman" distance race and should celebrate no matter if its under 17:00 or 17:30 at Rev3.

Opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one and they all stink BUT I personally think it's what it means to you. As you stated you think of a 16:59 finish would mean more to you than a 17:30 and that is fair. I would bet whatever time you crossed in you'd be shouting from the rooftops. Finishing an IM is a feat no matter what time you finish it in, and of all the people who know I finished an IM a very small percentage have asked how long it took and ever fewer understood what that even means . Of couse that is my opinion and there will be people who think it stinks ;)

---

Rodney
TrainingPeaks | Altra Running | RAD Roller
http://www.goinglong.ca

You do realized that there are WTC Ironman races and non-WTC races where the cutoffs are less than 17 hours right? IM Germany is 15. IM Sweden is 16. Challenge Copenhagen, depending on your wave, is between 15-16. IMLou, depending on where you stand in line, is less than 17 hrs. There are a bunch of others out there that are less than 17 hours.

If a race, like Rev3, allows someone to finish in 17:30, how is your 16:59 more "worthy"? They came in within the parameters that were given to them, just like you came in under the parameters that were given to you. What if someone from Europe, where many IM distance races are 16 hours or less, comes up to you and tell you that you are not a real Ironman because you finished in 16:59, even though your IM allows you 17 hours to finish?

---

__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."

A TRUE Ironman is filthy rich and has a fancy robot suit, or is the former lead singer in the greatest metal band of all time.

17 hours is not the cutoff in Europe.

^^^This^^^

Making it to the start line is more than most.

LOL , I was gonna say wtf is a "true ironman," but you nailed it

A person could always go out and do one on their own and still get the satisfaction of overcoming the distance but people want to do them in an event and the thing is, those events have rules.So if you sign up for an event that has a cut-off then I would think you should abide by those rules and be happy.If you made it on that day then great if you didn't then ON THAT DAY you didn't meet the requirements...It is funny,I never hear this argument when it comes to Olympic distances or marathons...They also have cut-offs but we never bitch about whether or not one is a mararthoner if they missed the marathon cut-off.

Did you finish at 17:05? Yes.Were you an official finisher? No, but at the end of the day it is up to the individual to decide if they are personally satisfied with that or if they need validation in the form of a medal,a T-shirt and the applause of a bunch of strangers..


---

Hi - do you have legitimate concern about hitting 17 hours or just asking?

Because being slow is not a problem as long as you are trained enough to go long. To put this in to numbers you can average....

2:40 per 100 yards on the swim
14 mph on the bike
15:00 minute miles on the run
2 x 15 minute transitions

And you will still come in at 16:52. So slow is really a non-issue as long as you are dedicated to going steady!

Personally I don't care that "Ironman" is a trade makes word. In the context of Triathlons, there is an Ironman distance (and there used to be a Tinman but that was dropped). So for me, when anyone does an Itonman distance, then they done an Ironman.

As far as time goes, it depends upon your goals. If your goal is to finish an Ironman distance event within the time cutoff of that particular race then that is your goal. And if you come in a bunch sooner then you have wasted time and effort in training to become better than you need to be to accomplish your goal. Think of it this way, if you need to get 80% on a test to pass it and your goal is to pass then getting 90%+ means you spent too much time studying.

If your goal is to be as fast you can then it is different.

If you go back to the roots of Triathlons, there were no cutoffs. It was just "who is the fastest to do all 3". Well, it was more of "which specialization was the fastest overall".

My other argument is that the slower you are, the tougher it is and the more you put into it. These Pros and fast people get to stop after 9 to 10 hours while the rest of the pack stays out there in the course for 6 to 8 hours longer, almost double the time. How about an event where you have to swim for 2 hours, then have to bike for 8 hours and then have to run for 7 hours. The winner would be whoever could rack up the highest mileage. How would an existing 10 hour finisher fare over the next 7 hours?

Finally, who gives a shit. I do this for me.

---

BC Don
Pain is temporary, not giving it your all lasts all Winter.

Then why? Why not set a more reasonable goal that suits the demands of your life?

Ironman ain't all that.

Anyone who actually refers to himself as an "Ironman" is a douche.

First, Appreciate all your comments/"opinions" and value them... i actually was expecting a completely different reaction.

After reading all your thoughts, i think my issue is really my perception of IM. As an outsider to the distance, i think i have become brainwashed with the image of Mike Reilly saying you are an IM up until 16:59.. I realize the issue is my own i will have to find what i am happy with.

