More Satisfying/Challenging: IM or BQ? (Page 2)

You're not making a fair comparison though.

Sure, if you're a pure RUNNER and a good, experienced one, of course BQ will be easier than IM if you have no swim or bike background. Then again, you will likely find a measly 1 mile OWS at BOMOP triathlete pace more difficult than a BQ, but this is obviously not a true comparison of overall difficulty.

Many people can train for years, seriously, for the run alone, and nothing but then run, but never BQ - most don't even come close, despite doing nothing but racing marathons. The potential for BQ for some of these folks, simply isn't there, even with solid training and years of experience.

Alternately, there are only a small number of people who who don't have the potential to make the the 17 hr cutoff provided they decide to actually train for it. In fact, most people who decide to do the IM, will make that 17 hour cutoff in their very first attempt, even with zero endurance background training prior to starting IM training. 

It's not even a debate here. Relative difficulty of BQ >>> 17hr IM finisher , unless you are considering special cases for people who are already good runners to begin with or not training actively for an IM. 

So true, I haven't BQ'ed yet, but know I can if I focus my efforts on it.  On the other hand, I could train full time for a year with the best coaches in the world and would never be able to run a 15 min 5K... the genetics just aren't there, plus I'm sure that the age thing doesn't help either!

Point is the distances in IM are long, no doubt, but to just finish in under 17 hours is relatively easy in that it just takes time.  If you can swim 3:00/100, bike at 14 MPH, and jog/walk at 14 min miles you can finish an IM and this even allow you 25 minutes for transitions.  It's a daunting task and one heck of a long day, but at no point are you ever really going hard.

Still, the ideas that other are expressing, & I agree with, is that BQ is physically more challenging. So, for example, while a "natural-born runner" may not be as good a cyclist, it seems that the risk of injury is still greater while running than biking.  Add to that that you're not putting as much effort on the bike than the run (more time yes).

This is the B friggin' T website,  Triathlons harder, way more challenging, it's the BOMB!

You're trying to compare just running to swim/bike/run.  No way, Tri wins!

Hey runner, can you even swim?  Can you ride a bike?

Is there a youtube video (one of those animatee Xtranormal voice-overs) with runner meets triathlete?

Seriously though I think just completing a Ironman is different than running a FAST 26.2 miles.

I think you need to compare a BQ to doing an IM within a certain time, definitely not 17 hours.  Less than 12 for sure.

I was afraid of this, the HIM is the equivalent of a 'gateway drug.' My poor wallet...

The way Sous phrased it in terms of time sounds so manageable, except for two things. First, it's still a tremendous achievement when all three individual components are done back-to-back. Even though you have 17 hours, that's a LONG time to be up and moving. Second, and it's an ignorant thing to say having never done it, but I want to be able to finish well under 17 hours. It's not just the event that awes me, it's the training volume and time commitment.

Maybe by next year it will be more like running is for me now, I can run decently on less mileage if I have to because of my base and knowledge of how to train smart. Swimming is still a huge effort. Biking is more structured now that I do power-based training, harder effort for less time, but 112 miles is still going to mean a LOT of biking hours per week.

I think volunteering at IMLP this year is going to be pretty educational.

I'd actually think that a 17 HR IM takes LESS talent than a BQ.  Mush less.  More work sure, but less talent. 

Then make the following comparison:

"Given that about 3500 people KQ or VQ (some do both) each year...and about 30,000 people BQ...I would say KQ or VQ is harder."

Qualifying for Kona certainly takes a more talented invidual than qualifying for Boston.  I'd bet the percentage of athletes that can KQ and actually do Kona is much much higher than the number of runners that BQ and run Boston.  On second thought anyone that can qualify for Kona can probably do an "easy run" and qualify for Boston. 

Kona takes a pretty gifted athlete. 

easy answer to the original question:

BQ is tons harder than IM finish (KQ would trump all as that isnt based on time but more of percentage so the "time" changes each year....).  To BQ you are pushing pace and running at a hard effort for X amount of time whereas to finish an ironman you are on cruise control the entire way, however, even that would be hard if you havent done the time needed in training.

BQ 2 time, Run once.  IM finisher 2X, DNF once.

This.  A BQ is a legitimate performance bar that one has to meet.  The 17 hour cutoff is not, relatively speaking.  As people said, a KQ is likely more comparable in a sense as it's a legitimate performance standard that needs to be met.  For the record, I've done neither (yet), but it isn't that hard to figure out.

It's interesting that the majority feel BQ > IM, and I tend to agree since I suck at running, but what about the other 2 sports.

What if there was a qualification for a cycling event that you had to do 112 miles in 4.5 hours.  Would that be > IM too?  How about the swim?  under 52 minutes 2.4 mile swim, is that > IM too?

Just trying to see why the perspective is the way it is.  For slower bikers/swimmers I bet these are unattainable tasks as well.

To put it to math.  Like Sous points out, Ironman is not an unattainable feat.  It takes time and dedication, but not pointed dedication that a BQ time takes for most.

3:00 per 100
14 mph average
14 min miles
= Ironman finisher

And to accomplish the above, it does not take 20 hrs of training per week.  Train smartly and it can be done in 13ish hours per week.  Yes you will have some heavier weeks (~15-18 hrs) but it's no different than the 20 mile runs during a marathon build (compared to the shorter 13-15 mile runs).

I guess I wouldn't view these stats ALONE as the sole determinant of which is harder.  Boston caps their field at a HUGE number and there are about a bazillion qualifying races out there at which you can BQ.  Kona has a much smaller field cap and there are much much fewer races at which you can KQ.  Having said that, I definitely believe the performance needed to KQ is harder than that needed to BQ.

I was a runner since h.s. and I've done 10 marathons and BQ'ed 10 times (2:51 PR), ran Boston only once though. I started tris in 2005 and I've entered 8 IM and finished 5 (10:57 PR, which I feel is way slower than my potential).  I never enter an IM to finish.  I always enter them to race and to attempt to KQ and have crashed and burned more than once.  I realistically need to chop off 30 min off of my IM time to KQ (50-54 AG), and probably more like 45 min to have a good chance at KQ.  That seems daunting to me right now but if I can ever figure out my nutrition and have a good race day it will happen.  Now...if I want to BQ I think I could easily put in 3 months of dedicated run training and easily BQ.  I can't say the same for KQ. 

If we are simply talking about FINISHING an IM...I don't think it comes anywhere near as hard as BQ....but that goes along with the caveats of someone's endurance/training background.  Note: I am NOT saying it doesn't take a lot of work to finish an IM.  The word "satisfying" was used in the thread title....that brings in a totally different dimension to the discussion and it will vary wildly among different people based on their value system.   Sorry to ramble.........

Hmmm. Great question.

I think it is harder to have a really good marathon at Boston- and in some age categories even qualify for Boston, than to get into an Ironman.

Boston is older, and there is some lore attached to that. With lore comes cred.

Which would I rather do? Ironman. Absolutely. (Note: I've done a few Ironmans, a ton of marathons (50?) but am not a good marathon runner. I've never broken 3 hours.)

Have to agree with this...I'm certainly prouder of being a Boston qualifier/finisher than I am of finishing my IMs, esp. since I wasn't particularly happy with my IM times.

Training to finish an IM is ultimately about putting in hours for months at a time (and, for a lot of people, losing weight)...it's mentally and physically draining, to say the least, but I had no real doubt I would finish once I got to the starting line, even with an injury.  There's no added pressure to develop speed in training for an IM finish the way there is when you are trying to get to a BQ (I walked around 12 miles in each of my IM marathons and still finished with hours to spare).  The percentage of people at an IM start who will finish (87-95%) is much, MUCH, higher than the percentage of people who BQ at any given marathon.

I'm the OP and I thank you for your responses.  My first marathon took me over 4.5 hours.  In four years I have run 10 marathons, qualified three times (under the 3:15 standard), ran Boston last year, and now can run a marathon in about 3:10.  I can remember after my first marathon how absolutely ridiculous the idea of BQ'ing was to me.  My wife even doubted I could be able to do it!! (She actually laughed when I mentioned the possibility)  But somehow I put in years of failures and made it happen. 

After reading your feedback I feel that the goal for me to finish an IM is easier than the goal I set to BQ after my first marathon.  This is what concerned me.  The road to BQ was hellacious and took me two years of very hard work.  I was hoping that the goal to be in shape to finish an IM could be done in half that time from where I am now and after reading your feedback I really feel it's doable. The quality of responses in this forum is impressive and I thank you for your feedback. 

Now as for BQ vs KQ/VQ, well to me that was never a question.  I think KQ/VQ is many levels above a BQ just because of the pure competitive nature and the limited opportunities to KQ/VQ within a training window (as has been said above).  However, I have only done Sprint Tri's and the Kool-aid has only given me visions of an IM goal so far.  I am on my way to being addicted and already well over $1,500 poorer.  I'm not saying I could never KQ I just hope I never want to!