login
Ironman v Ironman distance
-
No new posts
|
 2010-06-19 11:45 PM |
New user 1 |  Subject: Ironman v Ironman distanceI've been debating with a friend on this. If you've completed an Ironman Distance race as opposed to a WTC Ironman, can you 1) legitimately call yourself an Ironman or Ironman finisher and 2)can you legitimately get an M-dot tattoo? My take is while "Ironman" is a trademark brand and the M-Dot is the trademark symbol, it has ALSO become synonymous with a particular triathlon distance. Because of this, I vote yes, you are an Ironman because you finished the race at the appropriate distances (presumably within the allotted timeframe). My esteemed colleague feels differently. I'm sure this is a pretty controversial topic, as I have other triathlon friends who are split (though mostly agree with me). I look forward to your thoughts. Thanks! |
| 2010-06-19 11:54 PM in reply to: #2932294 |
155  | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance You do the distance, you earned the opportunity to get the tattoo and call yourself an Ironman. |
| 2010-06-20 12:57 AM in reply to: #2932298 |
Extreme Veteran 664  Minneapolis | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance stuy119 - 2010-06-19 11:54 PM You do the distance, you earned the opportunity to get the tattoo and call yourself an Ironman. I respectfully disagree. If I run my podunk neighborhood marathon, I don't go around telling people I did the Chicago or NYC Marathon with the excuse that "26.2 is 26.2". How is this misrepresentation any different? If being able to brag that you are an "Ironman" is so important, then why not just do one of those races? Especially if you are going to get inked... If you get the tatt, you are inevitably going to be asked what IM you did & when... "Well, I didn't actually do a real Ironman, but..." Cheers, Chris |
| 2010-06-20 1:47 AM in reply to: #2932318 |
| On your right | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance Hydro - 2010-06-20 1:57 AM stuy119 - 2010-06-19 11:54 PM You do the distance, you earned the opportunity to get the tattoo and call yourself an Ironman. I respectfully disagree. If I run my podunk neighborhood marathon, I don't go around telling people I did the Chicago or NYC Marathon with the excuse that "26.2 is 26.2". How is this misrepresentation any different? If being able to brag that you are an "Ironman" is so important, then why not just do one of those races? Especially if you are going to get inked... If you get the tatt, you are inevitably going to be asked what IM you did & when... "Well, I didn't actually do a real Ironman, but..." Cheers, Chris Yes, but if you had a "marathon" tattoo, would it matter if you got it after NYC marathon, or a small local one? Now if you have a tattoo that says "NYC marathon finisher" and you haven't done that race, it's a bit different. I could see that parallel to having say an IM tattoo with Kona under it and have not done that race. To me, if you want the ink, get it. It's your body, your money, and your accomplishment (assuming you actually did the race.) |
| 2010-06-20 1:59 AM in reply to: #2932318 |
Master 2404 Redlands, CA | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance Hydro - 2010-06-19 10:57 PM stuy119 - 2010-06-19 11:54 PM You do the distance, you earned the opportunity to get the tattoo and call yourself an Ironman. I respectfully disagree. If I run my podunk neighborhood marathon, I don't go around telling people I did the Chicago or NYC Marathon with the excuse that "26.2 is 26.2". How is this misrepresentation any different? If being able to brag that you are an "Ironman" is so important, then why not just do one of those races? Especially if you are going to get inked... If you get the tatt, you are inevitably going to be asked what IM you did & when... "Well, I didn't actually do a real Ironman, but..." Cheers, Chris I don't think anyone is going to question it, unless they're one of the 'only Kona finishers are Ironmen' types. I think it would be more like the NYC Marathon having the trademark on the word 'Marathon'. I say if they do the distance, WTC or not, they can get the tat. |
| 2010-06-20 2:24 AM in reply to: #2932325 |
| Extreme Veteran 664 Minneapolis | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance Yes, but if you had a "marathon" tattoo, would it matter if you got it after NYC marathon, or a small local one? Exactly my point. But this issue is about an M-Dot tattoo, not one that says "Triathlon". Now if you have a tattoo that says "NYC marathon finisher" and you haven't done that race, it's a bit different. I could see that parallel to having say an IM tattoo with Kona under it and have not done that race. OK, so let me get this straight... A tatt that says you did Kona if you didn't do Kona is shady, but it's OK to get a tatt that says you did an Ironman (and call yourself an Ironman) when you haven't done an Ironman? Other than one of those lies being more blatant than the other one, I don't follow your logic... To me, if you want the ink, get it. It's your body, your money, and your accomplishment (assuming you actually did the race.) Amen. Just be prepared for the "Oh, so you're not a real Ironman" comments when you explain yourself. And I agree that's silly and sad if people think that way, but you're going to get that from triathletes and non-triathletes alike when you bring that can of worms to the table... Look, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not an Ironman, nor do I really care what people call themselves. Frankly, I think the whole "Ironman" label is ridiculously overblown. But for folks who really have this burning desire to call themselves by that title, why don't you just do one of the IM races??? Cheers, Chris |
