Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

(Men) 10 Round Numbers- how many of these can you run in 2012?

1…5791011

Comments

  • #182
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    ocnoc wrote: »
    Is that not the point of a good club runner?
    To medal at the National Championships??

    Generally, the Irish Elites don't race the National Championships.

    All quite subjective.

    The reality is that elite athletes do not post here. Why? Because there is nothing to be gained from posting here. There have been the odd exceptions, but in general you wont see an elite athlete logging in to make comments on this forum. Many read the forum, probably because this is the only forum which discusses Irish athletics, though very little of it is actually about that which is an awful shame.

    The people who do post here are extremely average. None of us, at this current stage, or ever, would be anywhere close to the standard that you are referring to. If we were we wouldn't be posting here looking for advice etc. So while none of these times in the Big 10 are earth-shattering, they are the standards that the faster runners here will achieve, and would be aspirational targets for people below that level to try achieve.


  • #183
    HelenAnne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,035 ✭✭✭HelenAnne


    shels4ever wrote: »
    Maybe include some targets for people over weight also ;).

    Sorry, angry boardsies! I wasn't complaining about the original round numbers, I was only asking if they were achievable targets for the average female runner or if they were originally conceived with male runners in mind. I'll move over to the women's thread now and stop interfering with your thread!


  • #184
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    HelenAnne wrote: »
    Sorry, angry boardsies! I wasn't complaining about the original round numbers, I was only asking if they were achievable targets for the average female runner or if they were originally conceived with male runners in mind. I'll move over to the women's thread now and stop interfering with your thread!

    They'd be tough targets for the average female runner, no doubt about that. Some are much more achieveable, such as 800m (fairly easy) and 5K (very doable), and half marathon (also doable) but others are tough. On an average grassroots track meet down here in Melbourne, of about 60-80 women who may run a 400m race, only about 4-5 will go under 60. In the Victorian State Championships recently (for a state with a 6million population) 58 high or 59 low made the final.

    Though women are renowned for being better at endurance events than over shorter distances ,given the fact the world records over the longer distances are relatively close to the men's in comparison to the difference over the sprints (when you take the drugged up GDR times out of the equation), so perhaps the sub 3 hours would be more achieveable for your average female than the sub 60.

    Just because you can't hit them now doesnt mean you can't be part of the thread and aspire to reaching some of these targets. This shouldn't be for just men, it is for everyone.


  • #185
    shels4ever
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,598 ✭✭✭shels4ever


    HelenAnne wrote: »
    Sorry, angry boardsies! I wasn't complaining about the original round numbers, I was only asking if they were achievable targets for the average female runner or if they were originally conceived with male runners in mind. I'll move over to the women's thread now and stop interfering with your thread!

    not an angry boardsie at all :). Just feel that making one target on a hard list is better than making them all on an easier list. The game is all about doing your best and we dont need tables etc to tell us that we gave 100%


  • #186
    Kurt Godel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭Kurt Godel


    shels4ever wrote: »
    not an angry boardsie at all :). Just feel that making one target on a hard list is better than making them all on an easier list. The game is all about doing your best and we dont need tables etc to tell us that we gave 100%

    Absolutely, this thread is about aspiring to these goals, rather than shifting the targets to make them more achievable. You want to hit them, train harder, the purpose is to shine a light on the faster runners here. There's more than enough equality and inclusivity as it is, why does that have to apply to every single thread?

    Having a moderator change the gist of my original intentions is pretty annoying, my opening post has been edited to read that it's okay for equivalent threads to be set up. That's directly against my original intent. The original targets were set up for anybody at the faster end of things here to aspire to and beat, not to be changed because someone- slow, female, vet, fatty, whatever- finds them too hard.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    HelenAnne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,035 ✭✭✭HelenAnne


    Kurt Godel wrote: »
    Absolutely, this thread is about aspiring to these goals, rather than shifting the targets to make them more achievable. You want to hit them, train harder, the purpose is to shine a light on the faster runners here. There's more than enough equality and inclusivity as it is, why does that have to apply to every single thread?

    Having a moderator change the gist of my original intentions is pretty annoying, my opening post has been edited to read that it's okay for equivalent threads to be set up. That's directly against my original intent. The original targets were set up for anybody at the faster end of things here to aspire to and beat, not to be changed because someone- slow, female, vet, fatty, whatever- finds them too hard.

