Yes, you are correct. But most people are. If you are better looking at 51 than you were at 30, you had some rough early years.
A couple months ago my daughter (10 yo) showed me a picture my wife had found. It was me holding my now 15 yo son when he was about 3. I had just finished a race, and did well if I remember it right. I was about 33 and was running a lot. I was pretty skinny compared to the fat guy I am now. She asked who was in the picture, she did not even recognize me. It made me profoundly depressed. I sent her to her room...
I learned here the other day the correct term is partner. It's what the cool kids are using.
I can't stand when people use "partner" to refer to a husband or wife...I find it so cringe and kinda confusing. I would usually use "partner" to refer to long term, unmarried couples or sometimes it's also used by gay couples if they'd rather not announce the gender of their partner. I don't really care that much if straight people want to call their husband/wife a partner, but I still find it rather cringe and try hard. I have two coworkers (straight married women) who use it to refer to their husbands and I find it super annoying, but of course I just ignore it and never say anything about it.
I won close to 200 races from 2001(first year of track 7th grade) I’ve ran a 46 second 400, a 151 800, a 4:11 mile, a 9:10 2 mile, a 19:10 4 miler, a 30:20 10k, a 44:15 15k, a 1:02 half and a sub par 2:31 marathon. At the end of the day no one cares about time, if you haven’t run Boston or London your considered slower then those fat asses that run 5 hour marathons just due to name of race
Stop being so insecure. It was a copliment. She was saying you were really hote when you are younger. She didn't say anything about whether you are good loooking now so don't read annything into it. Be complimented by her compliment.
I won close to 200 races from 2001(first year of track 7th grade) I’ve ran a 46 second 400, a 151 800, a 4:11 mile, a 9:10 2 mile, a 19:10 4 miler, a 30:20 10k, a 44:15 15k, a 1:02 half and a sub par 2:31 marathon. At the end of the day no one cares about time, if you haven’t run Boston or London your considered slower then those fat asses that run 5 hour marathons just due to name of race
If you're 400 time and half marathon, time are actually true, you Way way. WAY underachieved at events in the middle.
😔
[ for real though. The best milers of all time can't do that. So..
1] you're lying or
2] you inexplicably, and insanely focused on the wrong events
3] you were a complete failure based on your talent level. ]
I won close to 200 races from 2001(first year of track 7th grade) I’ve ran a 46 second 400, a 151 800, a 4:11 mile, a 9:10 2 mile, a 19:10 4 miler, a 30:20 10k, a 44:15 15k, a 1:02 half and a sub par 2:31 marathon. At the end of the day no one cares about time, if you haven’t run Boston or London your considered slower then those fat asses that run 5 hour marathons just due to name of race
If you're 400 time and half marathon, time are actually true, you Way way. WAY underachieved at events in the middle.
😔
[ for real though. The best milers of all time can't do that. So..
1] you're lying or
2] you inexplicably, and insanely focused on the wrong events
3] you were a complete failure based on your talent level. ]
I'm going with #1. (And I'm including, as lying, a claim of "a 44:15 15k" or "a 1:02 half" on an aided, non-record-quality course, which would be pretty impressive times on a legitimate record-quality course for someone who, despite having "won close to 200 races," has never broken 30:20 for 10k. A sprinter might also question the claim of a 46-second 400 that was likely closer to a 46.99.)