1980s = Marathon, 2010 = Ironman, what next?

PhilPub wrote (see)

I'm imagining a post-apocalyptic future where all the fossil fuels have run out and the London Marathon is sponsored by BP.  Everyone's plugged into a manual treadmill and the winner is the person who can generate the most electricity over 2 hours of running.

If Richard Branson's reading this, please don't steal my idea.  Cheers.

Phil - that sounds a bit like 15 Million Merits from Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror series!

fat buddha wrote (see)

xine267 wrote (see)

Ultras in extreme conditions? Like Badwater

most of the more extreme ultras now require qualification points - they're not just rock up and give it a go type events.  that kind of sorts the chaff from the wheat so only those who have shown a certain level of ability get a chance to race but sadly it also makes getting an entry a lottery which many of these events now operate.

Ahh, I suppose that's a good thing. The risk of serious injury for the unprepared on a course like Badwater must be huge.

Oh!  Maybe I should read Charlie Brooker, if his brain works anything like mine! 

*edit* Oh it's a TV series.  D'oh! Maybe I should read some Charlie Brooker anyway.

If made me think of that Black Mirror episode too Xine. Apparently Charlie is now a regular runner. Do you think he comes on here?

Sussed Runner - If he does it will be interesting to see what episodes are inspired by some of DF3's threads!

Phil - read some Charlie Brooker and watch the series too, it's really good

How many people actually do Ironman distance events - I get the impression it's loads because I know a few (in real life not just you lot) but there aren't that many races are there so it can't be as popular as I'm imagining ?

I reckon there is scope for some harder cycling sportives to become popular.  Take the Marmotte in the Alps that's gone from being able to go down in the week of the event and sign up a few years ago to people staying up all night to register because it literally fills up in a few years.   The likes of the Marmotte or one I'm doing this year in the Pyrennees are hard but there is no real challenge about completing them in the time limits for anyone that trains - a fit club cyclist should be ~8 hours (or less) for the Marmotte - personally I'd like to see some harder ones where those kind of riders are up against it just to finish.   

just my opinion but .. ironman is piss easy, especially if you arent after a sub 12 hour.  As most of you know, I was a fat git a year or 2 ago - did some training and hey presto - a fecking ironman, nothing too hard about it really, got a time of just over 12:30 = pissed off so i signed up for my first ultra - 2 weeks after my first IM - 70 miles  , job done with NO ultra training - it hurt a bit after 50 miles or so but still easyish, now the next step for me is to run a 100 miler in less than 24 hour and the double iron both which i'll do in June but after that it seems theres not a lot of different stuff to do in the UK, a harder IM?  a longer run? both doable, but fun? well its the same shit just a bit harder. some one said about the points awarded ultras - thats why im doing the SDW100, i get a few points for the UTMB that last for a couple of years iirc so if i cant find the next challenge ill just race another qualifier for mont blanc. or go the other way and do sprints like i was meant to do this year

a few years !  I meant a few hours.   

Interesting thread.  Following on from what DK said I think folk tend to move on to doing there own thing rather than one day or one off challenges.  There are training plans to get you through 100m runs or 10k swims etc. do the training and you'll pretty much finish the event.  That's what the success of the IM is built on, as hard as it may or may not be the overwhelming majority finish.  You don't see events selling out in seconds where only 1 in a 100 finish.  Are there any?

Perhaps the question shouldn't be 'what's the next big thing' but should be 'will it be worth doing?

take a plane to 20 thousand feet skydive into a desert run 100 miles to a lake

swim 10 miles across the lake where you build a log cabin from scratch

plant your own food and live as a hermit for  a year.  

Then swim back across the lake to the adventure park buy yourself an ice cream and relax.

or you could do an ultra.

From where I look at it, once you have the endurance base that an IM gives you, going longer is not as big a challenge as going faster.
If they had some IMs that had more aggressive cut-offs (14 hours?) they would inevitably get more prestige value, which is what we are all after at the end of the day. What's the first question you ask someone who has done the Norseman? What colour T-shirt did you get, of course. The fact that even a white t-shirt at Norseman is epic, its the prestige of the black that drives people.
That's not to say I don't want to do some long endurance events again, but is a Double IM harder than an 11 hour IM? I don't know, I haven't done either, and comparing these sorts of things, especially using "hardness" as the measure is pretty much meaningless. But I do know that is I was asked to choose to do one of them I'd choose the double IM as the easier option for me. (2 consecutive IMs, not double swim, double bike etc, that sounds hellishly boring!)
I am an Ironman, but could I ever become a quick olympic distance athlete, or a sub 3 hour marathon runner? I doubt it, because I'm too lazy to push myself into the hurtbox in training and racing. So going long is where I can get my prestige.
Am I a better athlete than a 2.15 Olympic distance athlete? Of course not, but the 'public' might think so because I have done an IM, regardless of the time i took to do it in. The perception of distance being hard is wrong, but long may it continue from my ego's point of view, even though deep down I know speed is where the challenge lies.
Once the public twig, then marathons, IMs, double IMs will fade away and they will understand speed is harder than plodding on.
Good debate though, carry on!