    1) re your original post / intentions etc, sorry if you feel it's been changed on my behalf. I only intended to ask a question -- I wanted to know whether the round numbers were intended for men, women, both etc. You've answered my question, thanks; they were intended for anyone who wanted to aspire to them. I'll keep them in mind & hopefully hit some of them some day!

    2) I'm sure you'll disagree, and you're perfectly entitled to, but I think you're over-reacting a bit. I think RayCun, as a moderator, just thought that having two threads might get more people (including slow, fat, veteran women, probably) interested in trying to hit targets. I don't know him and can't speak for him, but I doubt he intended it as an assault on anyone's freedom of speech or anything. If I'd thought of it, I should have just set up my own '10 targets for beginners (or something)' thread, except I genuinely didn't know what kind of times would be reasonable to aim for (which is why I asked my original question).

    I know this is a discussion forum, and if I post something people will talk agree / disagree etc, but I kind of resent being responded to as if I was trying to force 'the faster end of things' to run 50 minute 10ks to make me & the other slowcoaches feel better! I love to see how well faster people are doing / to have faster times to aspire to. I genuinely don't understand why this thread got so up in arms about mediocrity / pandering to slow people etc. Anyway, thanks again for answering my original question, and best of luck to everyone hitting the numbers this year!


  • #188
    Kurt Godel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭Kurt Godel


    HelenAnne wrote: »
    1) re your original post / intentions etc, sorry if you feel it's been changed on my behalf. I only intended to ask a question -- I wanted to know whether the round numbers were intended for men, women, both etc. You've answered my question, thanks; they were intended for anyone who wanted to aspire to them. I'll keep them in mind & hopefully hit some of them some day!

    2) I'm sure you'll disagree, and you're perfectly entitled to, but I think you're over-reacting a bit. I think RayCun, as a moderator, just thought that having two threads might get more people (including slow, fat, veteran women, probably) interested in trying to hit targets. I don't know him and can't speak for him, but I doubt he intended it as an assault on anyone's freedom of speech or anything. If I'd thought of it, I should have just set up my own '10 targets for beginners (or something)' thread, except I genuinely didn't know what kind of times would be reasonable to aim for (which is why I asked my original question).

    I know this is a discussion forum, and if I post something people will talk agree / disagree etc, but I kind of resent being responded to as if I was trying to force 'the faster end of thing' to run 50 minute 10ks to make me & the other slowcoaches feel better! I love to see how well faster people are doing / to have faster times to aspire to. I genuinely don't understand why this thread got so up in arms about mediocrity / pandering to slow people etc. Anyway, thanks again for answering my original question, and best of luck to everyone hitting the numbers this year!
    There was nothing at all wrong with your question, it was a perfectly reasonable thing to ask.
    I'm annoyed at my original intentions being changed in my original post, especially since I dislike the growing "medals for everyone" vibe on forum. Once the tri forum starts I'll bugger off there.
    Every thread aimed at the faster runner gets swamped before long by slower runners, usually what rankles is when those slower runners want parity of esteem. The forum is seen as a joke by any club runners or race directors I've talked to, as a forum full of goodybaggers who complain their mid pack race position doesn't tally with what their garmin says. I started this thread as an attempt to focus on faster times, training, results, etc, not as a list of times that just need to be ticked, and certainly not as a list of times that should be diluted because slower runners can't hit them.
    That answers not going to suit everyone, but that's the spirit behind the thread.


  • #189
    eoinín
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 320 ✭✭eoinín


    Kurt Godel wrote: »
    The original targets were set up for anybody at the faster end of things here to aspire to and beat, not to be changed because someone- slow, female, vet, fatty, whatever- finds them too hard.

    An obvious consequence of making such a "one size fits all" list means that you are going to have 10 times as many men on the list as women. (See RayCun's stats at the bottom of page 11)

    Most people are aware that men and women of an equivalent fitness level will achieve differing times*, so it seems rather ridiculous that you insist on maintaining your rather exclusive table and have such a problem with an equivalent women's thread being set up.

    *see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Qualification#Qualifying_Standards for differing olympic qualification times for men and women.


  • #190
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table! :)
    It's in relation to the sub 1.30 half, I've been training exclusively for the Dundalk 1/2 marathon for the last 11 weeks or so and the race is on Wednesday week. Throughout the training I have been aiming for a 1.30/1.31 finish with all my race pace miles done around 6.55/54 pace which would give me a 1.30 finish. My original intention was to run the first mile a bit easier to settle in (around 7.00 pace) and then move up to 6.55 and aim for 1.30 and target 1.2X later in the year.
    So my question is should I just ditch that plan and go for broke and start at 6.52 pace (which I think is the minimum required to hit 1.29) and just try and hang on and sneak under the 1.30 mark? My PB is a soft 1.37 from last September but I've run some times recently that suggest I should get under 1.30, mostly 18:40 for 5k and 39.17 for 10k last week. It's a pretty fast, flat course, good for quick times if the weather behaves. Anyone any suggestions?


