General Discussion Triathlon Talk » IM and post-17 hrs Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 2
 
 
2006-10-25 6:21 AM
in reply to: #575474

User image

Elite
3687
20001000500100252525
Subject: RE: IM and post-17 hrs
I couldn't agree with Rocketman more. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. Sure, I could go out and complete an Ironman today if I swam a very slow and consistant pace, took a very easy paced 12 m.p.h. bike ride for 10 hours and then walked, maybe jog once in awhile for 6 or 7 hours, but that really does not make me an Ironman, it just makes me determined to finish a great task in a long amount of time. I wanted to do a HIM this year but was not satisfied I could get it done in under 6.5 hours. To me I decided that was the maximum time I could take to consider it an accomplishment. My goals for next year have been firmly established and that is now one of them.


2006-10-25 6:47 AM
in reply to: #575474

User image

Champion
19812
50005000500020002000500100100100
MA
Subject: RE: IM and post-17 hrs

We have had a similar discussion in our house. When my husband learned the cut off times and calculated the paces needed to finish, he said oh you should do an Ironman.

But I agree with Rocketman in that is a gradual build up.  For me I was out of shape and overweight. First year did sprint, second year an Oly and sprints, this year a couple of Olys and sprints & bike leg of a HIM, next year I'm signed up for a HIM and if that goes well in '08 I'll do a IM if training wise in our family's life it will work. So it will be a 4 year process to even consider doing one.

But stuff happens on the race course so those extra hours can be a nice cushion. My first swim coach did IMFL a couple years back and they lost her on the run course...asked her who are you and what are you doing. I can't recall if they pulled her off the course or let her finish over the time limit..she had an injury that gave her some trouble running.

2006-10-25 7:37 AM
in reply to: #577926

User image

Expert
1169
10001002525
Charlottesville, VA
Subject: RE: IM and post-17 hrs
mndiver - 2006-10-25 7:21 AM
  • ..wanted to do a HIM this year but was not satisfied I could get it done in under 6.5 hours. To me I decided that was the maximum time I could take to consider it an accomplishment. My goals for next year have been firmly established and that is now one of them.


  • I like your thinking on this. I'm doing my first Half-I/M at Eagleman, and the setting of a time goal (5:45) is an important part of it for me. Slogging my way through a 70.3 in 8 hours wouldn't be a meaningful personal accomplishment for me.

    Of course, people's motivations and expectations do vary, based on their fitness, experience, and ego, and there's plenty of room out there for them as well. But, IMHO endurance events like IM and ultra races should have a strict cut-off time, and anyone participating or considering doing one it should understand that's part of the event.

    2006-10-25 7:54 AM
    in reply to: #577974

    User image

    Giver
    18426
    5000500050002000100010010010010025
    Subject: RE: IM and post-17 hrs
    I think the cutoffs and course limits are fine where they are--I definitely wouldn't want to see them any slower. To make them more agressive would eliminate people like Sarah Reinertsen and Sister Madonna Buder form the race, and that would only be bad.
    2006-10-25 12:56 PM
    in reply to: #577974

    User image

    Extreme Veteran
    694
    500100252525
    New Haven, CT
    Subject: RE: IM and post-17 hrs
    kenail - 2006-10-25 7:37 AM

    mndiver - 2006-10-25 7:21 AM
  • ..wanted to do a HIM this year but was not satisfied I could get it done in under 6.5 hours. To me I decided that was the maximum time I could take to consider it an accomplishment. My goals for next year have been firmly established and that is now one of them.


  • I like your thinking on this. I'm doing my first Half-I/M at Eagleman, and the setting of a time goal (5:45) is an important part of it for me. Slogging my way through a 70.3 in 8 hours wouldn't be a meaningful personal accomplishment for me.

    Of course, people's motivations and expectations do vary, based on their fitness, experience, and ego, and there's plenty of room out there for them as well. But, IMHO endurance events like IM and ultra races should have a strict cut-off time, and anyone participating or considering doing one it should understand that's part of the event.



    I agree. I slogged & wogged through a half this year with an injury, and I'm just not satisfied with that. I won't consider myself as having "gone the distance" until I have a strong race (no time goal, but I'll know it when I feel it).
    New Thread
    General Discussion Triathlon Talk » IM and post-17 hrs Rss Feed  
     
     
    of 2