Pre-requisite for IM - discuss

61 to 80 of 100 messages
19/06/2008 at 18:01
  ][ 19.05.08
Team-Erdinger Alkoholfrei Meeting in Garmisch-Partenkirchen
http://www.lothar-leder.de/news/img2008/Jacklin-103-1-1.jpg

 
http://www.lothar-leder.de/news/img2008/Jacklin-474-14.jpg


At least they understand nutrition!
19/06/2008 at 18:02

It's something we've possibly all pondered at one point or another. I know I'm in no danger of doing a 30 min 10k, or a 2'30 marathon any time soon. But that doesn't mean I should stop running. I challenge myself, I want to get this time for a 10k, or I want to run this far, or have the experience of completing this event... I hope to do an IM one day, but not yet. For me, my mara time is within those limits, but I'm not a strong cyclist, and although I like swimming I don't have much endurance and I'm not very fast, so I imagine overall I'd not be anywhere near the front of an IM.

To me one of the exciting things with running (and this may be true in the tri world, esp at IM distance) is that I can enter a race alongside the world's greats. If you do one of the bigger marathons, Paula, or Haile, or whoever might be there at the front... If someone has done a 5 hr marathon, or a 16hr IM, or even a 1'15 10k, they have the achievement of having *done* it all, which is surely better than not doing it. Whether they should make themselves try to get faster is up to them. For some the challenge is to push a 10k time under an hour, or under 45 mins, for some it's to run further than they have before. Personally, although I enjoy a bit of speed work, I don't really like short races enough to focus on, say, getting a great 5k time before running further. If it was my job, then perhaps I would, but if it's for fun then your goals and your achievements are what you decide them to be.

I suppose it's down to how you take the original statement. If he means compete rather than complete, then fine. But if he's just mistaken with figures then that's less heinous than saying slower peeps shouldn't enter at all... But I think we're all sort of saying the same thing, in that what it's 'worth' you doing depends on what you want, so if you only want to enter if you can compete at that distance then fine, but if your goal is to enjoy/complete then fine. I hope the competers don't preclude the completers!

19/06/2008 at 18:03
lol, X-post!
19/06/2008 at 18:18

it's no crime that he's mistaken with his figures.  actually (empirically) the slower your "straight" marathon time, the less the relative difference in your ironman marathon time, so if he associates only with professional trigeeks and fast age groupers then it's not difficult to see where the wrong thinking comes from

what's more interesting is how people react so preciously to it.  if somebody were to say "in my view slow people shouldn't be allowed to enter races as they are crap" - so what?  why would there be such an outcry?  (as there has been on this thread, and is often seen on RW).  what difference does it make?  (it's not like race organisers will ever listen).  if you think somebody is talking out of their arse by thinking you are crap and that you shouldn't be allowed to enter races (which I agree they would be), but the race organisers disagree, why would you give two hoots about their ridiculous opinion?  Surely, life's too short.  and arguing on a web forum makes no difference anyway.  look at any "argument" on any RW thread.  nobody EVER changes or modifies their views.  they just repeat themselves ad nauseum.  what a bizarre medium the interweb has become!

19/06/2008 at 19:40
If we take that view then what purpose does the forum have other than race reports or kit reviews? Any discussion is debating a point, surely. Surely we can debate topics that are relevant to our sport without expecting them to actually be taken up by race organisers and the BTA. That's not the reason for debate - it's just interesting to discuss stuff with other people who are into the sport. I think, anyway. Hey ho. As I said before, I think topics like this one are rarely going to be debated sensibly on a forum like this which, by its nature, is populated in the main by mid-pack athletes. It's a shame, but I can see why people are unwilling to agree that there might be an aspect of the original post which is worth thinking about.
Stump    pirate
19/06/2008 at 19:46

You're talking out your arse again Monkey man.

Reaction is fun. Sinning with a safety net.

You can be one of the most precious, and contentious, mofo's on here. You revel in it somedays.

Stop wrecking all of that with a serious sounding post. I'm going to report this thread as I think someone has knicked your password and is logging in as you.............

Stump    pirate
19/06/2008 at 19:46
oops, x-post
19/06/2008 at 19:52

To say that nobody ever changes or modifies their views is generalising. 

I see lots of threads where issues are explored making people consider several points of view. Some won't change their stance, some won't argue their opinion . I know I've changed my view on several things basically because I was uninformed previously. 

I can see where TH2 is going with his argument. The argument is only flawed to me because of the original statement it is based upon. I understood that it was talking about finishing............ not finishing well.  IF he had said finishing well then TH's point is more relevant. I still think that for myself an endurance event would still be an achievement but a really fast short event would be as much of an achievement but with less recognition.

