Edmontonian50 plus wrote:
Was your 10 miler a certified course?
57:58 for 10 miles gets you a 2:41 :04 Marathon. But that is just a theoretical number.
And that is the reason why we race. To find out how fast we actually are.
You in the meanwhile sit in your white cube and think about what you could have done IF you would have ran a Marathon. But you didn't.
You have a good 10 mile time to show if the course was long enough but that's it.
Yes it was the 2004 St. Albert 10 miler, you can look up the results
Greg Zawaski 12th place. Also there was a lot of elevation change in that race and if someone had a copy of the course layout (it has changed over the years, they don't use that same course anymore) that would be interesting. And 2200+ ft. above sea level.
What is your obsession with my 'white cube'? I live in an apartment building, correct. It may appear as a white cube to you, I don't really care. I've made the decisions in my life to be where I am and I'm not in a bad place by anyones measure except my own, and I don't think I'm doing too badly.
You are a slowpoke on a competitive running site making less than credible assumptions about me.
You haven't mentioned your PRs.. Too scared? I love the 'if it was a long enough course' argument.
And I bet I might hear the ' I can't find the results online' line from you too, though you probably can find the results.
Everything you say seems to be from a standpoint of me measuring up against you and you falling short.
Why do you have a problem with me having > PR's to you? If you just can't cut it, there are other message boards that will cater to someone with your sensitivities.