running-forum.com Promoting running discussion.

Main Date: 15 Oct 2006 16:27:28 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: race report: staten island half marathon In additon to whatever else I did wrong before this morning's race, my final act of stoopidity was to drink a bottled horchata last night. I was walking a few blocks to the Target to get a replacement stopwatch for the one I busted earlier in the day swapping in a new battery when it occured to me I was shy on both the hydration and caloric fronts - what can I say, I've been pretty scattered lately. The horchata was about the only thing with calories but without high fructose corn syrup (seems some of the "ethnic" drinks still use sugar, as folks from elsewhere tend to demand better food and drink) at my local Walgreens. It seemed tasty enough as I guzzled it but then noticed too late that, duh, it was milk-based. Sure enough this morning my weight was up that familiar four pounds worth of milk penalty, 144 up from the 140 I've been at for a while. My GP and my endo pretty much rolled their eyes when I mentioned this but it's consistent. Whatever. While I drove to the race, parked, walked to the baggage check, and warmed up (couple miles, high knee and butt kick drills, strides) I absolutely could not get my body or mind to give me a hint what it might run today. 1:24 still sounded intimidating but reflecting on all the training, well, who knows. 1:28 ought to be about the upper limit, I hoped. At 44F and a bit breezy I was glad to have worn tights and a long sleeve top and gloves. Especially when the start was delayed five minutes because they hadn't gotten all the roads closed yet - I would've been getting pretty damn chilly in shorts and a singlet. This delay gave Mary Wittenberg extra time to talk excitedly about the little marathon her club throws in three weeks. Lined up further forward than usual - fifth row - I was close enough to ascertain with 60% certainty that she wears the same eyeglass frames as I. They're made by a Dutch company called You's Eyeworks (http://www.euro-visie.com) - model 385 (http://www.sillustani.net/pages/you.htm). Better looking woman in person, that Mary, than in photos I've seen. Fifth row looked like the place for me because there was no banner turnout of fast guys. Not a club points race this year. Most of the guys up front were Mexican or some other stripe of Latin American. Should've worn my "que me ves pendejo" baseball cap but it doesn't fit well and has no mesh ventilation. Didn't spot lance and kinda figured he didn't show. Standing at the start, without any conscious effort, I snapped into focus. Still didn't know what kind of time I might run but just plain felt confident about giving it my all from start to finish and letting the time fall where it may. I calculated that 6:20 miles net a 1:23, and while that sounded improbable, figured if an effort which felt anywhere near right happened to return a 6:20 then I'd stick with it until I couldn't. My mindset wasn't necessarily to negative split, as much as I know it *is* much fun to reel in dozens of runners in the second half. Though I very much wanted to run a big-time PR, I was even more interested in finding out exactly what I had in me. And to my way of thinking, in this race that meant erring on the side of going out a little harder than I might be able to sustain and thereby finding the breaking point. Running the first 11 miles at even pace then finding I had another gear for the last two point one wouldn't spotlight my limit quite as clearly. With no recent races to test the results of my training and my TSH (thyroid level), neither of which closely resemble their levels of three months ago, the proper pace/effort was a little opaque to me. This plus other life circumstances pretty much had me thinking, "eff it, I'm just gonna run for all I'm worth - like Billy Mills, like Hutch - and not worry about it." And that's pretty much what I did. I went out at an effort that seemed probably a bit faster than I could hold, and was very pleased with the exchange rate to chronological currency. I hung and chatted with a better class of runner than ever before. Ran a couple stretches in tight packs, which doesn't seem to happen so much at seven minute miles and slower. Faded a bit in the last third or so and for once got passed more than vice versa. Fine. I tried to stick with people the best I could, and sometimes did. In particular I caught, and eventually reluctantly passed, the fourth place woman with whom I'd run in the first several miles before she shot ahead. I cheered her on and she complained of a tight glute. I'd been enjoying her tight glutes quite an awful lot for much of the race, but figured now wasn't the time to share that with her. The hill up Lily Pond Road really kicked my ass as it did last year. It's only about an 80 foot rise over a quarter mile, but of course that's a much tougher obstacle when your system is already flooded with lactate (1) and you're pushing for all you're worth two thirds of the way through a race. And though I've improved I'm still not very good on uphills. No power. I think that hill took some of the spring out of my legs the next couple miles, though I was able to pick it up ever so slightly in mile 13. Don't think I've ever given closer to 100% before in a race. Was pretty wiped at the end, though my ex (who's once again a Staten Islander and met me at the finish) confirmed that I seemed to perk up a lot more in the next few minutes than has sometimes been the case after a tough race. What else? The Corsa Settes were fine, of course. Snagging cups of water and g'rade at 6:20ish is tougher than 6:50ish but still doable. Hopefully I held my head more upright at least when the cameras were looking. time: 1:23:47 81/3667 runners 78/2229 men 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) WAVA: 73% splits ------ 6:17 6:11 6:08 6:22 6:36...mile 5 6:08 6:20 6:52 damn hill 6:24 6:30...mile 10 6:29 6:45 maybe slowed down to admire the tight glutes? 6:12 :33 (1) or hydrogen ions, whatever's the real culprit   Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:46:07 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Dan wrote: > Great race. I agree that the lack of an extra gear in the last couple miles > indicates it was pretty close to your best time. Quite a variation in > speeds -- was it the terrain, you, or the mile markers?? I think largely the terrain. It's not super-duper hilly but hilly enough, and my speed varies more with slope than some others'. The course is basically out and back, and looking at the splits I see some symmetry around the midway point (mile 7) which looks like uphills becoming downhills and vice versa. That, overlaid with a general slowing down. There was also a bit of headwind at times in the last handful of miles, but not too bad. > Before you down Horchata, remember it powered most of the Hispanic army > lined up ahead of you No doubt. I'm a fan of horchata as well as every other Mexican food and drink, even chapulines. Next time though I'll either buy or make some proper horchata, with no milk. Though NYC is not nearly as Mexican as LA, a lot of our fast guys (and particularly Brooklyn's, including my stalker the 1:10 half marathon guy) are. Ever notice, wherever good coffee is grown, so are good distance runners? Maybe the temperate climate at altitude is good for both. > I'll stick to my 3:05 estimate (For tactical reasons, hoping that it pisses > you off enough to run a sub-3 :-) Fair enough. I guesstimate I'll be awfully close to 3:00 NYCM shape (in perfect weather and barring some new more effective method of self-sabotage), but we won't know until the first Sunday of November.   Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:27:04 From: Ed Prochak Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: [] > While I drove to the race, parked, walked to the baggage check, and > warmed up (couple miles, high knee and butt kick drills, strides) I > absolutely could not get my body or mind to give me a hint what it > might run today. 1:24 still sounded intimidating but reflecting on all > the training, well, who knows. 1:28 ought to be about the upper limit, > I hoped. 1:24:00 sounded intimidating until you ran this and got 1:23:47 Well at least we know you weren't sandbagging it. > > At 44F and a bit breezy I was glad to have worn tights and a long > sleeve top and gloves. Especially when the start was delayed five > minutes because they hadn't gotten all the roads closed yet - I > would've been getting pretty damn chilly in shorts and a singlet. [] > Standing at the start, without any conscious effort, I snapped into > focus. Still didn't know what kind of time I might run but just plain > felt confident about giving it my all from start to finish and letting > the time fall where it may. I calculated that 6:20 miles net a 1:23, > and while that sounded improbable, figured if an effort which felt > anywhere near right happened to return a 6:20 then I'd stick with it > until I couldn't. Nothing like knowing your body that well as to know your finish time at the start! Great race Charlie! > [] > > time: 1:23:47 > 81/3667 runners > 78/2229 men > 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) > WAVA: 73% > > splits > ------ > 6:17 > 6:11 > 6:08 > 6:22 > 6:36...mile 5 > 6:08 > 6:20 > 6:52 damn hill > 6:24 > 6:30...mile 10 > 6:29 > 6:45 maybe slowed down to admire the tight glutes? If you cannot admire the scenery, what's the use of running? 8^) > 6:12 > :33 Impressive race. I've enjoyed the descriptions of races from the front of the pack point of view. The one advantage of the back of the pack is there is more scenery to enjoy! Thanks Charlie for the report. Ed   Date: 15 Oct 2006 19:26:18 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Phil wrote: > Pendejo wrote: >> 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) > > If you were a year older you'd be a year slower. ;-) You reckon I'm not gonna lop another 8+ minutes off the ol' 21k PR again next year? ;-) > Good luck at the marathon! Thanks Phil. Glad to see you're starting to get back into your training groove again.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:11:07 From: Mark Hutchinson Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Great run, pilgrim, great run. I'd say that puts you in sub 3:10; on a very good day and lots of taper maybe even a 3:05.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:04:13 From: Phil M. Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com wrote: > 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) If you were a year older you'd be a year slower. ;-) Excellent race, Charlie. And the report was very educational with the references to eyeglasses and where to buy them, and milk-laden horchata. Good luck at the marathon! -- Phil M.