19/06/2008 at 20:25
That's another interesting point about all of this for me...recognition. How much does "what other people think" affect what events we choose, I wonder?
AndrewSmith    pirate
19/06/2008 at 20:29
And how much of what you read is actually just research into articles or genuine interest in peoples differing opinions?
seren nos    pirate
19/06/2008 at 20:38

If its written in the book as finish then why are we guessing that they meant something else.............surely if they have written the book they have put a lot of thought into it...........the word finish is very straightfordward.................so when debating this we should respect his intelligence and accept that he believes that its not possible to finish in under 16 hours unless you have a fast marathon time..............

therefore his book is only suitable for elite sportpeople who have the same narrow minded view of Ironman as they have..................They want people to believe it to keep the everyday normal people out of their sport

19/06/2008 at 20:56
If i did what I do for recognition.......... I've failed.
19/06/2008 at 21:08
OK - I was just having a bit of fun this afternoon, but this last comment is ridiculous. On what basis, can seren nos claim that he/she knows exactly what was meant by 'finish'. X-language mis-translations are notoriously common. FFS, this guy is not stupid. Plus how can you accuse someone of wanting to keep everyday people out of their sport. Total codswallop!

I had a stinking headache and was a bit bored this afternoon so I thought where could I have some debate on something that is of interest to me and where I am likely to touch a raw nerve? Bingo, lets resurrect that old RW thread on IM. Sure enough, despite the fact that I maintained a very balanced approach to the subject (apart from the mildly provocative and deliberate reference to pretty poor performance) there was the usual unbalanced response to anyone who dares to question the sacred cow that is IM.

TH2 misses the point, TH2 doesn't accept that each person will have different motives etc and Leder is talking bllx....What total carp, as anyone who actually read what i said would realise (TY Dr Nic!).

Perhaps the reactions actually indicate that people are less confident in their real motives that they thought. But then again that could be pure speculation and what is the point of that.....????

19/06/2008 at 21:10
Shame to miss some proper debate on what could genuinely be a sensible topic. But it did pass an otherwise boring afternoon... ho, hum!
19/06/2008 at 21:11
Back to the footie...
AndrewSmith    pirate
19/06/2008 at 21:27

TH2 you 'have' missed the point there 'has' been debate, it may have seemed one sided to you but that has nothing to do with it. As happens with lots of threads there is genuine debate underlying the banter and argument, not everyone can argue a point eloquently and use all the big fancy words

Lame attempt at trying to psych people with the 'confidence in there motives' comment, maybe you are just not happy with your lot and want to make us 'completers' feel as bad, I don't know, I don't know you so I would not make that judgement.

I suggest next time you are bored you go over to Tri talk and argue with the real athletes instead of insulting us by claiming you want a real debate then saying it was a bit of fun.

Good luck with the Lakeland 100 by the way  (not intended as a sarcastic comment)

AndrewSmith    pirate
19/06/2008 at 21:27

Football fan!!!

That explains it all!!

Bionic Ironwolf    pirate
19/06/2008 at 21:30

what Lothar actually wrote

"Wer fuer einen Marathon heute funf bis sechs Stunden braucht, wird beim Ironman nach Schwimmen und Radfahren Schwierigkeiten haben, den Marathon zu ueberstehen"

He who today needs 5 to 6 hours to finish a marathon, will have difficulty after the swimming and cycling in an Ironman to be able to complete the marathon.

He also said when talking about cycling:

"Einige Jahre regelmaessiges Radtraining ist Voraussetzung, um nach gut einem Jahr Triathlon-Training ein Ironman erfolgreich zu finishen. Du sollst mindestens ein bis zwei Mitteldistanz-Rennen bestritten haben. Ohne Wettkampferfahrung ist ein Ironman kaum zu bewaeltigen"

Several years of bike training is required, to be able to successfully finish an Ironman after a year's triathlon training. You should have raced at least one or two half-IM distances. An Ironman is hardly do-able without experience of competition".

Edited: 19/06/2008 at 21:31
Bionic Ironwolf    pirate
19/06/2008 at 21:36
As for the nutrition pics above - both Lothar and wife Nicole are sponsored  as is also Faris Al-Sultan by  Erdinger Alcohol-free Weizenbier,  which is dished out at many race finishes here as the drink of choice. There's a crate of it downstairs in our cellar. Lothar's a good bloke and his book is actually pretty good.
AndrewSmith    pirate
19/06/2008 at 21:40

The nicest bloke in the world can still make stupid comments!!

I do it all the time

Edited: 19/06/2008 at 21:41
61 to 80 of 100 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums