Which IM leg distance would you want changed?

Sacrilege!

If it's not broken, don't fix it

This user's post has been ignored.

Increase the swim...definitely! The swim is so short in comparison to the other disciplines. I'd make it 10k, so it would be more inline with the swim and bike.

I say decrease all 3 to.... oh, let's see... about a 1500 meter swim, and um.... a 30 mile bike and... just for fun.... a 10 k run.

Then I could call myself an Ironman.

Totally tongue in cheek... of course, leave it as is! If you want a different distance become and RD and make whatever you want!

Edited by kimj81 2005-07-22 5:58 PM

Leave it alone man.

2.4 Miles is definately not long enough! The distance could easily have another mile or so (why not 3 miles to make it even?) and it would actually then create some sort of even balance in times...

Run is perfect though...

whatever kills the least amount of people. No one should subject themselves to near-death.

The distance could easily have another mile or so (why not 3 miles to make it even?) and it would actually then create some sort of even balance in times...

Run is perfect though...

Why not round the 26.2 mile run up to 27 miles ... y'know to make it even? =)

I would not change what the Ironman is (even though for my personal situation I voted to decrease the run ... for obvious reasons ... it's at the end and due to cumulative fatigue is the toughest part). The Ironman does not claim to be the perfect balance between swim-bike-and run. It is the combination of Hawaii's longest swim race, longest bike race, and longest marathon race ... all in one event.

I don't know that extending the swim another 0.6 miles (~1000m) will affect the standings much, if at all.

Extending to 6 miles as someone else has stated would change the Ironman into something else. A 6 mile swim would take about 2:30 .... the folks that were running 6-7 min/miles were also swimming 1:20-1:30 min/100's. In other words, extending would likely do little to alter the standings amongst the pros ... but it would make it very difficult for the "finishers" to hit the 10-hour cutoff following the bike. It might also drastically reduce the number of participants. Depending on your perspective, the last 2 statements may or may not be good ideas.

Truthfully, the folks that finish at the top of these races are the best combination of swim-bike-run ... extending any of the distances will not likely change that.

As an analogy ... you could move a pitching mound back from 60 feet six inches to 65 feet and the same guys are going to throw the hardest and be the most accurate.

You often hear comments like "make the swim longer, give us fish a chance" ... I don't see where making the swim longer is going to make the "fish" bike or run any faster, and the Peter Reids of the world swim darn near as fast as they run (compared to others).

I think that each leg should be decreased.  Make it a 500 meter swim, 20km bike and 5km run.  Hey, I could be an Ironman already!!!!  Whoohoo!  :-)