I'm feeling controversial: what about lowering the cut off time down to 14 hours?

Triathlon Forum
21

I’ve thought about this too as I’m not ‘totally’ against the idea to “make it harder.” But, I’m only 36. God willing, I want to do these stupid races until I’m 60 and I’m sure the 14 hour mark would be looming large then. Seems like about 1/2 the “racers” are over 45 and the run gets much harder as we age (in general). IM Hawaii is reserved for the “elite” or lucky in the case of the lottery.

Really, I don’t have a problem with it and have as much fun cheering the last hour finishers as I did racing it :slight_smile:

22

So Dave that gives you a DNF, instead of your bragging signature. You gonna revise it to I DNF’d on 6hrs training?

t

23

I read the book when Bob Brown raced in this event. He claimed his supporters were trying to kill him at one stage and got claimed he was getting pursued by green aliens when on his bike. I think that pretty much means ultimate !!!

24

Wow, that’s crazy! What book is this? Not at all interested in doing one of these but would love to read about it!

Dan

25

Its called ‘The road to Deca’ by Bob Brown and is about his progression from being a mailman to tackling the most extreme endurance races. The Deca Ironman is his final focus and what happens is quite frankly a little disturbing !!!

26

Thanks Gear muncher! Time to pay a visit to amazon!

Dan

27

I think the arguments that the marathon or Ironman is too easy avoids the basic fact that the distances have stayed the same. More people have decided to train for them, which is great as it’s one of the few things getting people off their duffs to get some exercise and live a healthy lifestyle. If it’s not elitist enough for you anymore, do a triple ironman or a 100 mile run. Hopefully you’ll be able to finish those by the cutoff time.

28

I wonder if in the long run the WTC come up with a harder format …

29

I wonder if in the long run the WTC come up with a harder format …
I guess you’ve tried Ironman and found it too easy?

30

Francois, you lazy bum :wink: Get outta yer bed and go workout! Stop partying so late. (jk)

chuckle
Trae

31

Not 'til March and I wouldn’t be as arrogant to suggest it. I wonder if anyone else has though…

Try this as a point for further discussion:- if you’re not interested in times, just a completion, would there be a requirement for a tougher large scale event ?

32

Hmmm,

While I might not have finished (I would cause I wasted 45mins playing around knowing I had tons of time) IMFL , I think I might agree with the lowered cut-off times. Maybe even make it 13hrs.

I kinda of like the idea that I can’t finish something on the first try. The fact I was able to do it, with putting in very little effort kind of belittled the experience to me.

I think it’s more noble to DNF trying your best and pushing yourself, than it is to probably just chuff along and take it easy. I sorta felt robbed at the end of IMFL. I remember thinking, “this is it? That’s all there is to it?”

Was it “easy”? No, but neither was I completly exhausted at the end or the next day.

Being a BOP’er, I think it might not be a bad idea. That said, do I have to give my medal back? heh.

I am going to try for 13:30 (should be easy) at The Great Floridian next October, and then maybe even shoot for sub-13hrs (sub 12???) for IMCDA 2007. I think that is the goals people should shoot for. To try and improve your time.

I’ve also looked at the idea of doing one of the Double Iron races in say 2008 or 2009 or something, but that’s a LOOONG way away.

I have proven you can come off the couch(60lbs overweight), and NOT be able to run 1 mile, and finish a Marathon, 1/2 Ironman, and Ironman in less than 2 years.

I love this new lease on life and this new lifestyle. It has made me healthier and has given me focus.

Should the time limit be lowered, heck, Maybe it shouldn’t as… Others might get to the same point I did, which is, “Is that all?” and then want to push themselves further. I’m a n00b in all of this, soo…

Trae

33

That’s it…take down the finish line at 4 pm (9 hours). That way we can all go home and have a proper shower, supper at a reasonable hour and all return in time for the post race party :-).

I do see the point that there are many poorly prepped people doing the race in 16+ hours, but let’s face it, there are many well prepped dudes doing the race in sub 11 hours, who through poor execution end up in the medical tent. They are racing well beyond their capabilities. I know cause I have been there in the med tent 4 times out of 12 and vow to never go back (I hope!!!).

Doing these Ironman races is not particularly intelligent in the first place (you gotta agree that this is not a totally normal thing to do). There are ill prepped dudes who get into trouble simply because they have no idea what they are getting into and there are well prepped dudes who get into big trouble too. So where do you draw the line ?

Both Roth and the Old Ironman Oz had a 15 hour cutoff. I lobbied for the same at the flat and fast Canadian Ironman this Sep, mainly from an organizational perspective.

As a small event, I did not want to see the volunteer crew out there till 2 am cleaning up after starting the day at 6 am. In the end we had the race start at 6:30 am and end at 10:30 pm (16 hours). Everyone felt that this was as good compromise between an earlier cutoff and simplifying organization and giving the older folks a good shot at finishing. On race day, I actually went out on the course and accompanied the last finisher for several mile forcing him to take in nutrition and salt. In the final 5K he bounced back and started running. At one point he was close to missing the cutoff if he walked all the way in, but the moment he started running, he beat the cutoff by over a half hour. In the end, we were wrapped up and taking down the finish line before 10 pm.

Dev

34

Seems like a common sense approach to me Paul. Gets my vote.

35

I think we’ve come to the point in this thread where we have to ask “why” – What does lowering the cut-off time accomplish, and how does it benefit the sport?

The immediate effect is to drop the BOP competitors and make IM a young man’s game. Over 37% of your men over 40 and 60% of women over 40 would not meet the mark. So that’s not very positive, if you’re interested in promoting IM as a life-long pursuit.

Is the intent to make Ironman more exclusive, to “restore prestige”? It doesn’t work – one man’s 10-hour finish just as much an acheivement, regardless of when the last finisher comes in. Someone else’s 13:59 is just as good, whether followed by 100’s of people after 15 hours, or not. And the guy who finishes at 16:59:59 couldn’t give a rat’s ass about how fast the first guy came in – he has reasons all his own for entering that we’ll never know about, and who are we to deny them?

“Prestige” is best gained through positive means – by making it tough to *qualify *for the event, so that if you even step up to the line on race day, people know you’re standing with the cream of the crop. Ironman has one of those events – Kona.

Is an ordinary IM not exclusive enough? Fine – qualify for Hawaii, then. But let 16-hour-Joe pay his money, and take his chances at an “ordinary” event. It doesn’t take luster off of anyone else’s medal.

36

"What does lowering the cut-off time accomplish, and how does it benefit the sport? "

I don’t get it either. Personally I’m much more impressed by a 50 something year old who has been a couch potatoe for the past thirty years getting off the couch, training and then completing an IM in 16:59 than I am by another thirty year old with a strong athletic backgound going under eleven hours.

37

The only purpose of lowering the cutoff is to make it easier for small RD’s without huge army’s of volunteers to safely put on an Ironman event. If people complain about $500 entry frees and want some smaller races, then they have to be viable for small RD’s to orchestrate. Having an earlier cutoff simplifies a lot of things behind the scenes, that we as competitors often overlook.

And one could argue that 16 hours in a totally flat race is just as achievable (if not more achievable) than 17 hours in a race like LP, Lanzarote or Kona, so its not like the BOP person’s chances of a finish are being decreased.

38

You’re obviously thinking of Ottawa last year with 75 participants in the IM length. In one sense I can see your point but if they decide to put on such an event it’s probably best to keep it to the standard accepted guidelines that most everybody else is using. Did anybody finish in the 16:00 - 17:00 window last year?

Personally all I care about at Ottawa is wishing they could move the bike racks back to the bridge.

39

I think I might agree with the lowered cut-off times. Maybe even make it 13hrs.

I am going to try for 13:30 (should be easy) at The Great Floridian next October, and then maybe even shoot for sub-13hrs (sub 12???) for IMCDA 2007. I’m a n00b

Trae

Just so we have this to refer to next year…

40

Lowering the cut-off time would not work for the organizations and promoters who are putting up Ironman distance events.

Let’s face it they are selling a dream.“you finish and you are an Ironman”

There is a lot of money involved and oganizers do not want lose any entrance fees over lowering cut-off times.

Personally I will never do an Ironman because I think it is not healthy to abuse your body for that distance and training becomes your life if you want to finish with a respectful time(under 13 hrs).

I think finishing and Ironman in 16-17 hours is overrated and should not be considered a big achievement.(swim 2hrs-bike 7:30-walk 7:30).

But then it is all about $$$$$…and a dream…