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:19:53 From: Dan Stumpus Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Great race. I agree that the lack of an extra gear in the last couple miles indicates it was pretty close to your best time. Quite a variation in speeds -- was it the terrain, you, or the mile markers?? My fastest races at all road distances had slight slowdowns in the last mile(s), despite asymptotic increases in effort, with occasional dry heaves at the finish. Before you down Horchata, remember it powered most of the Hispanic army lined up ahead of you :-). (Out here in LA, Hispanics predominate among the top runners). I'll stick to my 3:05 estimate (For tactical reasons, hoping that it pisses you off enough to run a sub-3 :-) -- Dan       Date: 16 Oct 2006 23:19:10 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com > wrote in message news:d%BYg.11799$o71.8295@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > I'll stick to my 3:05 estimate (For tactical reasons, hoping that it > pisses you off enough to run a sub-3 :-) I'm going with 3:08 but will modify after he says what pace he plans for the first 10 miles. ;) Hell, I hope he runs 2:54. -Doug         Date: 16 Oct 2006 23:22:05 From: Parker Race Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote in message news:OrUYg.15$tb6.14@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... > > "Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:d%BYg.11799$o71.8295@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >> >> I'll stick to my 3:05 estimate (For tactical reasons, hoping that it >> pisses you off enough to run a sub-3 :-) > > I'm going with 3:08 but will modify after he says what pace he plans for > the first 10 miles. ;) From my prediction further down: Congatulations, I'm upgrading my prediction to 3:08. Great minds think alike! > > Hell, I hope he runs 2:54. > > -Doug >           Date: 16 Oct 2006 23:38:32 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-16, Parker Race <prace@nycap.rr.com > wrote: > > "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:OrUYg.15$tb6.14@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... >> >> "Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:d%BYg.11799$o71.8295@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> >>> I'll stick to my 3:05 estimate (For tactical reasons, hoping that it >>> pisses you off enough to run a sub-3 :-) >> >> I'm going with 3:08 but will modify after he says what pace he plans for >> the first 10 miles. ;) > > From my prediction further down: > > Congatulations, I'm upgrading my prediction to 3:08. > > Great minds think alike! Since we're all placing bets, I'm going with 3:03. But without knowing the weather, etc, it's really hard. I still don't think a sub 3 is out of the question if conditions are good. Cheers, -- Elflord           Date: 18 Oct 2006 12:15:09 From: Parker Race Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Parker Race wrote: > "Doug Freese" <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message > news:OrUYg.15$tb6.14@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com... >> "Dan Stumpus" <dstumpus_NOSP@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:d%BYg.11799$o71.8295@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... >>> I'll stick to my 3:05 estimate (For tactical reasons, hoping that it >>> pisses you off enough to run a sub-3 :-) >> I'm going with 3:08 but will modify after he says what pace he plans for >> the first 10 miles. ;) > > From my prediction further down: > > Congatulations, I'm upgrading my prediction to 3:08. > > Great minds think alike! > >> Hell, I hope he runs 2:54. >> >> -Doug >> > > That would be great but I would be surprised, my buddy #666 ran 2:53:50 in NYC last year and he is faster in general and more experienced at the Marathon than CP. He's run 1:18 for the 1/2. PR   Date: 16 Oct 2006 01:50:41 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-15, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: [snip] good run. I think that's faster than Lance's PR too (-; I think it's reasonable to go out in 1:30 coming off a 1:23 half, and though I wouldn't bet the farm in you closing at the same pace, it doesn't hurt to try. Still, I'd say you should run 3:10 or better. Cheers, -- Elflord   Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:42:45 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Daniel wrote: > [I find that a bottle of the Jarrito (sp.?) tamarind flavor (or is > that just a Mexico to California thing?) is particularly conducive to > health and happiness.] Yeah, I'm a fan of the tamarindo as well. If Jarritos were ever a Cal-Mex thing, they're now pretty broadly available nationwide IME. Less conducive to health, but at least equally so to happiness, a personal favorite Mexican liquid refreshment is a shot of homemade sangrita followed by a shot of really good tequila (Don Julio A=F1ejo is a fave) or mezcal. > Awsome. Congratulations! Thanks Daniel. Now if NYCM goes horribly awry, or if I break my leg in a pothole before then, at least I've had one really good race this fall which would still make me pretty happy. Much like my Broad Street Run this spring mostly made up for a so-so performance in that season's primary goal race, the Boilermaker. What sucked last fall was running both a crappy half marathon and then a crappier marathon DNF.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:30:53 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon marko wrote: > Just one question, don't you find tights to be too warm in the second > half of the race? I tend to prefer starting a bit cold with shorts, > knowing that I'll soon get warm enough running, same with racing in > singlets as long as it isn't freezing (starting with an old t-shirt to > throw-away.) Nah, I was just right in tights and a long sleeve shirt. I did push up the sleeves for part of the race, but rolled them back down when the wind picked up a little. Covering my legs keeps those muscles a little warmer and looser but doesn't seem to prevent me from shedding excess heat - I seem to do that mostly above the waist. In past years I have gone for more minimal clothing, but I've learned that I run a little colder than some others like you and Parker and lance. Maybe that's a matter of basic metabolism (e.g. could be related to my lack of power) and/or BMI (I'm really not carrying much extra body fat for my build - haven't had it measured but my muscles, though they're pretty compact, are visibly really well defined this fall: it's still a little surprising when I see myself in the mirror). I really suffered badly in shorts and singlet in my disastrous fall 2004 marathon, in weather a few degrees warmer (IIRC) but breezier. My legs never loosened up and my arms seriously ached for most of the race, from being underdressed. For all that, I still wear less on training runs than most local runners.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 10:16:50 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Dot wrote: >> And though I've improved I'm still not very good >> on uphills. No power. > > Ever try hill drills or bounding or plyometrics? Yes, some hill repeats of various intensities, with some bounding - my best shot at it anyway, based on reading and not personal demonstration or coaching. And I've been doing my MP and slightly faster workouts on my hilly (well comparable to the SI course and NYCM) park loop. I think that's led to "improved" but whether it's a muscular thing and/or a thyroid thing (the literature lends some support to the latter) I suffer more on uphills than others at my level. > "Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan :-)   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:45:55 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon anders wrote: > Pendejo kirjoitti: >> time: 1:23:47 > > If you could see me now, the look on my face would perhaps remind you > of that of Joel Cairo before he says "Look what you did to my shirt!" > to Sam Spade. :-) You remember who suggested that 84' goal, dontcha? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.running/browse_frm/thread/6f4831e4374c742d/99392980576bd956   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:22:06 From: Daniel Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 15 2006 16:27:28 -0700, "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: >. . . horchata . . . [I find that a bottle of the Jarrito (sp.?) tamarind flavor (or is that just a Mexico to California thing?) is particularly conducive to health and happiness.] > . . . >Don't think I've ever given closer to 100% before in a race. . . . Now *that* is true success! Awsome. Congratulations! -- Daniel ( deltaechomike@usa.net ) -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com   Date: 16 Oct 2006 08:29:10 From: gym.gravity Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: about his PR half marathon. Wow, great job.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 14:41:24 From: Parker Race Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: > > At 44F and a bit breezy I was glad to have worn tights and a long > sleeve top and gloves. What!? I started out in short sleeve shirt, shorts and gloves. I lost the gloves after the first 25 minutes and was thinking I could have worn a singlet after 2 hours!! >I'd been enjoying her tight glutes quite an awful lot for > much of the race, but figured now wasn't the time to share that with > her. I think tight glutes kept me under 7 min pace on Saturday, the glutes on a 23 year old University student that is! > time: 1:23:47 > 81/3667 runners > 78/2229 men > 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) > WAVA: 73% Congatulations, I'm upgrading my prediction to 3:08.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 07:13:21 From: LSmith Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord wrote: >The reason he could only end > up with a 3:10 is that a lot of 1:23 guys end up with around 3:10. So now we're at 2 x 1/2M + 24 Minutes, and 1:23 Half runners usually treat their NYC Marathon will total effort I would think. I don't think CP is going to fall into this model you're referencing. Why? Can't quite recall where I read it, but I believe the "classic" elite marathoner (male) is 5'9", 139 .lbs (current day). CP will start the race 5'8" or 5'8.5" & 140 .lbs. Would not surprise me that this pool of 1:23 guys you are referring to were your height or thereabouts????...(5'10", 5'11", 6'?) perhaps even weigh155, 160, etc.? which over the course of 26.2miles could make all the difference between a +14 and a + 22 performance, certainly the last couple years. 1) running performance has a structural basis & this falls in CP's favor. http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/208/14/2625 2) "No man six feet tall and weighing 176lbs (79.8kg) will ever win the London Marathon, and it is unlikely that a woman five feet six inches in height and weighing 130lbs (58.9kg) will ever do so either". http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0048.htm 3) here referenced is a study wherein the gain of 1 kg of weight increased the energy cost of running by 3.5%. turning a 40 min 10K runner into a 41:28 10K runner. http://images.rodale.com/wcpe/USRodaleStore/pdf/cutting_edge_runner/1594860912CHP.pdf (did not CP say he entered the race at 144 .lbs? 4 .lbs over his expected weight?) Emile Zatopek - 5'81/2' (1.740m)/154lbs (69.8kg): same as the average man Kip Keino - 5'9' (1.753m)/146lbs (66.2kg): 9 per cent below average Seb Coe - 5'10' (1.778m)/120lbs (54.4kg): over 20 per cent below average lastly, CP floated it on this ng last week (1:23) and that was a tall order. i figured this was based on some trial balloons. nonetheless, the guy called his shot, and a tough shot, and he hit it, all net too. that counts for something. he's not speaking out of school when he says 3:00. looks to me that he all the needed trainable components required to go +12, added w/the near ideal structural aspects to go +12 on that course. i got Pendejo defying where "a lot of 1:23 guys" (as you say) end up (+24). i'm sticking with +12/+13 and no where near or above +16 for all the reasons i've outlined.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:54:33 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-16, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote: > > Elflord wrote: >>The reason he could only end >> up with a 3:10 is that a lot of 1:23 guys end up with around 3:10. > > So now we're at 2 x 1/2M + 24 Minutes, and 1:23 Half runners usually > treat their NYC Marathon will total effort I would think. I don't > think CP is going to fall into this model you're referencing. Why? > Can't quite recall where I read it, but I believe the "classic" elite > marathoner (male) is 5'9", 139 .lbs (current day). CP will start the > race 5'8" or 5'8.5" & 140 .lbs. > > Would not surprise me that this pool of 1:23 guys you are referring to > were your height or thereabouts????...(5'10", 5'11", 6'?) perhaps even > weigh155, 160, etc.? which over the course of 26.2miles could make > all the difference between a +14 and a + 22 performance, certainly the > last couple years. Your BMI obsession is just silly. I'm one of the tallest guys in my running club. [snip] > i got Pendejo defying where "a lot of 1:23 guys" (as you say) end up > (+24). i'm sticking with +12/+13 and no where near or above +16 for > all the reasons i've outlined. I don't think it's impossible, but it's quite a bit better than average for a guy with a 1:23 half. Cheers, -- Elflord     Date: 19 Oct 2006 13:03:18 From: Tom B. Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: > Tom wrote: > > Which marathons harder than Grandfather have you done? > > NYCM. > > True, I haven't run all 26 miles in one shot, but I've run 'em all in > two pieces. > > You've got the 2 billion spectators, the hills, the elevation (air's > pretty thin atop the Verrazano), the crowds, the bad weather, the epic > quality of it all, etc. etc. Jeepers! I never knew... > > Here's what I don't get: I'm arguing that NYC is a typical "hard" > > marathon, where a prepared runner can reasonably shoot for 2 * HM + > > 12-15 min. > > Based on your assertion. > > Please explain why so very few acheive this. Lotsa folks at NYC who lack the physical and (mostly) mental discipline. > > And yet you are targeting 2 * HM + 12 for yourself. So is there > > some kind of logical disconnect here? > > I'm special. I await raceday results with considerable anticipation!     Date: 20 Oct 2006 23:00:37 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Dan wrote: > Pshaw, anybody can run a HM + 5 min. It's the second one that's the > challenge ;-) Take it easy up the bridge...did you say it was a couple > hundred feet of climb? (I've been regaled with so many tales of NYCM that I > think I know the course) Quoting "malmo" over at that other forum: -- snip -- The Verrazano Bridge is hardly noticeable to anyone -- 174' elevation gain at 1 mile, and back again at 2 miles. The next 12 miles is flat to downhill with a net drop of 100'. Then at 13, you hit the Pulaski Bridge (80' rise and fall), then right after that at 15 you hit the Queensboro Bridge ("slow down you move to fast"), which is bigger than any hill (143' elevation gain and drop over 2 miles) you will encounter at any major marathon. Those two bridges at 13 and 15 break the best of plans. To add insult to injury, the course jumps into the rolling hills of Central Park at the end. From 20 to 26 miles you have an insidious 80' climb which is exactly what your body doesn't want to do in a marathon. The last half of New York is very tough. -- snip -- I'll add that there's almost continual undulation even in what he calls "flat to downhill" - couple of my runs this week have included ~3 miles of Brooklyn's 4th Ave, and there's more topography even there than say on most of Philly's Broad Street 10 miler. > Hey, hows the recovery from the half? Feeling back to full strength yet? Oh, totally, thanks for asking. Reckoned I might not be ready for anything beyond easy jogs until today (Friday), but was feeling pretty damn good already on Tuesday. Man, it's amazing what a little volume does for you, innit? Free sneak preview - for wreck.running only! - of my training week: Mo AM: --- rest for the wicked Tu AM: 4.15 easy PM: 6.05 easy We PM: 8.25 including 3.15 impromptu tempo ~6:35-6:40 pace Th AM: 4.15 easy PM: 6.05 easy Fr AM: 13.40 with 10.05 @ MP (3x 3.35 @ 6:59/6:57/6:43); 62F falling to 54F, wind 14-17 mph, gusts 35-40 mph. Just barely warm enough in shorts and singlet, but sorely missed gloves toward the end - should've heeded my instinct rather than the 62F temp as I left. Extra-frigid ice bath afterward: I'd forgotten to freeze my 2L worth of ice (in 1L yogurt containers) so bought a 7 lb bag, just about double my normal ice. Not so fun when I was already cold from my 9:30/mi cooldown in this weather.       Date: 21 Oct 2006 17:57:07 From: steve common Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: >then right after that at 15 you hit the >Queensboro Bridge ("slow down you move to fast"), which is bigger than >any hill (143' elevation gain and drop over 2 miles) you will encounter >at any major marathon. I agree that it's far from flat. But by "major marathon", do you mean +30 000 runners and in the US? http://www.monaco-marathon.com/html/parcours/1024_768.jpg Some > +200ft stuff in that one.       Date: 21 Oct 2006 00:47:37 From: Beginning runner Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon In article <1161410437.017199.122950@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: > Quoting "malmo" over at that other forum: You're making me homesick. I moved away from the City when I was 18, and still wish I could afford to move back there to live.     Date: 25 Oct 2006 20:47:58 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Hutch wrote: > Doug wrote: >> Pendejo wrote: >>> Grand Master Hutch might give these a try after he gets bored >>> with cheating by running down ski slopes. >>> >> Almost spit out my beer laughing at this. :) > > At what? At an ill-advised pot-shot taken at a fellow runner? I > guess that should be expected from a mental midget like you. Hutch! You're back!! What an unparalleled joy!!! And as a bonus you've reverted to your original wreck.running personality, something of a super-lance, a tad more articulate and on 50% stronger asshole pills than our uptown buddy. Delightful!!!! Bravo!!!!!!! Tell ya what, instead of skydiving from forty-two thousand and some odd meters and then claiming your performance is *even better* than the massive marathon world record time it measures once one factors in the altitude effects, why don't you hook up with your neighbor Billy J and do this the old fashioned way: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=182125 http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1596088 Or is "William Jurena" in fact your racing alias, your nom de mayfly? I couldn't help but notice it's a perfect anagram of "Mark Hutchinson", and anyway how many Atlanta-area Grand Wizards can there be who fly to so many races nationwide?       Date: 26 Oct 2006 03:56:08 From: Mark Hutchinson Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote > Hutch wrote: >> Doug wrote: >>> Pendejo wrote: >>>> Grand Master Hutch might give these a try after he gets bored >>>> with cheating by running down ski slopes. >>>> >>> Almost spit out my beer laughing at this. :) >> >> At what? At an ill-advised pot-shot taken at a fellow runner? >> I guess that should be expected from a mental midget like you. > > Hutch! You're back!! > > What an unparalleled joy!!! > > And as a bonus you've reverted to your original wreck.running > personality, something of a super-lance, a tad more articulate > and on 50% stronger asshole pills than our uptown buddy. You ain't seen nothin' yet, sport. Your post ill-advised pot-shot was a salvation in many ways. I was getting really tired of this "valued contributor" routine. > http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=182125 > http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1596088 > > Or is "William Jurena" in fact your racing alias, your nom de > mayfly? I couldn't help but notice it's a perfect anagram of > "Mark Hutchinson", and anyway how many Atlanta-area Grand > Wizards can there be who fly to so many races nationwide? Shit, you beat me to the punch, you little twerp. I had planned to run my next race as none other than the illustrious Mr. Jurena.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 02:29:10 From: anders Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo kirjoitti: > time: 1:23:47 If you could see me now, the look on my face would perhaps remind you of that of Joel Cairo before he says "Look what you did to my shirt!" to Sam Spade. Anders   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:59:23 From: marko Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo a écrit : > time: 1:23:47 > 81/3667 runners > 78/2229 men > 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) > WAVA: 73% Congratulations Charlie! This is very impressing, and your splits are pretty good, particularly since you were able to keep a 6:12 in the last mile. Based on that, and my own race experience, I'd say that you might be able to make it sub-3 in NYCM. FWIW, 2 years ago, I ran 3:04 after a 1:24:07 HM (all out) _and_ on an average of 32mpw! last year, I ran 2:58 after a 1:23:40 HM (not all out) but on a 50mpw average. Just try to fully recover and taper as much as possible, and who knows, with proper pacing, good weather conditions... Just one question, don't you find tights to be too warm in the second half of the race? I tend to prefer starting a bit cold with shorts, knowing that I'll soon get warm enough running, same with racing in singlets as long as it isn't freezing (starting with an old t-shirt to throw-away.) m   Date: 16 Oct 2006 09:40:30 From: Anthony Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Great race Charlie - big PR is a result of solid consistent work. And you beat my PR by 9 seconds ;-) And as another data point McMillan gives you 2:56:42 I managed a 2:57:09 4 weeks after that PR, albeit in ideal conditions on what is almost certainly an easier course than NY. If you do go for the sub-3, don't run the 1st half faster than 1:30 however good you feel. Good luck, Anthony.