in: kupackman; kupackman > 2007-12-15;
| # Posted 2007-12-16 07:01:08 | |
| ebone: | I am embarrassingly, pathetically slow.
I think you've overstating things a bit. Besides, I feel neither contempt nor pity for your running speed, which rules out at least a couple possible meanings of "pathetic." Anyway, let's do a little arithmetic to figure out a projected 5k time for you: The ratio of our "clean" times was about 31/25.5 = 1.22, and I can probably run 5k in about 17:20 right now, which gives you a projected 21:05, which would have placed you 22nd out of 60 runners in your age group in the Fremont 5k, for example. There are people who train dilligently for running and don't run faster than that. All the people who beat you train for running a lot more than you do. |
| # Posted 2007-12-16 07:23:36 | |
| kupackman: | Yeah, I was overstating things more than a bit. Way too much is more like it. (I'm more positive in my training log)
It was just frustrated that I: a) ran as perfectly as I can b) had an advantage of course-setting last year and even at that, I was 3 minutes slower than Roger, Glenn, and Peteris. I think I had a false sense of my orienteering speed at Hamlin Park two weeks ago when I tied Roger and was 3 minutes back of Glenn and Peteris... and that was including my big 2-minute error. I know that these guys train more and are flat-out better. I just thought that I'd have a more respectable showing today. And they, too, expected me to be faster. On a side note, I don't think I could run a 21:05 5km right now. When I ran the Woodland Park 5km a few months ago, I think I was in the 23-minute range. |
| # Posted 2007-12-16 07:33:49 | |
| ebone: | So your 23-minute 5k and the fact that you were on-par with Roger at Hamlin indicates that you're orienteering better than your competition, which is pretty cool. |
You must be logged in to add a message