login
Should the cut off time be changed for IM? (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-06-11 2:24 PM in reply to: #2211195 |
 Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM?smilford - 2009-06-11 12:15 PM Regulating by age group would be a nightmare, unless you did wave starts.. which would take away from what IM is. Only reason to shorten it would be because of getting support, but if you have support till 10pm.. what's 2 more hours at that point?  As stated.. 7am till Midnight just works and there doesn't seem to be a reason to change it. For us elitist, the World Championship for IM is hardest one to get into out of all the distances.Which raises the question..... does the OP think he is going to go faster with a shorter cutoff? What does the 17 hour cutoff lack that he feels he needs? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it, other than Dan made it sound easy. Most of the times this discussion comes up, it's because the fast guys (not here, other places) appear to be threatened by the 16:XX crowd, as if it cheapens their accomplishment somehow. not the OP's point since he hasn't done one though |
| 2009-06-11 2:28 PM in reply to: #2211234 |
Master  1853     syracuse | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? ChrisM - 2009-06-11 3:24 PM smilford - 2009-06-11 12:15 PM Regulating by age group would be a nightmare, unless you did wave starts.. which would take away from what IM is. Only reason to shorten it would be because of getting support, but if you have support till 10pm.. what's 2 more hours at that point? As stated.. 7am till Midnight just works and there doesn't seem to be a reason to change it. For us elitist, the World Championship for IM is hardest one to get into out of all the distances.Which raises the question..... does the OP think he is going to go faster with a shorter cutoff? What does the 17 hour cutoff lack that he feels he needs? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it, other than Dan made it sound easy. Most of the times this discussion comes up, it's because the fast guys (not here, other places) appear to be threatened by the 16:XX crowd, as if it cheapens their accomplishment somehow. not the OP's point since he hasn't done one though you got it! IMO, anyone who wants to change the cutoff, just want to make the accomplishment more exclusive for them. Thats all. |
| 2009-06-11 2:40 PM in reply to: #2211254 |
| Veteran 154 Richmond, KY | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? cusetri - 2009-06-11 3:28 PM ChrisM - 2009-06-11 3:24 PM smilford - 2009-06-11 12:15 PM Regulating by age group would be a nightmare, unless you did wave starts.. which would take away from what IM is. Only reason to shorten it would be because of getting support, but if you have support till 10pm.. what's 2 more hours at that point? As stated.. 7am till Midnight just works and there doesn't seem to be a reason to change it. For us elitist, the World Championship for IM is hardest one to get into out of all the distances.Which raises the question..... does the OP think he is going to go faster with a shorter cutoff? What does the 17 hour cutoff lack that he feels he needs? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it, other than Dan made it sound easy. Most of the times this discussion comes up, it's because the fast guys (not here, other places) appear to be threatened by the 16:XX crowd, as if it cheapens their accomplishment somehow. not the OP's point since he hasn't done one though you got it! IMO, anyone who wants to change the cutoff, just want to make the accomplishment more exclusive for them. Thats all. I think this is exactly why people would want to alter the time. Funny thing is, I bet that the 14 hour guy would want something like 15 hours, the 12 hour guy would want 13 hours.... |
| 2009-06-11 2:44 PM in reply to: #2211234 |
Champion 6962 Atlanta, Ga | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? ChrisM - 2009-06-11 3:24 PM Which raises the question..... does the OP think he is going to go faster with a shorter cutoff? What does the 17 hour cutoff lack that he feels he needs? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it, other than Dan made it sound easy. Most of the times this discussion comes up, it's because the fast guys (not here, other places) appear to be threatened by the 16:XX crowd, as if it cheapens their accomplishment somehow. not the OP's point since he hasn't done one though For the record, I don't think anyone cheapens my accomplishment. If I gave my all on the course and came in at 16:59:59 I would be the happiest DFL finisher on the planet. I was getting at the ones that train to finish in 16+ and pray for nothing to go wrong. |
| 2009-06-11 2:49 PM in reply to: #2211175 |
Extreme Veteran 683 Cleveland Area | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? F1longhorn - 2009-06-11 3:11 PM wavedog - 2009-06-11 2:07 PM ChrisM - 2009-06-11 1:36 PM Hold on a sec, I'm popping some popcorn Have to say, you've got some hot posts lately, true ironmen, lowering the time cutoffs... ever been on ST? Wait a minute, different cutoffs for different AG? yeah, that wouldn't be a cluster f****!
