…and where do we rank compared to other “fringe” endeavors?
4,000 people have tried to climb Everest - 660 have succeeded.
8,500 have hiked the AT - don’t know how many have tried…
Are Ironman finishers somewhere between the number of “extreme ironers” and let’s say - recreational softball players?
Doesn’t pass a math test, Larry. There are over 33,000 cities and towns in the U.S. For the sake of argument…let us assume that each one has only one softball league, with eight teams, each with the minimum requirement of 10 players. This is a fairly safe estimate since even my small hometown of 2500 had no less than three softball leagues…therefore I believe towns with multiple leagues more than cover for the towns with none. After all…how many leagues do you suppose someplace like Chicago has?
Anyway…those numbers work out to 2,640,000 rec softball players. Said another way…that means the average American would know less than one person who plays softball. I can count more than 15 in just few seconds recalling those I know. And I don’t play softball. How many Ironmen can your co-workers name? Odds are you are the only one. Its a better bet that they have their own company softball team.
Certainly there are far more Ironman finishers than Everest conquerors…but even a super generous estimate would be much less than 1,000,000 over the whole 26 year history of Ironman distance racing, including every finisher of every Iron distance race, whether WTC branded or not. I would put the number at less than 500,000, but can’t dredge up numbers quickly enough to support that here.
Brian,
I think just maybe he was joking in comparing to softball. Although I disagree with him to a point, in the “old days” we used to say that really doing an Ironman is going uder 12 hours (of course we were younger then ;-)); but, when you have perfectly health 30 year olds talking about going 16.40 you have to wonder.
Best wishes,
Oh, I know he was only throwing that out there. It wasn’t so much a jab at LC as it was a consideration of the question. It just got me to thinking about it and pulling together some rough numbers…its an interesting question and one that I have considered often.
"…and where do we rank compared to other “fringe” endeavors? "
The most extreme endeavor people that I’ve known personally are the technical scuba wreck divers. I’ve been a scuba diver for over two decades, but largely at the recreational level. I’ve explored a lot of wrecks, dove with sharks but my deepest dives have only been around 100-120 ft and have done one 150 ft. dive.
In contrast, the technical divers will dive to 300 ft or so on trimix (mixed gases). This type of diving puts abnormal strains on the human body and requires considerable waits for decompression stops when ascending. These people will explore the insides of wrecks in cold murky water. Others I know are into cave diving. Very dangerous if you don’t know what you’re doing. They dive with multi-tanks, flashlights and lots of equipment and have to be organized.
Not taking anything away from mountain climbers, but I actually consider technical wreck or cave diving a more extreme endevor than climbing Mt. Everest.
From the xtri.com website, there were about 27,000 iron distance finishers worldwide in 2004. Some people, of course, do more than one. I don’t have the numbers, but there would be considerably fewer finishers annually during the first 25 years of the sport.
I suggested that a while ago and got reamed…lots of Oprah’s out there…
"I for one would support a 13 hour cut-off. But that is just me. "
I wonder if you would still say that when you are over 60 and still in the sport?
I just had my 7th knee surgery last year, and I’m still shuffling along after 20 years in tri. I’ve had 5+ hours variation in my IM times, and have been happy just to be there. I’d rather finish faster than slower; takes too much energy to keep moving for 15 hours.
Not this argument again…
Uh-oh. I would not support a 13-hour cutoff … but I would be willing (changing my mind here) to have different awards for those that finish under 13 hours. Then we get into the whole debate of “13 hours is okay for 30ish athletic men, but what about the 54 year-old female?” … I don’t even wanna get into that. It comes down to a difference of “what ironman is”, is it a competitive race, is it a lifetime accomplishment, or both … right now it seems to be “both”, and they don’t seem to be doing a bad job of it. The compettive folks compete, and the finsihing folks finish. Seems like someone figured out how to have their cake and eat it too.
I’d really like for you to say that to this distinguished gentleman from South Dakota…
Or this young man.
Yep…I’ll tell Frank at LTF that’s he really not an Ironman. Perhaps you can mention that to Bill.
I’ll also mention it to his guy…cuz he’s not an Ironman either.
Larry - the point that I’m making is that everyone toes the line at IM for a different reason…and it’s perhaps different than your perception. Don’t pee on other’s dreams with your own self imposed limits.
(warning sarcasm ahead)
All you “cut off times” people have it wrong. John Collins is quoted at of the very first Ironman competition that “whoever crosses the finish line first can call himself the Ironman.” So unless you’ve won a race Overall, you are not an Ironman. That will eliminate most on this list, except Scott Molina.
Support Crew
No I don’t have the quote in front of me. I’m on my laptop, in my hospital bed enjoying my morphine.
didn’t we just fight this 13 hr vs. 16:59 real Ironman argument just last month?
LC you must be in full troll mode to throw this one out again.