conn ultra

watercarrier

realised i had an entry for conn ultra,,would 10 hrs be a decent time,,did a 5k recently in 33mins and 5 secs,,

ThePiedPiper

Decided to edit my post on the chance that you actually might be serious about this.

I would say you shouldn't even consider doing the race. 33 mins for 5k is very slow, and regardless of speed, someone planning to do a 39.3 mile race would need to be very well prepared,

menoscemo

watercarrier wrote: »

realised i had an entry for conn ultra,,would 10 hrs be a decent time,,did a 5k recently in 33mins and 5 secs,,

Being straight it is a terrible time and if you plan on taking that long don't do it.

There is a cut off at the full marathon point of 5 hours, so unless you plan on getting 26.2 miles in 5 hours and then crawling the last 13.1 miles in another 5 hours; you won't be finishing in 10 hours.

hot to trot

RunForestRun wrote: »

Decided to edit my post on the chance that you actually might be serious about this.


3 mins for 5k is very slow, and regardless of speed ,

Just saw you posted on another thread that half marathon time of 95 mins is average enough.

For those of us down the back of the pack, making you speedier types look good , the 5k time would not be unreasonable for a beginner and certainly 95min half is a dream for many .
Now off with you and comb your beard Forrest We snails have sneaky training to get in .

digger2d2

watercarrier wrote: »

realised i had an entry for conn ultra,,would 10 hrs be a decent time,,did a 5k recently in 33mins and 5 secs,,

Yep, go for it. I know a guy who did DCM as his first marathon in 2012 and ran 1:59:30

ThePiedPiper

hot to trot wrote: »

Just saw you posted on another thread that half marathon time of 95 mins is average enough.

For those of us down the back of the pack, making you speedier types look good , the 5k time would not be unreasonable for a beginner and certainly 95min half is a dream for many .
Now off with you and comb your beard Forrest We snails have sneaky training to get in .

Didn't mean to offend anyone on either thread hot to trot. I've nothing only admiration and respect for anyone that toes the line in any race or gets out there training and racing.

But, for a bit of context. The OP here was suggesting running a 63.3km race, with his only point of reference being that he had run 5k recently in 33 minutes. My father is 75, was last involved in sports 45 years ago, and I'm pretty sure he could cover 5k in under in 37-38 minutes, based on his daily 4 mile walk at 14 minute mile pace. 33 mins for 5k isn't fast, it is only slightly faster than a brisk walk, especially when in a 5k race. The OP here should not be considering a 63.3k ultra.

As for the comment in the other thread, the poster there was enquiring as to whether 95 mins for the half made him a special, talented sort of runner. Personally I don't think it does and I said it was reasonably decent, but not special. But I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody, my comments were to that poster alone.

Cabaal

digger2d2 wrote: »

Yep, go for it. I know a guy who did DCM as his first marathon in 2012 and ran 1:59:30

Of course now he's the top rated marathon runner in the world as he has the best time for a marathon

digger2d2

Cabaal wrote: »

Of course now he's the top rated marathon runner in the world as he has the best time for a marathon

Yes, but he's not interested in athletics, he's gone back to playing football

hot to trot

RunForestRun wrote: »

Didn't mean to offend anyone on either thread hot to trot. I've nothing only admiration and respect for anyone that toes the line in any race or gets out there training and racing.

But, for a bit of context. The OP here was suggesting running a 63.3km race, with his only point of reference being that he had run 5k recently in 33 minutes. My father is 75, was last involved in sports 45 years ago, and I'm pretty sure he could cover 5k in under in 37-38 minutes, based on his daily 4 mile walk at 14 minute mile pace. 33 mins for 5k isn't fast, it is only slightly faster than a brisk walk, especially when in a 5k race. The OP here should not be considering a 63.3k ultra.

As for the comment in the other thread, the poster there was enquiring as to whether 95 mins for the half made him a special, talented sort of runner. Personally I don't think it does and I said it was reasonably decent, but not special. But I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody, my comments were to that poster alone.

Absolutely no offence taken whatsoever .. Was a bit tongue in cheek from me .

digger2d2

hot to trot wrote: »

Was a bit tongue in cheek from me .

And the OP