A tri buddy of mine and I were recently discussing our race history. We’ve run a combined 22 marathons between us and recently completed our 3rd half iron distance races. We were comparing our marathons to our 1/2’s. We both agreed a marathon is more physcially challenging while a 1/2 Iron is more mentally challenging. But then we began a debate on time. Many believe a 4 hour marathon or less is considered ‘good’ so we were trying to equate a 4 hour marathon to a 1/2 Iron race. We came up with somewhere between 6:45 and 7 hours. What do you all think?
I think a sub 4 hr marathon is more on par with a sub 6 hr half. But that’s just me. If you run a sub 4 hr marathon you certainly are able to go well under 2 hours in the 13 mi run in the half. Doing the math I think a good 1/2 is certainly less than 7 hrs. But everyone is different.
Okay, I’ll bite, but having never done a half (first one is in September), what do I know. Here’s my thoughts:
If you do the swim in 40 minutes that equates roughly to 2:00/100s. That’s a fairly leisurely pace. If you ride an avg of 21 mph that’s about 2:36 for the bike. Then if you run 10:00/miles, that’s 2:10 for the run. So your racing time is 5:26, then add about 8 minutes for the transitions and your done in about 5:35. The times I set forth above are not by any means fast, but they would be respectable for a first timer like myself. Accordingly, you may be a bit off by saying 7:00 equates to a four hour marathon. I dont’ think I could go four hours in a marathon, but I hope to go under six hours in September.
Add in 7 minutes for transitions, and you’re at 6 hours. Figure someone who can run at about 9:10/mile for 26.2 miles could do the above with similar training.
Just checked the MEDIAN 2004 result of 40-44 year-old men at Timberman (Half) and the NYC marathon. Of course weather conditions, experience of the participant, etc. means this is just a ballpark comparison, but:
Median NYC Marathon: 4:13
Median Timberman: 5:30
So I guess maybe even under 5:30 might be closer…
For men ages 45-49, the medians were 5:38 and 4:33.
First, I feel a marathon is both physically AND mentally tougher than a 1/2iron. My best marathon, six weeks shy of turning 55, is 3:29. My best 1/2iron, five months after turning 55, is 5:09. The marathon, even though I was in control throughout, was just tough, and I was pretty much drained at the end. For the 1/2iron, well, it was a lot of work and concerted effort, but I did not feel overly drained at the end. (And running is my strong suit.) My average 1/2iron time is about 5:35, and that’s counting 11 of them, so I would say that if you are calling a sub-4 marathon “good”, then the times you have for a “good” 1/2iron are way too slow - maybe sub-6 would be more like it.
Are you giving any thought to age, however? That 3:29 qualified me for Boston by 16 minutes, so I guess by the B.A.A. standards I was good (enough). But for a 30-year old, that 3:29 is not nearly good (enough) in the eyes of the B.A.A. Similarly, to qualify for the U.S. Half Championship I need a 5:40 or under. My 5:38 at Mooseman made it, as did my 5:30 at Timberman last year, but were I a 30-year old I would’ve missed by half an hour.
So, for both running marathons and doing 1/2irons I guess I am good (enough) for my age, but my times would be very mediocre (or worse) for many of the young’uns out there. At any rate, I think your 6:45 - 7:00 hour range for a “good” 1/2hour is far too slow.
Thanks for the replies!! It appears we were a little generous in the 1/2 times. I think a lot it was biased because we’re both decent runners(sub 3:35 marathons) but very average(probably below avg) cyclists(17.5ish in a 1/2 Iron).
I haven’t done a marathon since 2001 and have done my 3 1/2’s in the last 3 years. I’m hoping to do a marathon and a half next year. Curious to see if marathon training will help my half time.
FWIW, I’m doing my first half IM in about three and a half weeks at Steelhead. I have finished seven marathons, and my PR, last November, was a 3:47. I’m a lousy cyclist, but was once, in the early 1980s, a reasonably good swimmer. I’m think that somewhere around 5:30 is realistic goal and probably won’t get too depressed unless I finish well over 5:45. I’ll let you know what I think after August 6.
About the only thing you can relate your marathon time to is the run portion of the 1/2 IM. Example, remember the two Kenyans who could run 29min 10K’s tried a 1/2IM and did very poorly. The run portion of the race was at record pace, but their swim & bike sucked!! I’ve done many marathons and 1/2IM’s over the past 35 yrs. I’ve noticed I could run faster than many runners who were faster than me in a running race only, because they couldn’t run fast off the bike. That’s what makes triathlons an interesting sport. My 1/2IM run splits are about the same pace as I would run a scratch marathon. But that’s only me. Everyone is different and the only way you can get your max out of the run is to do a lot of brick training runs. By the way, I don’t take it easy on the bike portion of the 1/2IM.
In the same year that I struggled to a 2-hour half marathon, I did 5:11 in a half IM a few weeks later.
My half marathon PR is currently 1:40, and I figure I could go 4:50-ish in a flat half IM right now.
Extrapolating – a 4-hour marathoner* should go no slower than 5:30 or so in a non-hilly half IM.
BTW – marathon pace is a good goal for pace in a half IM. If you can’t run marathon pace in the half IM, you rode too hard, IMHO. Even with a 45-minute swim, that leaves 2:45 for a flat bike. Very do-able.
*Condition: and weighs at least 150 if male and 115 if female. Bike power potential falls with body weight, and some waif-ish runners have a tough time ever getting fast on the bike on the flats.
Edit: Thinking it over…a 115 pound female 4-hour marathoner might need to be thinking more in the 5:45 range. Her bike power on the flats will be a handicap versus a 4-hour male marathoner. Size matters: A 185-pound 4-hour male marathoner should easily ride 2:30.