| |
Main
Date: 24 Oct 2006 23:51:43
From: Elflord
Subject: race report: chicago marathon
|
well it looks like Lance beat me to the punch, but here's my report on it:
as mentioned earlier, I'd downsized my goals due to a disruption in training.
I was originally planning to go out at 6:30, but a teammate wanted sub 2:50,
and wanted about 4:00/km. I figured it would be better to run with my teammates.
Getting first from the airport to the hotel, then hotel to the expo was a snap.
Chicago has a very user-friendly subway system that runs frequently even at
fairly odd hours.
I was a bit tired at the expo so I picked up GU, bodyglide, and a number. Didn't
do much else. KK was there signing autographs, but the line was long, so I went
back.
After an afternoon nap it was time for dinner. Pizza and pasta are hard to come
by, there's not enough for all the marathoners. I couldn't get a seat at the
pizza place, so I ordered for pickup. Then had an early night. A largely good
sleep was interrupted by two marathon anxiety dreams, but I got up at 5am
fairly well rested. After a starbucks stop (they opened at 5:30) and an uneventful
subway ride, I was at the start around 6:20am. It was very quiet at that time.
The competitive start area was still closed.
It was a cold morning, but having attended a cold wet race recently, I had my
warm battle gear ready -- some throwaways, and a fleece throw which my teammates
called my "cape". At first it seemed a bit excessive, but after being out there
for a while, I was happy with that choice. Though given the spotty training, I
wondered what I was doing out there.
But doubts faded after I started -- I felt OK. I started some way back, but because
of the competitive start, there was no problem getting out smoothly. The race
was pretty uneventful. I just kept knocking off the miles at close to exactly
4:00/km. The first few miles were a little uneven because it was hard to judge
pace -- a lot of people were moving at different paces (for example, some would do
the first mile way too fast. Others would start further forward yet be running slower,
so we'd pass them). This led to a few uneven splits, but overall it was very close
to 4:00/km.
Conditions were very gusty at times. I was almost blown off my feet by a gust
at one stage. But that didn't seem to be a major factor in times, many people
still ran well (and these were not soft PRs).
I had a scare on mile 18 (?) when I hit a ~6:40 split, but I recovered on the
next two miles. But it would catch up to me on mile 20, and I gradually ran
out of gas. But I knew that as long as I kept a cool head, I would still run
low 2:50s. As the finish approached, I picked it up and made sure I snuck in
under 2:52.
Shoes worked out much better this time. I went with some Asics magics, slightly roomy
fit (size 10.5 compared to size 10 last time). I think this may have led to some
blistering underneath my left foot, but I get to keep all my toenails this time.
On the balance of it, the slightly roomier fit was better.
In terms of hydration, I didn't do very much. I took water at nearly every
stop, but there weren't so many stops, and I didn't take all that much water
(by the time the cup was in my hand, most of the water had spilled). Despite
this, I wasn't overly thirsty at the finish. This is consistent with my
training results that have shown me that it's quite easy to stay well hydrated
when it's cool, but very difficult to achieve the same when it's warm.
I was very spaced out after I crossed the line (indeed throughout a lot of the
second half of the race), the endorphins were working their magic. As is
customary, one of the finish crew insisted on walking with me for a little
while to make sure I was OK.
Right now, I'm not overly sore -- it's comparable soreness to a tough
half-marathon.
The teammates did extremely well. Two of the women who wanted to go sub 3 ended
up with 2:57 and 2:53. They went out hard, and kept going hard all the way,
running more or less dead even splits (the 2:53 runner went slightly negative,
I think). So everyone was in a festive mood, so we spent the rest of the day
eating and drinking.
I'd say there's a pretty good chance I'll be back next year.
splits (unofficial, as recorded on my watch)
6:32 1
6:24 2
6:33 3 (20:11 5k)
6:17 4
6:17 5
6:34 6
6:25 7 (40:02 10k)
6:23 8
6:24 9
6:22 10 (59:53 15k) 2:00.15
6:18 11
6:32 12
6:24 13 (79:50 20k) 1:23:30
6:30 14 (1:24:11 half)
6:27 15
6:26 16 (99:50 25k)
6:30 17
6:43 18
6:29 19 (120:11 30k)
6:26 20
6:41 21
6:48 22
6:51 23
6:53 24
7:11 25
8:26 (~7:01) 26.2
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 02:43:36
From: Tony S.
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
"Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message
news:slrnejt9of.hdo.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> well it looks like Lance beat me to the punch, but here's my report on it:
Funny how he want's attention isn't it.
...
> After an afternoon nap it was time for dinner. Pizza and pasta are hard to
come
> by, there's not enough for all the marathoners. I couldn't get a seat at
the
> pizza place, so I ordered for pickup. Then had an early night. A largely
good
> sleep was interrupted by two marathon anxiety dreams, but I got up at 5am
> fairly well rested. After a starbucks stop (they opened at 5:30) and an
uneventful
> subway ride, I was at the start around 6:20am. It was very quiet at that
time.
> The competitive start area was still closed.
breakfast?
...
> Shoes worked out much better this time. I went with some Asics magics,
slightly roomy
> fit (size 10.5 compared to size 10 last time). I think this may have led
to some
> blistering underneath my left foot, but I get to keep all my toenails this
time.
> On the balance of it, the slightly roomier fit was better.
Bigger sizes are good, yet you never know until you race. I used Asics
2100's 12.5s with plenty of toeroom, and they worked like a charm at the
escarpment trail, which has very bad footing. But at the Vermont 50 miler my
right foot got mashed somehow, losing numerous toenails. But that's with
trails and wet feet for the last ~15.
...
> splits (unofficial, as recorded on my watch)
>
> 6:32 1
> 6:24 2
> 6:33 3 (20:11 5k)
> 6:17 4
> 6:17 5
> 6:34 6
> 6:25 7 (40:02 10k)
> 6:23 8
> 6:24 9
> 6:22 10 (59:53 15k) 2:00.15
> 6:18 11
> 6:32 12
> 6:24 13 (79:50 20k) 1:23:30
> 6:30 14 (1:24:11 half)
> 6:27 15
> 6:26 16 (99:50 25k)
> 6:30 17
> 6:43 18
> 6:29 19 (120:11 30k)
> 6:26 20
> 6:41 21
> 6:48 22
> 6:51 23
> 6:53 24
> 7:11 25
> 8:26 (~7:01) 26.2
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord
Congratulations on a fine performance! One can see the slight fade at 18,
then the slowdown again after the effort of 19 and 20. Looks like an early
wall, subtle though.
-Tony
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2006 19:34:06
From: LSmith
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
Elflord wrote:
>I'd downsized my goals due to a disruption in training.
So you lowered the bar, on the low bar (Chicago). So we're dealing
with "low bar squared"? Gotcha Donovan.
> I was originally planning to go out at 6:30, but a teammate wanted sub 2:50,
> and wanted about 4:00/km. I figured it would be better to run with my teammates.
So you're now blaming your teammates, making them responsible for your
choices? Gotach Donovan.
>I was almost blown off my feet by a gust
> at one stage.
8 to 15 mph winds will do that every time Donovan....Katrina - like
winds for sure!
>As the finish approached, I picked it up and made sure I snuck in
> under 2:52.
So tell me Dononvan. You ran a 2:51:52. You're 8 seconds away from
2:52, 52 seconds away from 2:51. Which is more accurate a time of
your performance, 2:51or 2:52?
The Chicago Marathon RD has said, "People come here to run fast,"
Executive Race Director Carey Pinkowski. (softball course).
Note Mara Yamauchi, owner of Britain's second-fastest female marathon
time about racing in the NYCM in 2 weeks said, "I know the course is
tough"
http://www.time-to-run.com/marathon/newyork/2006/news/070806.htm
RW interviewed Abdi Abdirahman and he said, "New York's always tough.
In Chicago, a lot of people go there to run fast. In New York, most of
them are tactical races".
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-292--10537-0,00.html
In sum, by most all accounts I've ever come across, Chicago is a speed
track where people go to run fast, NYC is "tough". Now that you've
ran both, tell me....What do you think is the more impressive result, a
2:52 in Chicago or a 2:58 in NYC?
Also you observed a lot of 1:23 Half Marathoners in NYC run a 3:10 in
the NYCM, or in other words, they run 2 x 1/2M + 24Minutes. This is
content you said last week. What do you suppose a lot of 1:23 Half
Marathoners(anywhere) do at Chicago? Where any in your group?
It's very difficult for me to believe 1:23Half Marathoners run Chicao
at +24 like you noted a lot do in NYCM.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 02:53:37
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
On 2006-10-25, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote:
>>I'd downsized my goals due to a disruption in training.
>
> So you lowered the bar, on the low bar (Chicago). So we're dealing
> with "low bar squared"? Gotcha Donovan.
Two words:
2:51, bitch.
bite me,
--
Elflord
|
| |
Date: 24 Oct 2006 17:11:32
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
Donovan wrote:
> I had a scare on mile 18 (?) when I hit a ~6:40 split
Any idea what happened there? Headwind? It's pretty flat throughout
right?
> but I recovered on the next two miles. But it would catch up to me
> on mile 20, and I gradually ran out of gas. But I knew that as long
> as I kept a cool head, I would still run low 2:50s. As the finish
> approached, I picked it up and made sure I snuck in under 2:52.
Nicely done! And way to stay upright crossing the line.
> As is customary, one of the finish crew insisted on walking with
> me for a little while to make sure I was OK.
I thought the custom at Chicago was for the race director to abruptly
pick you up and tell you "you're OK" - guess I misunderstood.
> I'd say there's a pretty good chance I'll be back next year.
Aw man, I hoped you might pace me to a 2:4x at Philly next year. I'd
ask Tom but he'd rather run a mountainous course like NYCM.
What lies ahead for you, running-wise? Indoor track?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 00:46:06
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
On 2006-10-25, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
damn, hit reply instead of followup ... trying again ...
> Donovan wrote:
>> I had a scare on mile 18 (?) when I hit a ~6:40 split
>
> Any idea what happened there? Headwind? It's pretty flat throughout
> right?
I think I was just running out of gas. I consciously tried to push harder
after that split (-;
>> but I recovered on the next two miles. But it would catch up to me
>> on mile 20, and I gradually ran out of gas. But I knew that as long
>> as I kept a cool head, I would still run low 2:50s. As the finish
>> approached, I picked it up and made sure I snuck in under 2:52.
>
> Nicely done! And way to stay upright crossing the line.
Thanks (-; It's a good thing I didn't cross first (-;
>> I'd say there's a pretty good chance I'll be back next year.
>
> Aw man, I hoped you might pace me to a 2:4x at Philly next year. I'd
> ask Tom but he'd rather run a mountainous course like NYCM.
>
> What lies ahead for you, running-wise? Indoor track?
A road-trip/fun run to the philly half, and indoor track. Lance will predict that I
run 1:14 at the Philly half and express disappointment when I "underachieve".
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:12:21
From: steve common
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
>After an afternoon nap
Good...
> it was time for dinner. Pizza
Oh WTF! You NYC nancies are all as bad as each other! What is it with you
guys?
OK, maybe this is a culture rift: When I hear "Pizza", I smell melted
cheese, pepperoni, sweet peppers, chillis, ground beef, bitchin' decor,
whatever, and bread made with olive oil.
So maybe I misinterpret your "pizza", but what are you doing eating major
lipids - however good it may be for your arteries (olive oil, not cheese
unless it's ewe's or goat's, and even then) - on the night before a
marathon for fook's sake?!?!
> and pasta
ahhhh
> are hard to come by, there's not enough for all the marathoners.
Shite planning by the city. When I do "La Rochelle" I can always get pasta
in any restaurant, even though it is one of the main seafood towns of the
country (hence the oysters at the finish :-).
Unless it's a simple case of "supply and demand" because you wallies all
want greasy "comfort" food the night before ;-)
snip
>I just kept knocking off the miles at close to exactly
>4:00/km.
Yeah saw that straight away. Like clockwork til 30k-ish and now I have
your splits, this...
>I had a scare on mile 18 (?) when I hit a ~6:40 split,
...explains the 11 seconds late ;-)
>but I recovered on the next two miles. But it would catch up to me on mile 20,
Honestly, did you notice this when it happened or did you work it out from
the stored laps afterwards? Not a loaded question, cos I've done that in
some marathon reports where I just have no recollection whatever of what
went on around that stage of the race.
>and I gradually ran
>out of gas. But I knew that as long as I kept a cool head, I would still run
>low 2:50s.
Did you really run out of gas or did you just kinda relax, or lose faith,
or whatever reason, but just eased off when you saw that the 4'/k pace
couldn't be got back again?
Again this isn't a loaded question, but did you not just "give up the
ghost" of a 2:48:xx?
I only learned to push through the inevitable weakening, or loss of
concentration (around 35k for me) at my second marathon, and then only
cos' I'd been lucky enough to read Ozzie's stuff just a short time before,
and made a conscious effort to get past the "hump".
>I was very spaced out after I crossed the line (indeed throughout a lot of the
>second half of the race)
So you raced. Good :-)
>Right now, I'm not overly sore -- it's comparable soreness to a tough
>half-marathon.
Backs up my theory that you could've done <=2:48 with the right motivation
at the critical moment of your race.
>splits (unofficial, as recorded on my watch)
snip
>6:43 18
OK, that woke you up
>6:29 19 (120:11 30k)
>6:26 20
and you held it for a good while but
>6:41 21
you're fighting a losing battle and only you know what was happening to
your mind&body here, though most marathoners may have a clue :-)
>6:48 22
yup, you're fooked or asleep
>6:51 23
>6:53 24
what'd I say
>7:11 25
Oh mama <Johnny Bravo accent >
>8:26 (~7:01) 26.2
Either way, you got a PB and you went into this one with a better attitude
than you had for NYCM last year.
I am looking forward to your next serious marathon. Just don't fuck about
with it; either you want to marathon or you don't - give up an entire
season to one race and don't try improving 3k, 5k, 10k times and see what
happens.
PS Well done ;-)
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 06:13:00
From: Ed Prochak
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
Elflord wrote:
> well it looks like Lance beat me to the punch, but here's my report on it:
>
> as mentioned earlier, I'd downsized my goals due to a disruption in training.
> I was originally planning to go out at 6:30, but a teammate wanted sub 2:50,
> and wanted about 4:00/km. I figured it would be better to run with my teammates.
>
[]
>
> The teammates did extremely well. Two of the women who wanted to go sub 3 ended
> up with 2:57 and 2:53. They went out hard, and kept going hard all the way,
> running more or less dead even splits (the 2:53 runner went slightly negative,
> I think). So everyone was in a festive mood, so we spent the rest of the day
> eating and drinking.
>
> I'd say there's a pretty good chance I'll be back next year.
>
> splits (unofficial, as recorded on my watch)
>
> 6:32 1
> 6:24 2
> 6:33 3 (20:11 5k)
> 6:17 4
> 6:17 5
> 6:34 6
> 6:25 7 (40:02 10k)
> 6:23 8
> 6:24 9
> 6:22 10 (59:53 15k) 2:00.15
> 6:18 11
> 6:32 12
> 6:24 13 (79:50 20k) 1:23:30
> 6:30 14 (1:24:11 half)
> 6:27 15
> 6:26 16 (99:50 25k)
> 6:30 17
> 6:43 18
> 6:29 19 (120:11 30k)
> 6:26 20
> 6:41 21
> 6:48 22
> 6:51 23
> 6:53 24
> 7:11 25
> 8:26 (~7:01) 26.2
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Elflord
A solid performance on less than perfect training. Congratulations on
the PR!
Your report was good, though maybe a little more technical than my
tastes. But then that seems your style, concise and to the point with
little fluff. I did enjoy it.
Enjoy the run.
Ed
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 09:07:51
From: marko
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
Elflord a écrit :
> splits (unofficial, as recorded on my watch)
>
> 6:32 1
> 6:24 2
> 6:33 3 (20:11 5k)
> 6:17 4
> 6:17 5
> 6:34 6
> 6:25 7 (40:02 10k)
> 6:23 8
> 6:24 9
> 6:22 10 (59:53 15k) 2:00.15
> 6:18 11
> 6:32 12
> 6:24 13 (79:50 20k) 1:23:30
> 6:30 14 (1:24:11 half)
> 6:27 15
> 6:26 16 (99:50 25k)
> 6:30 17
> 6:43 18
> 6:29 19 (120:11 30k)
> 6:26 20
> 6:41 21
> 6:48 22
> 6:51 23
> 6:53 24
> 7:11 25
> 8:26 (~7:01) 26.2
Congratulations on the big PR Donovan!
I'm quite impressed by someone running a marathon at more or less my HM
pace!
You've mentioned disruption in training, how much mileage pw did you run
in the last 10 weeks? Did you do much long runs?
How about speedwork, and tempos?
m, always curious about others training
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 13:01:55
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
steve common wrote:
> Pendejo wrote:
>> but it's a legitimate category
>
> You talking about what we ate in the restaurant we sadly picked
> on Saint Gennaro's day in Little Italy
No. There's nothing "legitimate" to be found in any Italian restaurant
in Manhattan's Little Italy. Ever. Without exception.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 22:05:30
From: steve common
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
>No. There's nothing "legitimate" to be found in any Italian restaurant
>in Manhattan's Little Italy. Ever. Without exception.
Even the "nubile" on the float, who was otherwise totally lovely, had a
bloody enormous nose piercing thing. Maybe I'm just getting old :-}
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 11:59:26
From: Charlie Pendejo
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
steve common wrote:
> You NYC nancies are all as bad as each other!
Hard to argue with that.
> So maybe I misinterpret your "pizza"
Believe me, steve, in Chicago they all badly misinterpret "pizza" too.
They seem proud of it, but Chicago "pizza" is a ridiculous, horrible
affair.
Now I realize that East Coast USA pizza ain't the same as what you
might find in Napoli or Roma, but it's a legitimate category (1) that
stands on its own, with balance, subtlety, quality, harmony.
The archetypical Chicago pizza ala Geno's is a two or three inch thick
pie sitting within a quarter inch crust which probably features some
cornmeal, tomato sauce right out of the can, a few kilos of third-rate
packaged mozzerella, and a few kilos of sausage which is likely to be
pretty good.
That can't be what Donovan ate or he'd never have run two fifty one,
nonstop. He probably found some generically bad Middle American pizza.
> Unless it's a simple case of "supply and demand" because you wallies
> all want greasy "comfort" food the night before ;-)
Greasy comfort food is what Chicago's all about. Best hot dogs on
earth. Italian sausage. Polish sausage, pierogies. Possibly the best
Mexican chow in a state not bordering that country. Ribs. Lotta meat.
A WHOLE lotta greasy, greasy meat.
(1) or really several categories, but we'll get into that later
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:55:22
From: steve common
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
"Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
>Now I realize that East Coast USA pizza ain't the same as what you
>might find in Napoli or Roma, but it's a legitimate category (1) that
>stands on its own, with balance, subtlety, quality, harmony.
You talking about what we ate in the restaurant we sadly picked on Saint
Gennaro's day in Little Italy (the only one with seats free - we didn't
figure what that meant, doh!, maybe cos we'd been in NYC for about 2 hours
after a 9hr flight :-)
>That can't be what Donovan ate or he'd never have run two fifty one,
>nonstop. He probably found some generically bad Middle American pizza.
Reckon he had a cheese crust one :oP
>Greasy comfort food is what Chicago's all about. Best hot dogs on
>earth. Italian sausage. Polish sausage, pierogies. Possibly the best
>Mexican chow in a state not bordering that country. Ribs. Lotta meat.
> A WHOLE lotta greasy, greasy meat.
Oh mama! <Dons porkpie hat, Wayfarers and sings > C'mon, baby don't you
wanna go...
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 19:42:23
From: Elflord
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
On 2006-10-25, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote:
> steve common wrote:
>> You NYC nancies are all as bad as each other!
>
> Hard to argue with that.
>
>
>> So maybe I misinterpret your "pizza"
>
> Believe me, steve, in Chicago they all badly misinterpret "pizza" too.
> They seem proud of it, but Chicago "pizza" is a ridiculous, horrible
> affair.
As I found out the hard way. I guess that means my food-asjusted time is
about 2:23 ? That or it's a point in favor of fat loading.
I ordered a 12" which I'd usually demolish, but I could barely eat half
this MF'er.
Maybe the carbs in the Dunkin' Donuts smoothie and *$ cakes saved me.
Cheers,
--
Elflord
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Oct 2006 21:46:09
From: steve common
Subject: Re: race report: chicago marathon
|
Elflord <abuse@aol.com > wrote:
>Maybe the carbs in the Dunkin' Donuts smoothie and *$ cakes saved me.
God preserve us :-P
|
|
