you're not as fast as you think you are and not as slow as lrc will make you out to be. 2:54 is your typical "i ran a ton but don't have much natural ability" time
you're not as fast as you think you are and not as slow as lrc will make you out to be. 2:54 is your typical "i ran a ton but don't have much natural ability" time
Usuck wrote:
I closed a 2.54 marathon in an Ironman.
Was it a full 22 mile Ironman marathon?
Boaty McBoatface wrote:
I beat my previous marathon best by 15 minutes and finally got that BQ.
I've been riding this emotional high for a bit too long, feeling like I'm pretty fast.
I felt like I was gonna pass out and my vision was getting wonky near the end. Definitely a 100% effort
Please bring back my insecurities and feelings of mediocrity. I need some basis in reality.
I'm going to need some time of proof.....pics,videos,data,strava, and post race pics of you biting your medal.
sounds like a short course, you sure you did 2 laps Mr Tortoise.
please use drugs
Congratulations on being almost fast for a masters runner.
You are faster than the mythical beast Dean Karnazes. Congratulations.
McMillan converts you to running a 5:08 mile. Nice, I ran that in 8th grade, maybe you can be an equipment manager
^^best in thread
Hahahaha! Yes, although I recently changed my name to H.M.S. David Attenborough. Much easier to get work.
Ohhh this one was effective. Thank you kind stranger. Sniffle sniffle
That sound about right :( . You cut deep. I'm a bit concerned that people actually wear jock straps these days
Oooh that's a zinger. If I'm the fastest in my running club does that count for anything? Or is that actually a deduction in talent?
I feel like 2:54 is the time a kinda talented runner runs when he is super lazy and doesn't train for the race, or it's the time an untalented runner gets when he works his ass off. Either way, you've got something going for you, but also a glaring shortcoming on this one.
2:54 is a good time. I accomplished that same time without legs, by sitting on the ground and alternately flexing my buttocks as I bounced along the ground at 6:38 per mile. But you go ahead and be proud of equaling the accomplishment of a legless man. Oh by the way I scabbed up real bad. Later I peeled and ate those scabs but that's just me. Congratulations on being my "equal".
When I was 15 I ran a 4:33 mile.
Relative to a lazy population, you're time is fine and I completely understand how you might have feelings of speed and self-worth.
Your problem is that you're not comparing yourself to the right people. Over 200 men qualified for the Olympic Trials, nearly all of them are no-name runners. They ran 5:18 pace to qualify. You can only run 6:40 pace.
98% of the trial qualifiers have little natural talent. They chose the path in high school, worked hard, completed a goal.
So, 6:40 pace, compared to a sub-elite Trials qualifier, it's like you're disabled. I mean, seriously.
But hey, lots of inspiring stories from disabled marathon finishers. Submit it to RW, post it to your social media, people love that kind of story.
Butty McButtFace wrote:
2:54 is a good time. I accomplished that same time without legs, by sitting on the ground and alternately flexing my buttocks as I bounced along the ground at 6:38 per mile. But you go ahead and be proud of equaling the accomplishment of a legless man. Oh by the way I scabbed up real bad. Later I peeled and ate those scabs but that's just me. Congratulations on being my "equal".
Might be time to go back to your home dimension of Buttworld.
that would put you at number five on the depth chart of my local running club, for the women's team.
Your time is only one lousy minute better than Flagploe's pathetic PR.
- Drops mike, walks off stage -