Competitive Jerks Racing and Training - 2023 (Read 574 times)

 

Honestly. You give us Kiwis a hard time about short courses and then run 3.1km and call it a 5km PR.

😂😂😂. I think you’ve got yourself onto the page 1 notable quotes. 

Mark - Weren't they also ill tempered?

Sydney is another option for a big race with the bid to become a major.  Potential weather risks with it being in September while Gold Coast is usually pretty good from my understanding, although training in Auckland would definitely be better preparation than training in Christchurch.  Melbourne increased their capacity for the marathon this year and for the first time ever it has sold out, with 3 months to spare.  Some people smell a rat but I don't know what they'd have to gain by faking it.

I'd love to start planning a big city marathon but the ever growing monkey on my back must be tamed first.

Also, in January and February we'll get some pretty smoky days down here, but nothing like what's happening in North America, or Australia every summer.

I ended up going with super shoes (Asics Metaspeed Sky) for my mile race, largely owing to two factors: 1) I have no spikes and have never used any, and 2) It turned out that the super-light flats didn't survive a purge of running shoes I no longer wear.

All in all the race was super fun - It was somewhat put together to give a guy trying to break 5 people to run with (he ran 4:58-59). I ran 5:28-29 (calling it 5:29), massively negative splitting it - 85, 84, 81, 77 for the quarters.

I thought 5:30 would be reasonable for the conditions and my complete lack of training faster than HM effort, and followed a local super-fast guy who was pacing one of his athletes (a kid maybe 13 y/o) to 5:30. Knowing what I know now I obviously would have started much faster, aiming for maybe 5:24 or faster. Maybe that'll be something to work on after my October Bad Idea.

Here's a fun topic for debate. Would you rather live in an area with frequent severe storms/tornadoes, an area which gets impacted by a hurricane once per year, or an area which has to deal with wildfires every year? I guess the area with hurricanes at least means you live near the beach...

 

You forgot about floods and earthquakes! I think my order of preference:

1. Wildfires - in most cases you will not have to deal with actual fire, just smoke. Which sucks, but usually doesn’t last too long and leaves no lasting damage. Other than to your lungs if you decide to keep running through it.

2. Tornadoes - too high a chance of random home damage. Plus this is often where the floods come in.

3. Hurricanes - they may be less frequent than tornadoes, but typically more massive, widespread destruction. Plus the worst part, it probably means living in Florida.

Here we go again... 4 days in a row with massive thunderstorms. I guess having boring weather in Portugal is kind of nice.

Andy - glad you are safe!

Here's a fun topic for debate. Would you rather live in an area with frequent severe storms/tornadoes, an area which gets impacted by a hurricane once per year, or an area which has to deal with wildfires every year? I guess the area with hurricanes at least means you live near the beach...

So...in DC, we get a little bit of everything, but nothing severe (knock on wood) - our tornadoes are F0-F2 and hurricanes are category 1 by the time they make it to us.  Our one earthquake of note was just enough to knock books off of shelves and upper Minnesota wouldn't recognize our blizzards. Our floods are usually limited in area and duration.  And we've just gotten smoke from forest fires elsewhere; the occasional fire here so far has just been a blip noted by 20 seconds on the local news just before we go to commercial.

(this is of course all balanced out by that pesky risk of terrorism thing).

Based on my experience with the mild versions of most natural disasters, I think I would take the hurricanes since they come with the most advance warning (if I could be guaranteed just smoke and not an actual fire, I might change my vote).   However, which disaster I would prefer also depends on location.   If it's an earthquake, I'd prefer to ride it out in California over Oklahoma.  Make it a series of tornadoes, and the reverse is true.

Here's a fun topic for debate. Would you rather live in an area with frequent severe storms/tornadoes, an area which gets impacted by a hurricane once per year, or an area which has to deal with wildfires every year? I guess the area with hurricanes at least means you live near the beach...

 

 

You forgot about floods and earthquakes! I think my order of preference:

1. Wildfires - in most cases you will not have to deal with actual fire, just smoke. Which sucks, but usually doesn’t last too long and leaves no lasting damage. Other than to your lungs if you decide to keep running through it.

2. Tornadoes - too high a chance of random home damage. Plus this is often where the floods come in.

3. Hurricanes - they may be less frequent than tornadoes, but typically more massive, widespread destruction. Plus the worst part, it probably means living in Florida.

Wildfires are definitely out. Between air quality and fire risk I'll pass.

Tornadoes are tricky and unpredictable.  I'd consider there, but not my first choice.

Frequent, severe thunderstorms?  Depends on what you consider frequent and severe.  I get t-storms fairly regularly over the summer and simply adjust my running schedule to work around them. Half the time they pass me by anyway.

Other storms, particularly blizzards, are out.  It's no fun to be without power for days at a time when temperatures are well below freezing.

No experience with earthquakes, just news coverage. Frequency and strength would have a bearing.

Ditto with floods.

Hurricane once a year actually isn't too bad. You get plenty of warning, most are not super destructive cat 3 and above. The main drawback would be that hurricane areas also tend to have a very warm, humid climate.

I ended up going with super shoes (Asics Metaspeed Sky) for my mile race, largely owing to two factors: 1) I have no spikes and have never used any, and 2) It turned out that the super-light flats didn't survive a purge of running shoes I no longer wear.

All in all the race was super fun - It was somewhat put together to give a guy trying to break 5 people to run with (he ran 4:58-59). I ran 5:28-29 (calling it 5:29), massively negative splitting it - 85, 84, 81, 77 for the quarters.

I thought 5:30 would be reasonable for the conditions and my complete lack of training faster than HM effort, and followed a local super-fast guy who was pacing one of his athletes (a kid maybe 13 y/o) to 5:30. Knowing what I know now I obviously would have started much faster, aiming for maybe 5:24 or faster. Maybe that'll be something to work on after my October Bad Idea.

Better running the mile that way than in the reverse with splits of 77, 81, 84, 85. Personally I think it takes a lot more experience and practice to run a good mile than it does a 5K or 10K.  I think if you chose to focus on the mile for a couple months you could run in the 5:10-5:15 range, but it would take very targeted training.