  • #191
    Kurt Godel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭Kurt Godel


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table! :)
    It's in relation to the sub 1.30 half, I've been training exclusively for the Dundalk 1/2 marathon for the last 11 weeks or so and the race is on Wednesday week. Throughout the training I have been aiming for a 1.30/1.31 finish with all my race pace miles done around 6.55/54 pace which would give me a 1.30 finish. My original intention was to run the first mile a bit easier to settle in (around 7.00 pace) and then move up to 6.55 and aim for 1.30 and target 1.2X later in the year.
    So my question is should I just ditch that plan and go for broke and start at 6.52 pace (which I think is the minimum required to hit 1.29) and just try and hang on and sneak under the 1.30 mark? My PB is a soft 1.37 from last September but I've run some times recently that suggest I should get under 1.30, mostly 18:40 for 5k and 39.17 for 10k last week. It's a pretty fast, flat course, good for quick times if the weather behaves. Anyone any suggestions?

    6:52 is the minimum pace to hit 1:30, so you'd want to be careful. In reality though, you won't run the true line, so running at 6:45- 6:50 pace would be insurance to hit your goal.

    See this http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/site/calculator


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table! :)
    It's in relation to the sub 1.30 half, I've been training exclusively for the Dundalk 1/2 marathon for the last 11 weeks or so and the race is on Wednesday week. Throughout the training I have been aiming for a 1.30/1.31 finish with all my race pace miles done around 6.55/54 pace which would give me a 1.30 finish. My original intention was to run the first mile a bit easier to settle in (around 7.00 pace) and then move up to 6.55 and aim for 1.30 and target 1.2X later in the year.
    So my question is should I just ditch that plan and go for broke and start at 6.52 pace (which I think is the minimum required to hit 1.29) and just try and hang on and sneak under the 1.30 mark? My PB is a soft 1.37 from last September but I've run some times recently that suggest I should get under 1.30, mostly 18:40 for 5k and 39.17 for 10k last week. It's a pretty fast, flat course, good for quick times if the weather behaves. Anyone any suggestions?

    Having just hit a 1:29:xx half I think you'll have no problem. When I ran mine last december I Ran a 19:26 5k the week before (flat out, fastish course). A sub 40 10k time is tougher than a sub 1:30 half IMO so I think you'll have no problem. Give it a lash!!


  • #193
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,530 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Well I think this thread has been dragged off topic for long enough so if no one has any objections I'm going to ask a question about hitting another one of the targets on the table! :)
    It's a fine line; risk versus achievement. Are you willing to sacrifice 11 weeks of training and not hit your goal? If so, go for the sub 1:30 target and you've a decent chance of making it (or getting damn close). On the other hand, if you absolutely must get some return from your training investment, then start conservatively, and pick up the pace as you move through the race.

    I've gone for broke in the past, and I got so close to my target that I was delighted with the outcome. I've also done races where I wished I'd gone out more conservatively. It's unlikely you'll regret going for it and failing. You might regret running conservatively. Pick a strategy and stick with it, and be determined with your choice.


  • #194
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Kurt Godel wrote: »
    6:52 is the minimum pace to hit 1:30, so you'd want to be careful. In reality though, you won't run the true line, so running at 6:45- 6:50 pace would be insurance to hit your goal.

    See this http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/index.php/site/calculator

    Yeah I threw my 10k time in to this and it gave me 1.27 but McMillan can be generous once you go up the distances. Appreciate what you say about the pace though, 6.50 is probably the minimum, might just do what Meno says and go for it. I've been reading a few of tunguska's posts on here and I like his racing attitude, just put it all on the line and go for it, if it goes wrong so be it, just dust yourself down and try again!


  • #195
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Krusty_Clown wrote: »
    It's a fine line; risk versus achievement. Are you willing to sacrifice 11 weeks of training and not hit your goal? If so, go for the sub 1:30 target and you've a decent chance of making it (or getting damn close). On the other hand, if you absolutely must get some return from your training investment, then start conservatively, and pick up the pace as you move through the race.

    I've gone for broke in the past, and I got so close to my target that I was delighted with the outcome. I've also done races where I wished I'd gone out more conservatively. It's unlikely you'll regret going for it and failing. You might regret running conservatively. Pick a strategy and stick with it, and be determined with your choice.

    Cheers Krusty, I think this is the key, knowing what I'm going to do and going with that. I wouldn't be disappointed with 1.30 so long as I know I couldn't have gone any harder, and that I put everything into the race.


  • #196
    menoscemo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Cheers Krusty, I think this is the key, knowing what I'm going to do and going with that. I wouldn't be disappointed with 1.30 so long as I know I couldn't have gone any harder, and that I put everything into the race.

    If there are no pacers at the race (pacers are great :pac:) wear a paceband. As kurt says, you often need to run faster than you think as the Garmin will measure the course slightly long most of the time.

    Use your garmin as a stopwatch and a loose pace projector and check your progress off against the mile/km markers.


  • #197
    Kurt Godel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭Kurt Godel


    pconn062 wrote: »
    Yeah I threw my 10k time in to this and it gave me 1.27 but McMillan can be generous once you go up the distances. Appreciate what you say about the pace though, 6.50 is probably the minimum, might just do what Meno says and go for it. I've been reading a few of tunguska's posts on here and I like his racing attitude, just put it all on the line and go for it, if it goes wrong so be it, just dust yourself down and try again!

    McMillan works best if you are training for the specific distance, which you are. I'd tend to agree with meno that your 39:xx 10k is tougher than sub 1:30 half, especially since you've been training long. Good place to be, you should have confidence going into this race!


  • #198
    pconn062
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,370 ✭✭✭pconn062


    Cheers lads, lots of food for thought there, hopefully I'll be back on Wednesday week sticking a 1.29 into the table! (and then giving a full account of my training just to make sure I don't get into trouble ;)).


  • #199
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Kurt Godel wrote: »
    Once the tri forum starts I'll bugger off there.

    Ah don't. Your opinions are a refreshing change from the norm here. It brings a bit more balance to things.


  • #200
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    Kurt Godel wrote: »
    The forum is seen as a joke by any club runners or race directors I've talked to, as a forum full of goodybaggers who complain their mid pack race position doesn't tally with what their garmin says.

    Unfortunately this is very much how the forum is perceived. It is a shame, as it has the potential to be a great place for discussion, but discussions on athletics at the top end of things is in the minority, and everything under the sun is classified as "elitism" it seems.


  • #201
    ocnoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ocnoc


    Getonwithit wrote: »
    Yeah so your club would be only made up of internationals!

    European Mens standards. Just to rock the boat a little bit.
    No internationals. Doesn't mean people wouldn't be trying to get close to it.
    Aim low. Achieve low.

    46.70 400m
    1:47.80 800m
    3:41.40 1500m
    13:40.00 5000m
    28:55.00 10,000m

    Aim high, overtrain :pac::pac:
    People were dropping the stakes, so I raised them.
    Oh wait, thats elitism... woops


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    ocnoc wrote: »
    European Mens standards. Just to rock the boat a little bit.
    No internationals. Doesn't mean people wouldn't be trying to get close to it.
    Aim low. Achieve low.

    46.70 400m
    1:47.80 800m
    3:41.40 1500m
    13:40.00 5000m
    28:55.00 10,000m

    Aim high, overtrain :pac::pac:
    People were dropping the stakes, so I raised them.
    Oh wait, thats elitism... woops

    Nope, certainly not elitism. It is delusion though. There are very few people in this country that can achieve those standards, and not one who could manage them all.


  • #203
    rom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,147 ✭✭✭rom


    04072511 wrote: »
    Unfortunately this is very much how the forum is perceived. It is a shame, as it has the potential to be a great place for discussion, but discussions on athletics at the top end of things is in the minority, and everything under the sun is classified as "elitism" it seems.

    That's boards.ie in general in a nutshell but ask any of them as they all still have accounts on here also or read some of the threads.Great threads like this is why I read this forum :)http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056611185


  • #204
    Getonwithit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 210 ✭✭Getonwithit


    04072511 wrote: »
    ocnoc wrote: »
    European Mens standards. Just to rock the boat a little bit.
    No internationals. Doesn't mean people wouldn't be trying to get close to it.
    Aim low. Achieve low.

    46.70 400m
    1:47.80 800m
    3:41.40 1500m
    13:40.00 5000m
    28:55.00 10,000m

    Aim high, overtrain :pac::pac:
    People were dropping the stakes, so I raised them.
    Oh wait, thats elitism... woops

    Nope, certainly not elitism. It is delusion though. There are very few people in this country that can achieve those standards, and not one who could manage them all.
    There's no one in the WORLD who could achieve all ten of those numbers in a year I'd bet. Your figures are not even elitist! I don't buy into the Aim high train high bull either. You have to be realistic


  • #205
    ocnoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ocnoc


    Getonwithit wrote: »
    Nope, certainly not elitism. It is delusion though. There are very few people in this country that can achieve those standards, and not one who could manage them all.
    There's no one in the WORLD who could achieve all ten of those numbers in a year I'd bet. Your figures are not even elitist! I don't buy into the Aim high train high bull either. You have to be realistic

    I listed the Euro Standards. I never said aim for them all.

    And to be fair, whats wrong with being even an little bit delusional :D
    It makes life more interesting.

    I also never said aim high train high. I said overtraining. Thats a completely different kettle of fish. Have a looksy at a pretty insightful thread here for more on the topic.


  • #206
    Pisco Sour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    ocnoc wrote: »
    I listed the Euro Standards. I never said aim for them all.

    I don't know about you, or anybody else, but if I was good enough to qualify for the European Championships, then I certainly wouldn't be posting here. :rolleyes:

    What are your PBs over the above distances? I am intrigued. :)


  • #207
    ocnoc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 830 ✭✭✭ocnoc


    400 - 0:59 (Crone)
    800 - 2:10 (Crone)
    1,500 - 4:13 (Camaderry)


  • #208
    Kurt Godel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,361 ✭✭✭Kurt Godel


    ocnoc wrote: »
    400 - 0:59 (Crone)
    800 - 2:10 (Crone)
    1,500 - 4:13 (Camaderry)

    Track-distance-fairy ;)


  • #209
    ecoli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    04072511 wrote: »
    I don't know about you, or anybody else, but if I was good enough to qualify for the European Championships, then I certainly wouldn't be posting here. :rolleyes:

    What are your PBs over the above distances? I am intrigued. :)

    Why not you're always saying that the elites need to interact more via social media:D

    I say it would be alot easier to start track threads if we had a few who actually did track at a high level:p


  • #210
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,530 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Name|400m<60 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs

    04072511|58.68|2:27.6||||||||
    drquirky|||||17:39|29:57|35.42|||
    krusty_clown|||4:57|9:55|17:01|27:44||58:37|1:20:30|
    RayCun|||||19:22||39.23|||
    pconn062|||||18.40||39.17|||
    robinph|||||17:48|29:05|||1:23:16|
    Brianderunner|||||||||1:29:35|
    n-dawg||||9:35|19:12|||57:22|1:16:33|2:54:03
    woddle|||||19:52|||||
    Timmaay||2:06|4:47|9:45|16:37||35:14|||


    In a strange turn of events, this thread has too much chatting and not enough ticking of boxes. :)

    This is my third 5k race, so still a little rusty in terms of approach, but I reckon I ran this pretty well. Was hoping to go under 17, but just missed out. Plan was to stick to 5:25/mile on the watch, which I achieved (actually 5:23/mile) which wasn't enough to get me in under the 17 (GPS inaccuracy). Could have hit the target comfortably if I'd gone to the trouble of looking into the target splits for the distance as I could easily have made up the time over the first couple of kms. Anyway, happy with ~20 second PB, on the back of marathon training with tired legs, and it sets me up with a good target for the summer.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Krusty_Clown
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,530 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Name|400m<60 secs|800m<3min|1 mile<5 min|3k<10min|5k<20min|5mile<30min|10k<40m|10miles<1hr|Half Marathon<90mins|Marathon<3hrs

    04072511|58.68|2:27.6||||||||
    drquirky|||||17:39|29:57|35.42|||
    krusty_clown|||4:57|9:55|17:01|27:44|35:31|58:37|1:20:30|
    RayCun|||||19:22||39.23|||
    pconn062|||||18.40||39.17|||
    robinph|||||17:48|29:05|||1:23:16|
    Brianderunner|||||||||1:29:35|
    n-dawg||||9:35|19:12|||57:22|1:16:33|2:54:03
    woddle|||||19:52|||||
    Timmaay||2:06|4:47|9:45|16:37||35:14|||


    Another ticked off, this time, 45 seconds chipped-off my old 10k PB. Have coveted a 35:xx 10k time for a couple of years. Was happy when I crossed the finish line, but thoughts soon turned to what it might take to hit 34 minutes. Never happy. Three targets left.


Advertisement