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 00:42:16 From: LSmith Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord wrote: > Still, I'd say you should run > 3:10 when you say this Donovan, you're saying Pendejo will possibly go 2 x 1/2M + 22Min. where does this + 22 Min potentiality come from? the foundation of your reasoning this? you ran 2 x 1/2M + 20 right? at an age of about 8 or 9 years younger than Pendejo, correct? is this +22 framed in part based on your own performance/experience at age 30 or 31? (figuring he's a little older and tacking a couple more minutes on?)? i'm lost as to where / how you derived this +22 potentiality. i gave him + 15 based on his training, age, frame, etc., i was not going to give him any more until i saw performance. well i've seen performance. adding his performance i'm now willing to give him +12/+13 in great conditions to run. +15/+16 on a tough day. i can't see him exceeding 3:04. he's got all the bases covered other than experience on the course, which is important, but lots of runner impliment all sorts of strategies to manage/cope w/inexperience w/specific courses. hell i live on the marathon route's final miles and i saw dozens of runners out this weekend running the final 7 miles already. he can't control the weather, but he can tilt his chances more in his favor via familiarizing himself w/the final 8-9 miles real well (this weekend and next). that coupled w/great weather, he could fool around and clock 3:00.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:54:08 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-16, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote: > > Elflord wrote: >> Still, I'd say you should run >> 3:10 > > when you say this Donovan, you're saying Pendejo will possibly go 2 x > 1/2M + 22Min. > where does this + 22 Min potentiality come from? the foundation of > your reasoning this? That or better, unless it goes pretty badly. The reason he could only end up with a 3:10 is that a lot of 1:23 guys end up with around 3:10. But I think he should go out at 3:00 pace. He might run sub 3, but that's a fairly long shot. Most of the people who run sub 3 are either women, or guys who are much faster than Charlie. *But* once you're going out at 7 minutes slower than HM, the marginal advantage of going out slower diminishes substantially. That is, people who crash and burn going out at HM+7 are still likely to crash and burn going out at HM+10. > next). that coupled w/great weather, he could fool around and clock > 3:00. I think he should at least try for 3:00, though not sure he'll get it. Cheers, -- Elflord     Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:48:11 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Tom wrote: > Which marathons harder than Grandfather have you done? NYCM. True, I haven't run all 26 miles in one shot, but I've run 'em all in two pieces. You've got the 2 billion spectators, the hills, the elevation (air's pretty thin atop the Verrazano), the crowds, the bad weather, the epic quality of it all, etc. etc. > Here's what I don't get: I'm arguing that NYC is a typical "hard" > marathon, where a prepared runner can reasonably shoot for 2 * HM + > 12-15 min. Based on your assertion. Please explain why so very few acheive this. > And yet you are targeting 2 * HM + 12 for yourself. So is there > some kind of logical disconnect here? I'm special.     Date: 19 Oct 2006 12:27:34 From: Tom B. Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: > Tom wrote: > > Pendejo wrote: > >> Tom wrote: > >>> Like I said before, I think 2 * HM + 15 should work at NYC > >> > >> "Should", based on what, your intuition never having run the course? > >> Your thorough crunching of the numbers? > > > > I'm basing that mainly on my own experience on a range of > > marathon courses, some easier than NYC, and some harder. > > Based on my own experience of running multiple marathon courses, easier > and harder than Grandfather, I'm pretty certain (2 * HM + 12) works at > Grandfather. Hmm, interesting. Which marathons harder than Grandfather have you done? BTW, I'm not including Grandfather in that list of races I've "learned from". It wasn't a PR effort, so I wasn't pulling out all the stops. Let me be clear -- I'm no expert on marathons. Dan's the guy for that. But I have trained and raced for a marathon PR on 3 different courses. And I've had the big-city race experience in some big 10-milers (like Army). I've done OK, and learned a few things along the way. Here's what I don't get: I'm arguing that NYC is a typical "hard" marathon, where a prepared runner can reasonably shoot for 2 * HM + 12-15 min. You (and Lance, especially) seem to be saying that it's harder than that, some kind of special super-race. And yet you are targeting 2 * HM + 12 for yourself. So is there some kind of logical disconnect here?       Date: 19 Oct 2006 19:59:13 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-19, Tom B. <tom.banchy@gmail.com > wrote: [snip] > Here's what I don't get: I'm arguing that NYC is a typical "hard" > marathon, where a prepared runner can reasonably shoot for 2 * HM + > 12-15 min. But there's the catch. There's a big difference between "reasonably shooting for" at time, and actually running it. I'd love to have a nickel for every legitimate sub 3 hopeful who ended up running over 3:15. The 2xHM+12-15 min only works if conditions are reasonably good, and everything goes more or less to plan. As for my race, conditions were warm, and that probably cost me a few minutes. It cost others considerably more than a few minutes. There's nothing wrong with Charlie targetting 2xHM + 12. Doesn't mean he'll get it, but he has a legitimate chance of achieving it, so he should go for it. Cheers, -- Elflord     Date: 20 Oct 2006 16:03:04 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Dan wrote: > Hitting the half in HM + 5min shouldn't be that big a deal > for an 80 mpw runner. "Shouldn't be that big a deal..." - it's always easier to say when it's someone else doing it, isn't it? ;-) > But I'm one of those extraterrestrials who has run 2*HM + 7 > more than once. Really, Dan? You run as well as you do, even with an extra... oh wait, you said "terrestrial". Nevermind.       Date: 21 Oct 2006 05:30:21 From: Dan Stumpus Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" said: > Dan wrote: >> Hitting the half in HM + 5min shouldn't be that big a deal >> for an 80 mpw runner. > > "Shouldn't be that big a deal..." - it's always easier to say when it's > someone else doing it, isn't it? ;-) Pshaw, anybody can run a HM + 5 min. It's the second one that's the challenge ;-) Take it easy up the bridge...did you say it was a couple hundred feet of climb? (I've been regaled with so many tales of NYCM that I think I know the course) >> But I'm one of those extraterrestrials who has run 2*HM + 7 >> more than once. > > Really, Dan? You run as well as you do, even with an extra... oh wait, > you said "terrestrial". True, some may say that three gives an unfair advantage, but didn't Lance A. do the impossible with just one? Hey, hows the recovery from the half? Feeling back to full strength yet?       Date: 20 Oct 2006 23:37:32 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-20, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: >> But I'm one of those extraterrestrials who has run 2*HM + 7 >> more than once. > > Really, Dan? You run as well as you do, even with an extra... oh wait, I would think you'd need an extra ... to run a marathon that fast. Cheers, -- Elflord         Date: 21 Oct 2006 05:35:33 From: Dan Stumpus Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote > I would think you'd need an extra ... to run a marathon that fast. They were flat or downhill courses at < 3000' elevation, and on 90+ mpw base. From reading about NY, it looks like part deux is a couple minutes slower than part un.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 06:24:16 From: Dot Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: ... > 1:24 still sounded intimidating but reflecting on all > the training, well, who knows. 1:28 ought to be about the upper limit, > I hoped. ... > > This plus other life circumstances pretty much had me thinking, "eff > it, I'm just gonna run for all I'm worth - like Billy Mills, like Hutch > - and not worry about it." > > And that's pretty much what I did. Sounds like a positive race report coming up. I went out at an effort that seemed > probably a bit faster than I could hold, and was very pleased with the > exchange rate to chronological currency. I hung and chatted with a > better class of runner than ever before. Ran a couple stretches in > tight packs, which doesn't seem to happen so much at seven minute miles > and slower. Good show! ... > The hill up Lily Pond Road really kicked my ass as it did last year. > It's only about an 80 foot rise over a quarter mile, but of course > that's a much tougher obstacle when your system is already flooded with > lactate (1) and you're pushing for all you're worth two thirds of the > way through a race. And though I've improved I'm still not very good > on uphills. No power. Ever try hill drills or bounding or plyometrics? > > Don't think I've ever given closer to 100% before in a race. Good job. > > time: 1:23:47 > 81/3667 runners > 78/2229 men > 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) > WAVA: 73% > VERY nice race, Charlie. Congratulations. Dot -- "Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan   Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:23:53 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Tony wrote: > Hey, the extra hydration might be a good thing in longer races, but 4 > pounds? That's 1/2 gallon of liquid. When did you absorb that much? I dunno, I guess I just fail to piss out an extra half gallon every time I drink a glass of milk or a cappucino. Yeah, the water-loading might be a good thing but I don't know if it's accessible - I'm still 144 today after the race, and expect to drop to 140 by tomorrow or Wednesday. > I admire Lance's effort untapered after a 6x12 training week Me too, hell of a run for the big fella. > though I think that defeats the purpose of racing To me it's a tremendous training run (as long as you take it into account and ease off a bit before or after to avoid overdoing it), though it seems like a change of philosophy for lance, who has in the past advised against running races for training. Or maybe it's OK as long as you give 100% effort. >> :33 > > Nearly a 5 min pace that last .1 nice pickup. I predict 3:03:42 ;) I trust neither the exact placement of the mile marker - last race my .1 split seemed excessively long - nor the exact time - my watch said a few seconds slower than my official time, so I lopped the seconds off the .1 to make up the diff.