| 2010-06-20 2:28 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
Extreme Veteran 590 Seattle | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance For some reason, I think it'd be okay to call yourself an Ironman but a little fishy to get a tattoo. That probably seems hypocritical, but just the way I see it. |
| 2010-06-20 2:29 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
Master 2855 Kailua, Hawaii | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance MPO is to do an Ironman branded race, because I won't feel like I did an "Ironman" if I don't. Perhaps after I get over the branded Ironman, I might try a non-branded one. But initially the Ironman race is the experience I want. Even though it is a personal achievement, I also don't want people going "huh" after saying I did a 140.6 race (because it wasn't a true "Ironman"). |
| 2010-06-20 2:50 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
| On your right | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance By the "only get the M-dot" for an actual Ironman branded race logic, would it be ok to get an M-dot tattoo if you did a 70.3 race that was still an Ironman event? I mean, if the distance isn't what matters and only the brand race this should be cool right? |
| 2010-06-20 3:31 AM in reply to: #2932336 |
Expert 1023 Ft Gordon, GA | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance Lilac J - 2010-06-20 2:28 AM For some reason, I think it'd be okay to call yourself an Ironman but a little fishy to get a tattoo. That probably seems hypocritical, but just the way I see it. x2. Not sure why but this is how I feel as well. |
| 2010-06-20 3:54 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
| Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance You can say whatever you want, and tatoo yourself with whatever you want...just be prepared to answer the questions that will arise. Not everyone cares if you actually did an Ironman branded race, but some people do. If you were talking to me, and you called yourself and Ironman, I wouldn't think twice about questioning you. To me, the term Ironman is general...sort of like how we call every brand of tissue paper kleenex...or every brand of copy machine a xerox machine. But if I saw your M-Dot tatto and asked you about it...and you told me you didn't do an Ironman branded race...my first reaction would be to give you a weird look...but after 3 seconds...I wouldn't care. |
| 2010-06-20 5:33 AM in reply to: #2932337 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance Even though it is a personal achievement, I also don't want people going "huh" after saying I did a 140.6 race (because it wasn't a true "Ironman"). I really don't get why people give a carp about how others react when one tells them they finished an Ironman 140.6 full-distance 2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run distance race. Who cares what anyone else thinks? Sheesh. That blows my mind. If people want to do a branded race for the experience, which is different than a non-branded race, I totally get that... but worrying about what others think... wow, just wow. To folks who fear what others will say... what do you tell people you used when you blow your nose with a "Kleenex"? Do you get belittled by your friends for using the term Band-Aid, when it was merely a store brand Sterile Adhesive Bandage? I think this whole debate is silly and stupid. I don't care what race you did to earn that tat, and those who do care what race others did, need to get over themselves. Edited by tealeaf 2010-06-20 5:50 AM |
| 2010-06-20 6:08 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
Champion 5575 Butler | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance IMO, Ironman is just a word that describes a distance. Now granted the general public has no idea that there is a difference between and IM branded event and an independent 140.6 distance race. I mean, really what is the difference between the two except maybe a few hundred $. You really can't even argue that the IM branded races have more people because some of the races are very small (I think IM Japan has less than 500 people if I remember correctly). IM - 140.6 miles just like Kleenex = Tissue. |
| 2010-06-20 6:16 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
| Member 9 | Subject: --- |
| 2010-06-20 6:23 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
Master 1440 | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance |
| 2010-06-20 6:45 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
Pro 6011 Camp Hill, Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance This whole debate comes up every few months, but I'll play along anyway... Edited by TriMyBest 2010-06-20 6:46 AM |
| 2010-06-20 7:30 AM in reply to: #2932389 |
Extreme Veteran 508 Fleming Island, FL | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance Why get an M-dot tattoo in the first place unless you plan to continue doing them until you die? Say 10 years down the road (or less) when you are old and fat, people will say "That fat a$$ did an Ironman!, Must have been swimming up to the bar, biking over to the donut shop, and walking to get an ice cream." P.S. For those that don't see the sarcasm, I could care less what kind of tattoo you get. You can do whatever you want; what do I care. Edited by rgretsof 2010-06-20 7:32 AM |
| 2010-06-20 7:59 AM in reply to: #2932372 |
Expert 1023 Ft Gordon, GA | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance tealeaf - 2010-06-20 5:33 AM Even though it is a personal achievement, I also don't want people going "huh" after saying I did a 140.6 race (because it wasn't a true "Ironman"). I really don't get why people give a carp about how others react when one tells them they finished an Ironman 140.6 full-distance 2.4 mile swim, 112 mile bike, 26.2 mile run distance race. Who cares what anyone else thinks? Sheesh. That blows my mind. If people want to do a branded race for the experience, which is different than a non-branded race, I totally get that... but worrying about what others think... wow, just wow. To folks who fear what others will say... what do you tell people you used when you blow your nose with a "Kleenex"? Do you get belittled by your friends for using the term Band-Aid, when it was merely a store brand Sterile Adhesive Bandage? I think this whole debate is silly and stupid. I don't care what race you did to earn that tat, and those who do care what race others did, need to get over themselves. DAMN! Is this Slowtwitch or BT?  To the OP, jesskin, We're usually not this cranky so early on a Sunday! Where's Mrbrad: Time to break out the popcorn! |
| 2010-06-20 8:04 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
Sneaky Slow 8694 Herndon, VA, | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance ^^^ ??? I think it's a lot more likely that you'll encounter the elitist attitude that you can't get the tat, on Slowtwitch, and not so much on BT. No popcorn needed. It's too early on a Sunday, for that. |
 2010-06-20 9:39 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2010-06-20 9:45 AM in reply to: #2932376 |
| Pro 4828 The Land of Ice and Snow | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance kproudfoot - 2010-06-20 7:08 AM IMO, Ironman is just a word that describes a distance. Now granted the general public has no idea that there is a difference between and IM branded event and an independent 140.6 distance race. I mean, really what is the difference between the two except maybe a few hundred $. You really can't even argue that the IM branded races have more people because some of the races are very small (I think IM Japan has less than 500 people if I remember correctly). IM - 140.6 miles just like Kleenex = Tissue. x2 |
| 2010-06-20 9:59 AM in reply to: #2932389 |
| Expert 684 Bend, OR | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance TriMyBest - 2010-06-20 4:45 AM This whole debate comes up every few months, but I'll play along anyway... First off, the bolded is a perfect analogy for this. Makes total sense (to me, at least). The underlined is what I find most hilarious. I feel like 98% of people who saw a person with a M-dot tattoo wouldn't even know what it meant and wouldn't really care. |
| 2010-06-20 10:30 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
| Master 2406 Bellevue, WA | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance The subject comes up every few months. The last time was seven pages - seven pages!!! on the subject and its offshoots. Please go read the When are you officially an ironman thread and you'll get the same set of answers on trademarks, branding, tatoos, and all the rest. Maybe this doesn't need to be all re-hashed again? Edited by brucemorgan 2010-06-20 10:30 AM |
| 2010-06-20 10:47 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
| Expert 2555 Colorado Springs, Colorado | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance If you complete the 140.6 distance you are an iron-man or iron-woman. An appropriate tattoo might be something like this. 140.6 IRON MAN Not sure why someone would want to permanantly disfigure their body with a corporate logo of a race they didn't compete in. |
| 2010-06-20 11:04 AM in reply to: #2932294 |
| Melon Presser 52116 | Subject: RE: Ironman v Ironman distance I have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about triathlon. If you ain't askin', I ain't tellin'. I think whether YOU call yourself an Ironman is immaterial. As for an M-dot tattoo? Other than possible unauthorized reproduction issues (which WTC oughtn't care about because in a way, it's free advertising), it's kind of a non-starter too. I'm doing Beach to Battleship Full for financial and logistical reasons. I'm just as happy to do it as I would have IM Malaysia (signed up for, couldn't do), IM Kentucky (signed up, couldn't do) or IMWA (closed before I could sign up). Conversely I would have been just as happy to do IMWA. I'm doing an iron race for purely personal reasons and could care less about the brand and even less than that about what others think. I'm a tat chick so certainly I will get a tattoo, but I'm not sure I would have gotten the M-dot even if I'd done a WTC event. I'm not that thrilled with WTC for a number of reasons and I don't know that I would want their brand on my body for the rest of my life. It's about MY achievement, not their branding! |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK