Send in the Clowns - BAC 10K Challenge

Krusty_Clown

Peckham wrote: »

Yeah, but what direction is the wind blowing?!

The right way! (at least half of the time anyway!).

pgibbo

Cracking report as ever KC. Congrats on a great training run (I'm green with envy)! :cool:

shotgunmcos

Well done KC simmering well for Boston. 1:20 on the Conn half.. super running!

Slogger Jogger

Great running KC! Great discipline and looking good for your goal race.
If you look far enough back in years in the results you'll see me and Iano at 1:4x ish but you have to start somewhere

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Cheers Joe. You beat me by 10 minutes on that occasion, and have continued the trend ever since.
I see Bazman won the race that year in 72 mins. David Walsh Kemmis was also up their in the results, with a tasty 1:24 (where is he now?!). Ian McGrath ran 1:27:46 (the same one?). John O'Regan: 1:29:79.

S'funny looking back at the old results sheets!

Krusty_Clown

Slogger Jogger wrote: »

Great running KC! Great discipline and looking good for your goal race.
If you look far enough back in years in the results you'll see me and Iano at 1:4x ish but you have to start somewhere

Ye had a good 6 minutes on him in 2005. That must have given him the lick up the ar7e to start training?

neilc

That's some pace on them hills and that heat krusty, really well done!! Your Boston goal looks good to be smashed.

asimonov

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Ye had a good 6 minutes on him in 2005. That must have given him the lick up the ar7e to start training?

Wow. You wicklow guys are hardcore. Well done on the run btw, inspiring stuff.

Krusty_Clown

asimonov wrote: »

Wow. You wicklow guys are hardcore. Well done on the run btw, inspiring stuff.

Haha. 'l' beside 'k'. Us Wicklow guys just can't use a leyboard.

So, d'you settle on a target yet? I'll be hitting [F5] on the browser on Sunday, eagerly awaiting the ticker-tape to dispense my marathon target.

Mr Slow

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Haha. 'l' beside 'k'. Us Wicklow guys just can't use a leyboard.

I just assumed ye were close.:)

asimonov

Well, if you've used up all your other targets, you can have my time as a goal of last resort :-) No real target but will aim to go through 5k and 10k around 2:48, i plan to leave the watch at home and just see what happens. I think.

shazkea

Nice running on Sun Krusty and best of luck with Boston

opus

Great running in Conn KC, hopefully goes even better for you in Boston. I'm going to try a 10m race at MP myself next Monday as prep for London albeit at a somewhat slower MP than yourself

Nules10

Well done KC. was nice to meet you the other night

Krusty_Clown

shazkea wrote: »

Nice running on Sun Krusty and best of luck with Boston

Thanks shazkea. I may have pipped you to the finish line, but you outlasted me in the pub (despite your long haul), and that's the real contest!

Opus wrote:

I'm going to try a 10m race at MP myself next Monday as prep for London albeit at a somewhat slower MP than yourself

Goof plan Opus, as long as you know you're good to recover in plenty of time for London. Needless to say, your 10 mile time should be a couple of minutes slower than your PB!

Nules10 wrote:

Well done KC. was nice to meet you the other night

...and you! Hope the hip is on the mend. You deserve a break from injury at this stage.

Krusty_Clown

Tonight: 8 Mile recovery run
Couldn't run during the day as I had to catch up with work after my day off (what's the point, if you have to do everything the next day instead?) so the run was a late one, at which point the weather had changed to strong winds, sleet and snow. Supposed to be an aerobic run with strides, but then I wasn't supposed to do 13 miles at PMP at the weekend, so I settled in for an easy recovery run instead, taking in Killiney Hill a couple of times (actually a bigger climb than Connemara's 'hell') to tip the hat at an aerobic run. Legs felt fine, but the stomach was in knots. Ugh. Well, for every few good runs, it's ok to have a bad run. Them's the breaks.

Summary: 8 miles in 1:06, @8:14/mile, HR=118

claralara

Well done on an awesome run in Connemara KC! Amazing

Krusty_Clown

claralara wrote: »

Well done on an awesome run in Connemara KC! Amazing

Hey, I was just having a good time, running at sub-optimal pace admiring the view and working on my tan. Nothing awesome about it, just a good 13 mile training run.
But you guys, hitting your first Connemara ultra? Now that's something special.

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I ran 1:19:45 (or something similar) late last year on a significantly flatter course (Waterford), but again it was a training run in the lead-up to a goal marathon, so I just targeted hitting the sub-80 minute target without causing too much harm. I'd like to think I'd be good for a low 1:18 at the moment, but it's hard to predict unless you actually go out and do the race.

You might be selling yourself a bit short there. If you think you are in 2:42 shape then a 74/75 Half Marathon would be more realistic.

shels4ever

04072511 wrote: »

You might be selling yourself a bit short there. If you think you are in 2:42 shape then a 74/75 Half Marathon would be more realistic.

Ah yes but Krusty is an endurance freak with no speed

Pisco Sour

shels4ever wrote: »

Ah yes but Krusty is an endurance freak with no speed

4:57 mile aint too shabby! Though the real question is what's his 100m speed like. The key ingredient to success in Boston.

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

You might be selling yourself a bit short there. If you think you are in 2:42 shape then a 74/75 Half Marathon would be more realistic.

Not without training specifically for the half marathon. All of my training for the last 10 months (2 marathons) has been focused on maintaining a 6:11/mile pace. Besides, I reckon if you can manage a 74/75 half, then you are closer to 2:38 marathon shape. Are you comparing times in IAAF tables?

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

4:57 mile aint too shabby! Though the real question is what's his 100m speed like. The key ingredient to success in Boston.

I reckon if I had a good warm-up (like 42kms) I could probably manage around 25 seconds for the 100m. Is that good?

Pisco Sour

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

Not without training specifically for the half marathon. All of my training for the last 10 months (2 marathons) has been focused on maintaining a 6:11/mile pace. Besides, I reckon if you can manage a 74/75 half, then you are closer to 2:38 marathon shape. Are you comparing times in IAAF tables?

Yep IAAF tables. The bible for all athletics stats geeks!

Krusty_Clown

Today: 6 mile recovery run
Completely devoid of energy for today's run, so happy to just plod around the canal and surrounding neighborhoods, ticking off the recovery miles. Feeling a bit wrecked and the weight has suddenly dropped massively, so I hope I haven't picked up a dose of Village Runner's diet.

Summary: 6 miles in 46:28, @7:45/mile, HR=~120

aigster

Your nearly there now!!... Great reports and very interesting to look back at your early posts...for any newbies...

I've resigned myself to catching you after races...!!..
Best of luck with heartbreak hill and beyond!.

menoscemo

04072511 wrote: »

Yep IAAF tables. The bible for all athletics stats geeks!

According to those table my Mara PB is 50 points better than my HM one (and by far my best over all distances ) even though In my Opinion the HM PB is much better.

The problem with those tables is that they are weighted in favour of what most runners actually race instead of what they should race. Unfortunately most people go into a marathon undertrained and endurance is an issue. I don't think Krusty is one of those guys though

RayCun

The problem with those tables is that they're comparing distinct sets of runners, to say this guy is as good at this distance as that guy is at that distance. McMillan etc are trying to predict what the same runners can do over different distances.

Pisco Sour

menoscemo wrote: »

According to those table my Mara PB is 50 points better than my HM one (and by far my best over all distances ) even though In my Opinion the HM PB is much better.

It doesn't matter what your opinion is, and what race you believe was a better personal achievement, it still doesnt impact on what was the better actual performance. People may pride themselves on the hard work that went into a 3:29 marathon for example (and so they should), and may see it as their best personal achievement, but if that same person can run an 800m in 2:20 then it doesn't matter how much pride he/she takes from that marathon, it still doesn't change which performance is comfortably the stronger.

Back to Krusty, I reckon he'd hit 75 if he raced a HM in the next couple of months (assuming he is in 2:42 shape).

RayCun wrote: »

The problem with those tables is that they're comparing distinct sets of runners, to say this guy is as good at this distance as that guy is at that distance. McMillan etc are trying to predict what the same runners can do over different distances.

Yes that's true. But is there really a huge difference between HM and Marathon, in regard to if you are good at a Marathon then you'd imagine you'd be good at a HM too. Doesn't necessarily work the other way round mind you.

Badreputation

Hi Krusty. Reading your report with great interest. Great running.. .Unreal. Best of luck in Boston. Think you helped me get over the line in Dublin last Oct under 3:15.

Krusty_Clown

04072511 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what your opinion is...Back to Krusty, I reckon he'd hit 75 if he raced a HM in the next couple of months (assuming he is in 2:42 shape).

I think you'd be good for a 3:45 marathon, if you really put your heart into it (assuming you're still in 4:1x shape). In one sentence, you're telling Meno that his opinion doesn't matter, and in the next, you're speculating on a potential performance that I have no interest in performing!