Seriously. I feel like I accidentally wandered in there... +1 I don't post over there but I peruse from time to time and can't believe some of the arguments that get started over there. Sorry stubbled in here, good argument by the way, but what or where is ST? |
| 2009-06-11 2:51 PM in reply to: #2211341 |
| Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? abrezo - 2009-06-11 12:49 PM F1longhorn - 2009-06-11 3:11 PM wavedog - 2009-06-11 2:07 PM ChrisM - 2009-06-11 1:36 PM Hold on a sec, I'm popping some popcorn Have to say, you've got some hot posts lately, true ironmen, lowering the time cutoffs... ever been on ST? Wait a minute, different cutoffs for different AG? yeah, that wouldn't be a cluster f****!
Seriously. I feel like I accidentally wandered in there... +1 I don't post over there but I peruse from time to time and can't believe some of the arguments that get started over there. Sorry stubbled in here, good argument by the way, but what or where is ST? I will not be responsible for your deflowering |
| 2009-06-11 2:52 PM in reply to: #2211003 |
Champion 7558 Albuquerque, New Mexico | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Cutoff times serve a couple of purposes. 1) It makes the RD job manageable. Good luck getting the city to give you a permit to close the streets "until the last participant is done" Along these same lines, how many volunteers do you need? 2) It dissuades some people who are marginally prepared to not sign-up/start rather than risk "failure" for missing a cutoff. No, I don't think it dissuades many people. 3) It does provide some commonality (validity, if you prefer) to the accomplishment. If there's no time limit, I could already claim to be an Ironman since I swam 2.4 miles one day in December, biked 112 miles last month (no, not really, I went 100), and ran 26 miles back in March. Instead, I wait for June 21st, when I can earn the right by completing the distance in <17 hours.
|
| 2009-06-11 2:54 PM in reply to: #2211349 |
Elite 2793 Denver | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? ChrisM - 2009-06-11 2:51 PM abrezo - 2009-06-11 12:49 PM F1longhorn - 2009-06-11 3:11 PM wavedog - 2009-06-11 2:07 PM ChrisM - 2009-06-11 1:36 PM Hold on a sec, I'm popping some popcorn Have to say, you've got some hot posts lately, true ironmen, lowering the time cutoffs... ever been on ST? Wait a minute, different cutoffs for different AG? yeah, that wouldn't be a cluster f****!
Seriously. I feel like I accidentally wandered in there... +1 I don't post over there but I peruse from time to time and can't believe some of the arguments that get started over there. Sorry stubbled in here, good argument by the way, but what or where is ST? I will not be responsible for your deflowering Yeah, I ain't gonna touch it either... it's better that you don't know. |
| 2009-06-11 3:08 PM in reply to: #2211316 |
Veteran 250 Maine | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Marvarnett - 2009-06-11 3:44 PM ChrisM - 2009-06-11 3:24 PM Which raises the question..... does the OP think he is going to go faster with a shorter cutoff? What does the 17 hour cutoff lack that he feels he needs? I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it, other than Dan made it sound easy. Most of the times this discussion comes up, it's because the fast guys (not here, other places) appear to be threatened by the 16:XX crowd, as if it cheapens their accomplishment somehow. not the OP's point since he hasn't done one though For the record, I don't think anyone cheapens my accomplishment. If I gave my all on the course and came in at 16:59:59 I would be the happiest DFL finisher on the planet. I was getting at the ones that train to finish in 16+ and pray for nothing to go wrong. I agree with Marvernett above. To be honest, I never gave this a single thought until I started reading these threads. I don't want it changed, I was just asking. As for being one of the fast guys, I've never considered myself one of them. I have never done an IM as stated now 3 times so I have no idea what to expect. I will say that I am shooting for a sub 13 but will be content to finish as long as I gave 100%. I will be happy if I don't have to walk any of the run. I do not look down on anyone no matter what their time is. I do however have goals of my own. If you give 100% you are my hero if you come in 16:xx even if you walked 26. Again, that statement only stands true if you gave 100%. I am not going to pull punches and say that I agree with HEALTHY people training with the sole purpose of walking the run just so they can have an IM tattoo. That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Again, I don't want it changed or even care but someone had to come up with 17 hours. I don't believe there was a magic formula back then when they did it which leaves it up to discussion. The only reason I said I would change it is because it's been years since it was changed and I think it could be looked at. Plus it was a knee jerk reaction. So my question is.... why are people so threatened by a simple question? |