To answer your question, Then Why? b/c it is something i thought i would never want to do in my life and now have a burning desire to complete it. I agree that "ironman ain't all that"... (as i am not really a robert downey jr fan)... no seriously...

I think the half distance is a huge challenge for me and better suits my abilities but it doesnt mean i wouldn't love going for IM at least once. i guess i can't explain it.

Also, to answer the question of being slow. I should have no problem meeting those time frames that were mentioned it is more the fact that I am concerned of issues along the way. (i.e. bike issues, stomach issues, cramping). It is a long day and lots can go wrong so just anticipating that.

Again, thanks for your comments....

---

*****************************************
Linking TriBloggers! http://www.listoftriathlonblogs.com
Full time working mother trying to find time for triathlons, marathons and golf. http://www.nicolekesten.blogspot.com

What it means to you.....Things go wrong and someone sticks it out to finish, then they are a finisher. Personally to just finish for ego's sake is just that for egos sake. I also do not understand why someone would set a goal to walk the marathon, but, and a big but, what I think does not matter one bit......Its all up to you. Set your goal and try to attain. You pay your fee and have the right to be out there to accomplish whatever you intend regardless if 8 hrs or 24 hrs. Look at the first IM, out of the original 13 I think two were over 24hrs.

I agree...If i did that, my husband would call me a douche... wait, can a girl be a douche?...
Regardless, i would not refer to myself as an IM if i ever complete the full distance nor would i refer to myself in the third person :)

---

*****************************************
Linking TriBloggers! http://www.listoftriathlonblogs.com
Full time working mother trying to find time for triathlons, marathons and golf. http://www.nicolekesten.blogspot.com

Thanks for this comment.
At this moment in time, i should be able to hit those marks no problem, i guess I just anticipate issues arising and my body potentially rebelling on me (cramping, stomach issues, etc). I feel like i shouldn't go into something at the skin of my teeth in timing. i think for someone like me, IF i go for it in 2014, i need to do exactly what you said...be trained to go long and be consistent.

---

*****************************************
Linking TriBloggers! http://www.listoftriathlonblogs.com
Full time working mother trying to find time for triathlons, marathons and golf. http://www.nicolekesten.blogspot.com

When you look at the numbers, you realize it is doable if you have the time to prepare. I looked at your blog, and I know you are busy, so who knows if you can dedicate that time..... or even want to. Just be assured that if you can prepare, you can make it.

No tattoo means you are not an Ironman.
Tattoo over 17h and you are a poser.

More seriously, if you complete the distance you can call yourself whatever you want.
I think they still give you a medal if you finish after the cut-off and they also call you an Ironman on the mike.
DNF may appear on your results page though, but you completed an amazing journey and the latter is worthy of many praises.

---

---

Only fools never change their minds and I'll never change my mind about that.

Fortunately, she is not a himself; so she should be exempt from this label.

Well Walt Stack did Hawaii in nearly 27 hours one year and he was an official ironman finisher. Of course back then you were an official finisher in that amount of time, so i guess whatever the time you need for your name to show up in the results is what you need. Personally you know what you did regardless, but if you tell your friends and they look up your name in the race results, well i guess i would at the very least want my name there to show i did what they layed out in the time they allotted..

Finishing in 17 hours just does not seem like much of a physical accomplishment when you put it in that context, does it. However, I think what always amazes me about the 16+ hour finishers is not the physical aspect, but the mental side. Still walking (because if you are running at all, you are not still out there at 11 pm) in the dark when almost everyone else has already had a shower, a nap and a few beers must be brutal. Sure the finish line party is always biggest for the slowest, but it must be really lonely at the 22 mile mark. So, begrudging hats off to those who make it just before midnight. There is no way I could last that long.

Interesting way of breaking it down. When people get in trouble and start flirting with >17 hours, is it usually because they essentially stop for long periods during the run leg or that their walking pace is too slow? 15 minute miles is a "brisk" walking pace according to wikipedia. While that sounds pretty easy to do if you were fresh, I could imagine that after 10+ hours it might prove to be a challenge.

One year at IMLP, I was hanging out at the 23 mile marker at 11:00 pm (just happened to be across from where I was staying). There were a few spectators at that time but, as you guessed, they were few and far between. At no time did any of the athletes look lonely. I saw nothing but hardcore determination to make it to the finish line by the deadline. They had the 1000-yard stare knowing that they had a couple of tough uphills in their near future. It didn't matter. They trudged on. IMO- they were already Ironmen at this point, even before they finished.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/