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:35:33 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161055433.488310.38120@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > Tony wrote: >> I admire Lance's effort untapered after a 6x12 training week Damn, all my busting on Mark altitude trek, I missed Lance's time and the times are not on the NYRR page. As long as we are playing guess the NYC marathon time with CP why not Lance. And Lance's time was??? -Doug   Date: 17 Oct 2006 02:59:59 From: Tony S. Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1160954848.600524.255710@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... ... > Sure enough this morning my weight was up that familiar four pounds > worth of milk penalty, 144 up from the 140 I've been at for a while. > My GP and my endo pretty much rolled their eyes when I mentioned this > but it's consistent. Whatever. Hey, the extra hydration might be a good thing in longer races, but 4 pounds? That's 1/2 gallon of liquid. When did you absorb that much? ... > What else? The Corsa Settes were fine, of course. Snagging cups of > water and g'rade at 6:20ish is tougher than 6:50ish but still doable. > Hopefully I held my head more upright at least when the cameras were > looking. > > time: 1:23:47 > 81/3667 runners > 78/2229 men > 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) > WAVA: 73% You'all did some serious ass-kicking Charlie! Hell next year you'll be top 5 in M4044 if you continue, (since word has it you have an elite running style). I admire Lance's effort untapered after a 6x12 training week (though I think that defeats the purpose of racing and is almost as stupid as the training he did last year that ended up getting him injured) -- but you sure gave him a good 5 min whopping! > splits > ------ > 6:17 > 6:11 > 6:08 > 6:22 > 6:36...mile 5 > 6:08 > 6:20 > 6:52 damn hill > 6:24 > 6:30...mile 10 > 6:29 > 6:45 maybe slowed down to admire the tight glutes? > 6:12 > :33 Nearly a 5 min pace that last .1 nice pickup. I predict 3:03:42 ;) -Tony   Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:31:41 From: LSmith Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon be honest donovan, the only thing that has entered your realm of thought from you initial expressions to this latest revision is the education, context, and perspective i provided you. no shame in admitting you short changed CP.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 03:05:48 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-17, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote: > be honest donovan, the only thing that has entered your realm of > thought from you initial expressions to this latest revision is the > education, context, and perspective i provided you. > > no shame in admitting you short changed CP. I suggested several posts earlier, and also separately in private correspondence, that he go out in 1:30. I wouldn't suggest that unless I thought he was a legitimate contender for a sub 3. Cheers, -- Elflord   Date: 16 Oct 2006 19:21:37 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Doug wrote: > So what pace do you plan to run for miles 1-10? Assuming perfect weather and I feel great etc etc, my current thinking is I'll aim to run the first half in 1:29. So that's what, about 6:47 pace. Many people seem to think the first half of NYCM "runs a little faster" than the second half (see e.g. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1051652). I'll take the first mile slower both as a warmup and an uphill, and work up to pace in the next few. Does that bump your prediction up a few more minutes? :-)     Date: 17 Oct 2006 10:26:00 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161051697.898221.46340@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > Doug wrote: >> So what pace do you plan to run for miles 1-10? > > Assuming perfect weather and I feel great etc etc, my current thinking > is I'll aim to run the first half in 1:29. So that's what, about 6:47 > pace. Many people seem to think the first half of NYCM "runs a little > faster" than the second half (see e.g. > http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1051652). I'll take > the first mile slower both as a warmup and an uphill, and work up to > pace in the next few. > > Does that bump your prediction up a few more minutes? :-) Yup, up. 3:10-3:15, but again, I hope you're in the 2:50's and you can tell me "I told you so!". :) -Doug       Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:09:01 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-17, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com > wrote: > > "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1161051697.898221.46340@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> Doug wrote: >>> So what pace do you plan to run for miles 1-10? >> >> Assuming perfect weather and I feel great etc etc, my current thinking >> is I'll aim to run the first half in 1:29. So that's what, about 6:47 >> pace. Many people seem to think the first half of NYCM "runs a little >> faster" than the second half (see e.g. >> http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1051652). I'll take >> the first mile slower both as a warmup and an uphill, and work up to >> pace in the next few. >> >> Does that bump your prediction up a few more minutes? :-) > > Yup, up. 3:10-3:15, but again, I hope you're in the 2:50's and you can > tell me "I told you so!". :) Gotta disagree with this. Going out 6 minutes over half marathon pace is not going to cause a crash and burn. That's a relatively cautious start, especially if conditions are good. He could slow down, but if he finishes with a 3:10 off that start, then I doubt he would have run negative splits going out at 1:35. Despite all of Lance's chest beating, running 2:5x on that course isn't as easy as talking about running it. Conditions are a huge factor. If conditions are good, it improves his chances from very slim (if it's warm) to quite substantial (if it isn't). Cheers, -- Elflord         Date: 18 Oct 2006 11:07:53 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Elflord" <abuse@aol.com > wrote in message news:slrnej9eed.jmk.abuse@panix2.panix.com... > On 2006-10-17, Doug Freese <dfreese@hvc.rr.com> wrote: >>> Does that bump your prediction up a few more minutes? :-) >> >> Yup, up. 3:10-3:15, but again, I hope you're in the 2:50's and you >> can >> tell me "I told you so!". :) > > Gotta disagree with this. Going out 6 minutes over half marathon pace > is not > going to cause a crash and burn. That's a relatively cautious start, > especially > if conditions are good. He could slow down, but if he finishes with a > 3:10 off > that start, then I doubt he would have run negative splits going out > at 1:35. I was really teasing him but it wasn't obvious. On a more serious note I'd give him a 3:04 assuming reasonable temps etc. His only blind spot is holding pace 22-26 which is something he has never done and can be tough even for a veteran. This is where you learn to separate the men from the boys with a crow bar. :) -Doug     Date: 18 Oct 2006 17:39:28 From: marko Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo a écrit : > Assuming perfect weather and I feel great etc etc, my current thinking > is I'll aim to run the first half in 1:29. So that's what, about 6:47 > pace. Many people seem to think the first half of NYCM "runs a little > faster" than the second half (see e.g. > http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1051652). I'll take > the first mile slower both as a warmup and an uphill, and work up to > pace in the next few. I'm not sure you can expect to hit sub-3 with starting for a 1:29 HM, I'd rather aim for 1:28 or less given your really good HM PR, you may go as low as 1:27:30 which would give you a good time cushion (but which may also be a dangerous border). I know how appealling even splits are, not to mention negative splits, but the reality for someone without much marathon experience, is more on the side of positive splits. OTOH your very good weekly mileage may suggest that you should be able to sustain a good pace all along, provided you don't get carried away at the start. m       Date: 18 Oct 2006 16:43:02 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-18, marko <marko@nullepart.eu > wrote: > Charlie Pendejo a écrit : >> Assuming perfect weather and I feel great etc etc, my current thinking >> is I'll aim to run the first half in 1:29. So that's what, about 6:47 >> pace. Many people seem to think the first half of NYCM "runs a little >> faster" than the second half (see e.g. >> http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1051652). I'll take >> the first mile slower both as a warmup and an uphill, and work up to >> pace in the next few. > > I'm not sure you can expect to hit sub-3 with starting for a 1:29 HM, > I'd rather aim for 1:28 or less given your really good HM PR, you may go > as low as 1:27:30 which would give you a good time cushion (but which > may also be a dangerous border). > I know how appealling even splits are, not to mention negative splits, > but the reality for someone without much marathon experience, is more on > the side of positive splits. Since he has very little chance of running a 2:55, positive splits are a self fulfilling prophecy for those who follow the above thinking. The reasons that those without much marathon experience run positive splits are that they are not as good at predicting their finishing times (what is supposed to be a "negative splits" pace turns into a "positive splits" pace at mile 20. I had this happen to me, because I simply misjudged my level of fitness. But I was saved by cautious pacing), or they lack the restraint to run at a pace that they have a chance of sustaining for the second half. I bet he could run negative splits if he went out at 2:00. If we knew in advance what time he was capable of, the best bet would be to go out pretty close to that. Maybe slightly faster, but only because of the relative difficulty of different parts of the course (3 bridges and up 5th ave in the second half), not to get a "time cushion". Cheers, -- Elflord         Date: 18 Oct 2006 21:57:50 From: marko Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord a écrit : > The reasons that those without much marathon experience run positive splits > are that they are not as good at predicting their finishing times (what is > supposed to be a "negative splits" pace turns into a "positive splits" pace let me quote this post from the link to the letsrun forum CP send us : <quote > JonDCH : Here are some stats I produced for the 2005 NYC Marathon: 270 finishers under 2hrs 50min. (including elites). All but 15 had positive splits. The median positive split was 5 min. 23 sec. Split stats for other recent years are not significanly different. </unquote > I guess you would get more or less the same figures for 3hrs people. I don't think all those guys don't know how to pace themselves. The marathon is not an easy race when one is trying to toe the line. FWIW I ran 2:58 with a positive split of 1:46, although I had a good mileage base (about 50mpw on average) and I was in perfect shape. I was even able to push the pace again in the last 2kms. I don't know exactly the difference between NYCM and Paris' but all I can tell you, that there are 2 hills in the first half, and 2 hills in the second, plus some leg-breakings passages under tunnels with steep slopes up and down. > at mile 20. I had this happen to me, because I simply misjudged my level of > fitness. But I was saved by cautious pacing), or they lack the restraint to run > at a pace that they have a chance of sustaining for the second half. I bet he > could run negative splits if he went out at 2:00. > > If we knew in advance what time he was capable of, the best bet would be to go > out pretty close to that. Maybe slightly faster, but only because of the relative > difficulty of different parts of the course (3 bridges and up 5th ave in the second > half), not to get a "time cushion". no matter how you see it, the last 6 miles of a marathon are difficult and taxing for the body, even for a trained runner. Maybe the words 'time cushion' isn't that appropriate, but the fact is, that it's very difficult not to slow down sometime after mile 20 _when_ one is running for a PB. That's the whole difficulty when trying to run as close as one's limits, there's always a chance to burn one's wings, but that's also part of the magic of the marathon... m           Date: 18 Oct 2006 20:46:40 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-18, marko <marko@nullepart.eu > wrote: > Elflord a écrit : >> The reasons that those without much marathon experience run positive splits >> are that they are not as good at predicting their finishing times (what is >> supposed to be a "negative splits" pace turns into a "positive splits" pace > > let me quote this post from the link to the letsrun forum CP send us : ><quote> JonDCH : > Here are some stats I produced for the 2005 NYC Marathon: > > 270 finishers under 2hrs 50min. (including elites). > > All but 15 had positive splits. > > The median positive split was 5 min. 23 sec. > > Split stats for other recent years are not significanly different. ></unquote> > > I guess you would get more or less the same figures for 3hrs people. > I don't think all those guys don't know how to pace themselves. It is hard to know how fast you are in advance. Most of them set ambitious goals, and pace themselves evenly *based on an optimistic goal*. They are not trying to optimise the "average case" scenario. They are usually trying to maximise their chances of nailing the "ambitious goal" (the best case outcome). That strategy makes sense, but it is also likely to produce positive splits. For example, most people who go out with the lead pack can't stay there. They didn't *plan* to run positive splits, if everything goes to plan, they'd split roughly even. They are trying to max out their chances of *winning*, not their chances of hitting 2:12 or some other time that is more realistic but won't win the race. In Charlie's case, if he goes out in 1:30, the changes are he will close in about 1:34, so he will be around the median +5 minute split, because he set an ambitious goal. But if it goes well, he could run even. If he ran 3:04 off a 1:30 first half, I wouldn't declare in hindsight that he "didn't know how to pace himself". I would still argue that it was worth a shot at sub 3. If he went out in 1:35, he would probably run negative splits, but he's not going to do that, because he wants to maximise his chances of getting sub 3. If he ran a 3:05 off a 1:35 first half, I wouldn't say "he knows how to pace himself". Instead, I would wonder why he didn't go for it. > The marathon is not an easy race when one is trying to toe the line. > > FWIW I ran 2:58 with a positive split of 1:46, although I had a good > mileage base (about 50mpw on average) and I was in perfect shape. 50mpw is OK, it's not all that good though (I mean, it's good for people who run marathons, but isn't pretty common among sub 3 hopefuls) [snip] > no matter how you see it, the last 6 miles of a marathon are difficult > and taxing for the body, even for a trained runner. > Maybe the words 'time cushion' isn't that appropriate, but the fact is, > that it's very difficult not to slow down sometime after mile 20 _when_ > one is running for a PB. Yes, but the faster you got there, the more you are going to slow down. Conversely, get there slowly enough and you won't slow down at all. Cheers, -- Elflord             Date: 19 Oct 2006 20:58:15 From: marko Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord a écrit : > It is hard to know how fast you are in advance. Most of them set ambitious goals, > and pace themselves evenly *based on an optimistic goal*. They are not trying to > optimise the "average case" scenario. They are usually trying to maximise their > chances of nailing the "ambitious goal" (the best case outcome). That strategy > makes sense, but it is also likely to produce positive splits. I think we do agree with this. > In Charlie's case, if he goes out in 1:30, the changes are he will close in > about 1:34, so he will be around the median +5 minute split, because he > set an ambitious goal. But if it goes well, he could run even. If he ran 3:04 > off a 1:30 first half, I wouldn't declare in hindsight that he "didn't know > how to pace himself". I would still argue that it was worth a shot at sub 3. that's why, I said he could go out at 1:28, based on his HM time. Sure he may burn himself down, but with his good mileage (and provided that he recovered from SI and tapered) he should make it sub-3 even if only 2:59:55, but I do believe he can make it. > 50mpw is OK, it's not all that good though (I mean, it's good for people who > run marathons, but isn't pretty common among sub 3 hopefuls) for me it was a great improvement, highest mileage ever (right now, I'm down to 30mpw) reason why I said "high mileage" eventhough I know that isn't that much... > Yes, but the faster you got there, the more you are going to slow down. > Conversely, get there slowly enough and you won't slow down at all. yes, and here we come again to the tight relationship between approaching one's best and the nasty positive-split that's always lurking. m   Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:39:30 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Donovan wrote: > I'm going to deny that you ran sub 3 unless you break 2:55. At least I'm running an honest course, not the Lake Michigan Racetrack.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 23:35:38 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-16, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: > Donovan wrote: >> I'm going to deny that you ran sub 3 unless you break 2:55. > > At least I'm running an honest course, not the Lake Michigan Racetrack. I like racetracks. Cheers, -- Elflord   Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:21:13 From: LSmith Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord wrote: > Your BMI obsession is just silly. I'm one of the tallest guys in my running > club. None of my content was referenced to me. None, zero, not a word. I pointed to and referenced an array of scientific research, data, and reviews that imo clearly speak to why CP may well be able to defy your referenced model (2 x 1/2M + 24 Minutes), that's all. What do you do? 1) Do not speak to the referenced research/data and 2) Personally focus on me? Is the research I referenced silly? I find your statement very startling, that 1:23 Half guys generally go 3:10 (ish). Again, that' s saying very good runners who cut good Half Marathons go 2 x 1/2M + 24 Minutes more or less at NYCM. I'm not sure I believe that because I went +18 with no LSD training. If I could do that, I suspect CP can go +12/+13, all things considered, including the research I referenced. And to suggest he'll succomb to a fate of +24 imo is baseless. Not sure why you chosoe to ignore the research, avoid, divert, and personalize this to me however I think the newsgroup would be far more interested if you spoke to the issue and not me and presented some foundation, some "base" for this 2 x 1/2M + 24 Minutes pattern for the 1:23 Half guy. The only rationale I could imagine is the content I presented. I simply gave explaining what you presented a shot....and I don't think that effort warrants your criticizing me. can you speak to the issue? Thanks     Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:31:17 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-16, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote: > > Elflord wrote: > >> Your BMI obsession is just silly. I'm one of the tallest guys in my running >> club. > > None of my content was referenced to me. None, zero, not a word. > > I pointed to and referenced an array of scientific research, data, and > reviews that imo clearly speak to why CP may well be able to defy your > referenced model (2 x 1/2M + 24 Minutes), that's all. That's silly. I didn't "reference" a "model" of 2x1/2 + 24 minutes OR for that matter, any model in the form of aX + b. I didn't even put forth a 3:10 as an "average case" scenario. ************************************If all goes well, and he runs the kind of performance that makes the aX + b formula look moderately sensible, he will run close to or under 3. But maybe he won't do that. It's much easier to talk about fast times than it is to run them. [snip] > Is the research I referenced silly? I find your statement very > startling, that 1:23 Half guys generally go 3:10 (ish). Again, that' > s saying very good runners who cut good Half Marathons go 2 x 1/2M + 24 > Minutes more or less at NYCM. > > I'm not sure I believe that because I went +18 with no LSD training. > If I could do that, I suspect CP can go +12/+13, all things considered, > including the research I referenced. And to suggest he'll succomb to > a fate of +24 imo is baseless. Well, what did you run ? Close to four hours two out of three times ? That's 2xHM + what, like an hour or so ??? That's the problem with marathon times -- it's really hard to predict with the sort of precision that you want to predict it with. If everything goes to plan, he will break 3. But that's a really big "if". For you, it went more or less to plan once out of three times. That's the way it works for most people in the real world. Most people don't run a trouble-free marathon in every race. Cheers, -- Elflord   Date: 16 Oct 2006 13:16:10 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Donovan wrote: > lance wrote: >> CP will start the race 5'8" or 5'8.5" & 140 .lbs. That's 5'9" - I'm not so elderly as to be shrinking just yet. And maybe more like 142 lb with the carbo loading and all. Or maybe 140 after all if I'm due another few pounds of somewhat-revved-up thyroid bonus or manage a bout of food poisoning before NYCM. > Your BMI obsession is just silly. Well, I *am* built - at least for an American of European extraction; I'd be a damn lumberjack in the Rift Valley - more like an efficient distance runner than an 800m guy. And that *should* be one factor in my favor at the 42k distance, for reasons like energy (glycogen) demands, heat dissipation, and maybe muscular demands from less weight on each impact. Of course it's nowhere near the whole story: we each have dozens of factors, pluses and minuses working for and against us. > I'm one of the tallest guys in my running club. And therefore you suffer a slight altitude penalty, as I'm sure Dr. Daniels would agree. ;-)     Date: 16 Oct 2006 23:16:03 From: Doug Freese Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1161029770.068400.43070@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... So what pace do you plan to run for miles 1-10? -Doug     Date: 16 Oct 2006 20:32:34 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-16, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: > Donovan wrote: >> lance wrote: >>> CP will start the race 5'8" or 5'8.5" & 140 .lbs. > > That's 5'9" - I'm not so elderly as to be shrinking just yet. And > maybe more like 142 lb with the carbo loading and all. Or maybe 140 > after all if I'm due another few pounds of somewhat-revved-up thyroid > bonus or manage a bout of food poisoning before NYCM. And you will probably also finish somewhat lighter than that -- so we'll have to tack on a penalty for your low BMI. I'm going to deny that you ran sub 3 unless you break 2:55. Cheers, -- Elflord     Date: 23 Oct 2006 09:52:20 From: Tom B. Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: > > Quoting "malmo" over at that other forum: > > -- snip -- > The Verrazano Bridge is hardly noticeable to anyone -- 174' elevation > gain at 1 mile, and back again at 2 miles. The next 12 miles is flat to > downhill with a net drop of 100'. Then at 13, you hit the Pulaski > Bridge (80' rise and fall), then right after that at 15 you hit the > Queensboro Bridge ("slow down you move to fast"), which is bigger than > any hill (143' elevation gain and drop over 2 miles) you will encounter > at any major marathon. Those two bridges at 13 and 15 break the best of > plans. To add insult to injury, the course jumps into the rolling hills > of Central Park at the end. From 20 to 26 miles you have an insidious > 80' climb which is exactly what your body doesn't want to do in a > marathon. > > The last half of New York is very tough. > -- snip -- > > I'll add that there's almost continual undulation even in what he calls > "flat to downhill" - couple of my runs this week have included ~3 miles > of Brooklyn's 4th Ave, and there's more topography even there than say > on most of Philly's Broad Street 10 miler. More good stuff from malmo. I wanted to reply to this over the weekend, but needed to refer to something I'd left in my file cabinet here at work. OK, so I went back to an elevation profile I'd generated for the 2005 Charlottesville marathon. Of the 3 marathons I've run at full effort (i.e. going for a PR), I'd rank C-ville as the hardest. I wondered how it would stack up against NYC, as described by malmo. Here are the significant climbs: mile 0.5 - +65 ft in 0.4 mi mile 1.6 - +45 ft in 0.2 mi mile 2.0 - +55 ft in 0.5 mi mile 2.7 - +55 ft in 0.5 mi mile 3.3 - +60 ft in 0.4 mi mile 5.4 - +140 ft in 0.4 mi mile 7.0 - +140 ft in 1.7 mi mile 10.3 - +200 ft in 0.8 mi mile 11.1 - 14.1 - bunch of steep rollers (20-50 ft) on dirt road mile 14.7 - +210 ft in 1.4 mi mile 19.6 - +175 ft in 1.5 mi mile 21.6 - +50 ft in 0.2 mi mile 22.2 - +50 ft in 0.15 mi mile 23.0 - +125 ft in 0.5 mi mile 24.3 - +85 ft in 0.5 mi I had a really good day for this race. The weather was almost ideal, there were only about 1000 runners in the field, and I got the pacing just right -- first/second half splits within 15 seconds, and absolutely shattered at the finish (2:46:08 was a PR by about 3 minutes). I know NYC would be a lot more crowded at the start, and definitely a lot more crowd noise and excitement the whole way. But I don't see how it can be considered harder than Charlottesville (I assume you were just joking when you described NYC as harder than Grandfather Mtn -- that's ridiculous).   Date: 16 Oct 2006 12:59:36 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Phil wrote: > In my quest to cover every inch of Gwinnett County, I am often > shocked that people live on such steep roads. If you (or anyone) ever find yourself in Pittsburgh PA, you must must must detour to the hills on the South Side. Working-class neighborhood built on crazy steep slopes, a setting brimming with atmosphere right out of some fantastic and twisted Tim Burton movie. And this is in a region with fiercy snowy icy winters. During a couple of which, I somehow managed to drive my car delivering pizzas up and down those insane goat paths. Returning for a brief visit a year or two ago, that memory blew my old and more cautious mind. And yeah I did see a couple runners on that terrain in warmer weather. I'd need to travel to get to hills much steeper or taller than ~100' in ~1/2 mile, and that ain't happening for a training run. Maybe dreadmill sessions some day if I get motivated. I will say this: LA (mostly Griffith Park but also a few other locales) gave me some serious hills, which I very much enjoyed running back in January. I'm dubious about attributing too much to just a couple runs, but I was surprised to run a half marathon PR in March off such a lax winter's training. I've got some other theories on that but perhaps the Hollywood Hills helped a heap too.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:53:17 From: Phil M. Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 16, 2:02 pm, "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pend...@gmail.com > wrote: > Pendejo wrote: > > I've been doing my MP and slightly faster workouts on my > > hilly (well comparable to the SI course and NYCM) park loop.As well as most of my easy and long runs. Pretty much it's only my > recovery/morning ~4 milers that are done on really flat terrain - and > even that's less pancake flat than Chicago or Florida. OTOH of course > my "big hills" are puny little anthills for you or Dan or Doug. I think you'd be surprised if you put a GPS to some of your courses. I always track my elevation gain. In my quest to cover every inch of Gwinnett County, I am often shocked that people live on such steep roads. It looks pretty flat on Google Earth, but actually being there and covering it is another story. A lot of my runs are climbs of 150 ft/mi. Sometimes it gets close to 200 ft/mi. If it's supposed to be a recovery day, then it ain't happenin'. -- Phil M.   Date: 16 Oct 2006 11:02:06 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Pendejo wrote: > I've been doing my MP and slightly faster workouts on my > hilly (well comparable to the SI course and NYCM) park loop. As well as most of my easy and long runs. Pretty much it's only my recovery/morning ~4 milers that are done on really flat terrain - and even that's less pancake flat than Chicago or Florida. OTOH of course my "big hills" are puny little anthills for you or Dan or Doug.     Date: 16 Oct 2006 18:48:02 From: Dot Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Charlie Pendejo wrote: > Pendejo wrote: > >>I've been doing my MP and slightly faster workouts on my >>hilly (well comparable to the SI course and NYCM) park loop. > > > As well as most of my easy and long runs. Pretty much it's only my > recovery/morning ~4 milers that are done on really flat terrain - and > even that's less pancake flat than Chicago or Florida. OTOH of course > my "big hills" are puny little anthills for you or Dan or Doug. > Don't do this before your marathon, but for future efforts. If you have the opportunity or can make it, try the Lydiard-type drills ("steep hills" works best for me) on some steep hills (say, over 10%, maybe 30% range) or running bigger hills (say, maybe a few hundred ft vertical with at least 10% slope) if you can. Even running several flights of stairs might help. Keep in mind that the drills focus on power, not speed - lift the body, not much horizontal distance so your time going up hill will be slower. I think Lydiard recommends a little each time, but frequently. For *me*, I noticed a substantial improvement (as in being able to easily run all the hills and more forcefully for longer times or leap up the rocks, etc) on my rolling courses after all the prep I had done for the bigger hills and longer courses. Like you don't get better if you train the same way all the time, running over steep or over height hills can help. Or at least they helped me. YMMV. In winter, if we're snowshoe running up our rolling hills, we have to bound - to be able to clear the snow. I think I saw a video of the Lydiard drills on the web and probably bookmarked it. I'll see if I can find it later today. Right now I'm headed for hills in what's likely to be last snow free trip in the bigger hills. Dot -- "Dream big and dare to fail." --- Norman Vaughan   Date: 17 Oct 2006 11:04:09 From: LSmith Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord wrote: > >> You ran a slow marathon off a slow half marathon. 3:18 is not all that good It's not that complex Donovan. You characterize a BQ performance on NYC's course as "not all that good" yet you are the same guy that says his own personal excuse in his own under-achievement performance of 2 X 1/2M + 20 minutes was due to it being "warm". Can you have it both ways? The arrogance to characterize a BQ peformance on NYC's course as "not all that good" and then cry "wah wah wah"........"it was warm" to excuse your own performance when it never hit 67F? (and I had the same weather for crissakes yet it doesn't prevent you from characterizing a BQ as "not all that good"). Honestly, do the two seem congruent? This "warm" weather excuse of yours? The race started at about 60F/61F and you were off the course before it hit 67F. http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KNYC/2004/11/7/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA You're a classic Donovan. I have not doubt in your mind, you can have it both ways, the characterization of a BQ as "not all that good" on a NYC Course in the same temps you dealt with.....and the right to point to "warm" weather as a valid excuse for yourself.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 18:11:45 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-17, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote: > > Elflord wrote: >> >> You ran a slow marathon off a slow half marathon. 3:18 is not all that good > > It's not that complex Donovan. You characterize a BQ performance on > NYC's course as "not all that good" yet you are the same guy that says > his own personal excuse in his own under-achievement performance of 2 X > 1/2M + 20 minutes was due to it being "warm". > > Can you have it both ways? Mine was a BQ too. Who is trying to have it both ways ? My performance doesn't need any excuses. I beat you by almost an hour that day. But why carry on about these races that were 2 and 3 years ago, especially in your case when you've run (if you can call it that) two marathons since then ? You're only as good as your most recent performance. Which in your case, is, not very good. Cheers, -- Elflord   Date: 17 Oct 2006 09:29:10 From: Teresa Bippert-Plymate Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Way to go, Charlie! Under 1:24 is grrrreat! Sorry about the horchata, I love the stuff, but I don't have any milk issues. Is this a PR for you? (I'm only partially awake yet, sorry if you did say it was so...) Thanks for the great report, and I'll have to check into those glasses too. Teresa in AZ Charlie Pendejo wrote: > In additon to whatever else I did wrong before this morning's race, my > final act of stoopidity was to drink a bottled horchata last night. I > was walking a few blocks to the Target to get a replacement stopwatch > for the one I busted earlier in the day swapping in a new battery when > it occured to me I was shy on both the hydration and caloric fronts - > what can I say, I've been pretty scattered lately. > > While I drove to the race, parked, walked to the baggage check, and > warmed up (couple miles, high knee and butt kick drills, strides) I > absolutely could not get my body or mind to give me a hint what it > might run today. 1:24 still sounded intimidating but reflecting on all > the training, well, who knows. 1:28 ought to be about the upper limit, > I hoped. > > Standing at the start, without any conscious effort, I snapped into > focus. Still didn't know what kind of time I might run but just plain > felt confident about giving it my all from start to finish and letting > the time fall where it may. I calculated that 6:20 miles net a 1:23, > and while that sounded improbable, figured if an effort which felt > anywhere near right happened to return a 6:20 then I'd stick with it > until I couldn't. > > The hill up Lily Pond Road really kicked my ass as it did last year. > It's only about an 80 foot rise over a quarter mile, but of course > that's a much tougher obstacle when your system is already flooded with > lactate (1) and you're pushing for all you're worth two thirds of the > way through a race. And though I've improved I'm still not very good > on uphills. No power. > > I think that hill took some of the spring out of my legs the next > couple miles, though I was able to pick it up ever so slightly in mile > 13. > > Don't think I've ever given closer to 100% before in a race. Was > pretty wiped at the end, though my ex (who's once again a Staten > Islander and met me at the finish) confirmed that I seemed to perk up a > lot more in the next few minutes than has sometimes been the case after > a tough race. > > time: 1:23:47 > 81/3667 runners > 78/2229 men > 33/ 842 M3039 (were I a year older, it'd've been 11/333 M4044) > WAVA: 73% > > splits > ------ > 6:17 > 6:11 > 6:08 > 6:22 > 6:36...mile 5 > 6:08 > 6:20 > 6:52 damn hill > 6:24 > 6:30...mile 10 > 6:29 > 6:45 maybe slowed down to admire the tight glutes? > 6:12 > :33 > > > (1) or hydrogen ions, whatever's the real culprit >   Date: 17 Oct 2006 08:59:51 From: Charlie Pendejo Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Donovan wrote: > I never said CP *couldn't* do sub 3, I just dispute that it's inevitable. > But I think it's almost certain that he will break 3:50!!!! Remember who you're talking about here, dude, mate, dude-mate, whatever. It's not "almost certain" I'll run under 3:50. It's a pretty safe bet that if I complete the course without a pothole-induced broken leg, I'll run under 3:50, but you've gotta figure >10% chance of a DNS or DNF. >> Could you be a dear and ask Bob Glover to rally his Masters >> and bring some better talent in the 40-44 AG? Thanks! lance, mi amigo, you sir are on a roll - keep it up! Zounds do I ever love marathon season on wreck.running. The race itself may be secondary to the trash-talking.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 16:45:26 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-17, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: > Donovan wrote: >> I never said CP *couldn't* do sub 3, I just dispute that it's inevitable. >> But I think it's almost certain that he will break 3:50!!!! > > Remember who you're talking about here, dude, mate, dude-mate, > whatever. > > It's not "almost certain" I'll run under 3:50. It's a pretty safe bet > that if I complete the course without a pothole-induced broken leg, > I'll run under 3:50, but you've gotta figure >10% chance of a DNS or > DNF. Pothole induced broken legs and similar aren't all too uncommon in the NY marathon (or, I suspect, in any reasonably challenging road marathon). The possibility of ~3:50 assumes you'll suck it up and finish even if it gets really bad. Cheers, -- Elflord     Date: 17 Oct 2006 22:15:03 From: steve common Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon "Charlie Pendejo" <Charlie.Pendejo@gmail.com > wrote: >Zounds do I ever love marathon season on wreck.running. The race >itself may be secondary to the trash-talking. Ain't that the truth :-) Gotta run this damn thing soon.   Date: 17 Oct 2006 08:55:02 From: LSmith Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord wrote: > You ran a slow marathon off a slow half marathon. 3:18 is not all that good > and you know it. _ For the record, Donovan here is saying a 40 year old male running the NYC Course in 3:18 is "not all that good". 1. It qualified me for the Boston Marathon 2. I did it mostly in 68F-70F weather 3. First time effort with no LSD training. When you say stuff like you have above Donnie....you really need to come back to earth pal.     Date: 17 Oct 2006 16:40:17 From: Elflord Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon On 2006-10-17, LSmith <Digisend@gmail.com > wrote: > > Elflord wrote: > >> You ran a slow marathon off a slow half marathon. 3:18 is not all that good >> and you know it. > _ > > For the record, Donovan here is saying a 40 year old male running the > NYC Course in 3:18 is "not all that good". > > 1. It qualified me for the Boston Marathon That's 64% WAVA. Keep lowering the bar, dude. The time I ran is 12 minutes lower than BQ. It's also slower than 7:30/mile -- a training run pace for you. Basically a jog (and the last few miles were not even a brisk jog). The truth is that, post-hoc excuses aside, you wanted sub 3 that day (which is why you ran at a 3hr pace up until the 10k mark) and didn't get it. > 2. I did it mostly in 68F-70F weather Yet that's still the best you've done after 3 tries, including one in good weather. > 3. First time effort with no LSD training. There's no better measure of "underachievement" than failure to improve on a performance that has little or no training. I don't understand why you think this is something to boast about. By the way, you forgot to include an excuse about your BMI. No list of lame excuses for running slowly would be complete without that one ... Cheers, -- Elflord   Date: 17 Oct 2006 05:10:38 From: LSmith Subject: Re: race report: staten island half marathon Elflord wrote: > Despite all of Lance's chest beating, running 2:5x on that course isn't as easy > as talking about running it. Conditions are a huge factor. If conditions are > good, it improves his chances from very slim (if it's warm) to quite > substantial (if it isn't). > > Cheers, > -- > Elflord _ You know how you like to characterize me as an "under achiever"...well I think your opinion in your speech above is colored by your fantastic under achievement when you ran the NYCM at 2 x 1/2M + 20 Minutes. And you did this under achievement at what?...age 30? Is there a more classic illustrate of "under achievement" to be found? I think not. You come up with a lot of excuses for to frame this under-achievement however the fact is that when I went +18 as a fat 40 year old it was a hotter day than you had in your race (it was 65F at the start and by the time I got off the course it was 70F). The point? Pendejo just bested me by 5 Minutes in the Half. Factually I'm 7 Minutes faster @ 18Miles today, and 7 .lbs lighter than I was 3 years ago when I went +18 / 3:19 at NYCM (temp. 65F-70F). Now you and Doug F don't think so but I'm quite confident I won't see 3:10 on that course regardless of these "conditions" you speak of. I've ran the course in tougher conditions than you pal, I am not speaking out of school. If you want to dispute that, look up the weather on the dates, if you recall and it can be googled, I even quoted the elite men, was it Ramaala?...who after the race and winning it complained about the heat and it's impact on time, and those elites were on the course for 2 hours and minutes and off the course while it was still only 67F-68F. Us regular folks were on the course for 3 plus hours when it was mostly 69F-70F. I was on the course that day, you were not. This "hug factor - conditions" you speak of?...that's a "Donovan excuse" to explain under-achievement, not a Lance excuse.....it won't be a Pendejo excuse. I don't plan on losing the New York City Marathon by more than 1 hour. Pendejo might best me by as few as 7 minutes or perhaps as much as 9/10 minutes. Do the math and you'll see the zone where I sense Pendejo will be. However the race has to be run and the only thing that's certain, clear, and true is that Pendejo at 39 and Lance at 43 will out perform Donovan and his 2 x 1/2M + 20 Minutes at age 30. Of that I am confident. Oh....and good luck this weekend on the kiddie ride (Chicago Marathon),....and Donovan, I'm not training for the NYCM, I'm pushing 80 miles again this week as I am training for the JK 10K race. I have to cut 39:30 to get a seeded spot in a Spring race. Could you be a dear and ask Bob Glover to rally his Masters and bring some better talent in the 40-44 AG? Thanks!     <