| 2009-06-11 3:17 PM in reply to: #2211157 |
Giver 18427 | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Marvarnett - 2009-06-11 3:05 PM The times look easy by themself, but if you are prepared properly it can be done with time to spare. What if you're, like, 70? |
| 2009-06-11 3:20 PM in reply to: #2211396 |
Not a Coach 11473 Media, PA | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? stchase34 - 2009-06-11 4:08 PM Again, I don't want it changed or even care but someone had to come up with 17 hours. I don't believe there was a magic formula back then when they did it which leaves it up to discussion. The only reason I said I would change it is because it's been years since it was changed and I think it could be looked at. Plus it was a knee jerk reaction. Originally, there was no cut-off. And I believe it's actually been changed a few times through the years. But as to your original question, one should ask you right back "Why change it?" If it ain't broke... So my question is.... why are people so threatened by a simple question? For the same reason some people think "fast racers" who want it changed are trying to make their accomplishments stand out more, some "slow racers" see the question as indirectly voicing an opinion that their accomplishment is less valuable. You're entitled to your opinion and they are entitled to think you're an idiot. Again, the race organizers establish any cut-offs. We race under their rules and deal with it. Does making the cut-offs shorter or longer improve the race? Or cause more issues? That's the question the organizers should ask themselves. If changes would be a net positive, they should change it. If not, leave as is. So if you were the organizer, why would you think changing it would improve the race? |
| 2009-06-11 4:10 PM in reply to: #2211003 |
| Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Gee, what's next? There have also been mumblings about making different coloured "finisher's medals" for the different total times or at least one type for "normal" finishers and one for "slow" finishers. |
| 2009-06-11 4:13 PM in reply to: #2211396 |
| Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? stchase34 - 2009-06-11 4:08 PM The only reason I said I would change it is because it's been years since it was changed and I think it could be looked at. Wow, instead of "this is broken, let's fix it" you actually think, "it's been years since it's been changed and I cannot think of a single reason to change it but let's change it anyway." Do you work for the Government? |
| 2009-06-11 4:17 PM in reply to: #2211429 |
Champion 6962 Atlanta, Ga | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? run4yrlif - 2009-06-11 4:17 PM Marvarnett - 2009-06-11 3:05 PM The times look easy by themself, but if you are prepared properly it can be done with time to spare. What if you're, like, 70? Then God love you and get to the finish line. There are exceptions to every rule. And that's how I plan on getting to Kona....outlive everyone else! |
| 2009-06-11 7:03 PM in reply to: #2211003 |
Champion 5782 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Wait...shorten the cutoff time??? I thought this thread was gonna discuss lengthening the cutoff to 18 hours so as not to arbitrarily penalize people who can't walk a marathon in under 15 min/mile. Seriously, though, what's so magical about the 17 hours? Why not 16.5? 18? 12? No matter what the cutoff is, you're potentially excluding some percentage of aspiring Ironmen and Ironwomen. Why is the 16:59 athlete more worthy to be called an "Ironman" than someone who can cover the distances in, say, 17:59? I assume the only honest answer is basically, "Cuz that's what the cutoff has been established at and no fair changing it." |
| 2009-06-11 7:05 PM in reply to: #2211964 |
Champion 5782 Northridge, California | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? tcovert - 2009-06-11 5:03 PM Wait...shorten the cutoff time??? I thought this thread was gonna discuss lengthening the cutoff to 18 hours so as not to arbitrarily penalize people who can't walk a marathon in under 15 min/mile. (And, btw, I don't think I can walk a marathon in under 15 min/mi.) |
| 2009-06-11 7:08 PM in reply to: #2211964 |
| Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? tcovert - 2009-06-11 5:03 PM Wait...shorten the cutoff time??? I thought this thread was gonna discuss lengthening the cutoff to 18 hours so as not to arbitrarily penalize people who can't walk a marathon in under 15 min/mile. Seriously, though, what's so magical about the 17 hours? Why not 16.5? 18? 12? No matter what the cutoff is, you're potentially excluding some percentage of aspiring Ironmen and Ironwomen. Why is the 16:59 athlete more worthy to be called an "Ironman" than someone who can cover the distances in, say, 17:59? I assume the only honest answer is basically, "Cuz that's what the cutoff has been established at and no fair changing it." Has nothing to do with fairness or unfairness as I see it. WTC/NAS is a private entity that can set its rules as it sees fit. Sooooo, the true honest answer is "Because WTC says so." If WTC decided to change their time to 15... or 18... or 24, I couldn't care less. Just like they can set their finish line rules. As someone mentioned above, initially there was no cutoff. There are other independent IMs where you can see by the results that finishers over 17 hours are listed in the official results (i.e. Silverman), even though there is a midnight cutoff. Just keeping ther thread going Todd Edited by ChrisM 2009-06-11 7:09 PM |
| 2009-06-11 8:40 PM in reply to: #2211359 |
Extreme Veteran 683 Cleveland Area | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? wavedog - 2009-06-11 3:54 PM ChrisM - 2009-06-11 2:51 PM abrezo - 2009-06-11 12:49 PM F1longhorn - 2009-06-11 3:11 PM wavedog - 2009-06-11 2:07 PM ChrisM - 2009-06-11 1:36 PM Hold on a sec, I'm popping some popcorn Have to say, you've got some hot posts lately, true ironmen, lowering the time cutoffs... ever been on ST? Wait a minute, different cutoffs for different AG? yeah, that wouldn't be a cluster f****!
Seriously. I feel like I accidentally wandered in there... +1 I don't post over there but I peruse from time to time and can't believe some of the arguments that get started over there. Sorry stubbled in here, good argument by the way, but what or where is ST? I will not be responsible for your deflowering Yeah, I ain't gonna touch it either... it's better that you don't know. Ok, yea now I really want to know what ST is and where to find it!!  I'm a big boy I can take it! |
| 2009-06-11 9:19 PM in reply to: #2211003 |
Master 2468 Muskego, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? That's why i'm racing IM Japan, 15 hour cutoff. At 17 hours anyone can do it, even if your 20lbs overweight. |
| 2009-06-11 9:28 PM in reply to: #2212207 |
Champion 9600 Fountain Hills, AZ | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? papson14 - 2009-06-11 9:19 PM That's why i'm racing IM Japan, 15 hour cutoff. At 17 hours anyone can do it, even if your 20lbs overweight. Nice. |
| 2009-06-11 9:40 PM in reply to: #2212207 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? papson14 - 2009-06-11 9:19 PM That's why i'm racing IM Japan, 15 hour cutoff. At 17 hours anyone can do it, even if your 20lbs overweight.
It not just overweight people at the BOP who barely make the 17 hrs. People do IM for a lot of different reasons and with lots of different challanges. Making it more difficult to become a "finisher" does nothing for the sport except exclude BOPers from participating. Elitism. ~Mike |
| 2009-06-11 9:42 PM in reply to: #2211003 |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? stchase34 - 2009-06-11 1:34 PM Don't shoot the messenger... I was just wondering "Don't shoot the messenger" is usually used when someone is delivering news on an action/decision someone else has already made. No such decision has been made so why start off with this b.s.? WTF is up with BT lately? (rant off) |
| 2009-06-11 9:54 PM in reply to: #2212242 |
Master 2468 Muskego, Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Rogillio - 2009-06-12 12:40 PM papson14 - 2009-06-11 9:19 PM That's why i'm racing IM Japan, 15 hour cutoff. At 17 hours anyone can do it, even if your 20lbs overweight.
It not just overweight people at the BOP who barely make the 17 hrs. People do IM for a lot of different reasons and with lots of different challanges. Making it more difficult to become a "finisher" does nothing for the sport except exclude BOPers from participating. Elitism. ~Mike You may have misread the RED SARC FONT and info taken from a different thread. |
| 2009-06-11 10:29 PM in reply to: #2211012 |
Expert 608 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? |
| 2009-06-12 6:57 AM in reply to: #2211003 |
Veteran 146 New Jersey (outside philly) | Subject: RE: Should the cut off time be changed for IM? Crap, after reading this thread looks like gonna have to fix my bookmarks.......elitisttriathlete.com |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK