"I used it just as a workout"

hey toolbag wrote:

hey toolbag, you know what we are talking about. stfu

if you tell tergat that "it was just a workout" as if you would have beaten him if it were not a "workout".

your argument is a lame one - at best.

obviously, you are one of the guys who use this excuse frequently.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating you didn't understand what I was trying to say. I won't have to bother replying now. I appreciate the help.

jaguar1 wrote:

I purposely run very few races each year in order to get more maximal efforts/PRs. Plus, it's not ideal to race a lot if you're training for the marathon.

My feeling is if you race too much, it gets easy to get in the habit of treating races as "training runs", and you forget how to 'race' and get the most out of yourself.

Tell that to Pete Gilmore.

Average_Joe wrote:

The reality is that plenty of people -- myself included -- sometimes run races just as workouts and dont' really try all out. Just doing it is fine. It's the talking about it that way afterwards that is kind of rude, I guess.

Not just "kind of rude, I guess", really arrogant and unnecessary (and often indicative of fragile or low self-esteem). Just say, if asked about your result, "maybe I'll catch you (or him or those guys) at the next race" or "I guess I just didn't have it today, but you (or he or they) sure did". Saying you weren't trying your best too often takes on the appearance of sour grapes. If you can't be gracious about it then you must have a problem with yourself.

Average_Joe wrote:

The reality is that plenty of people -- myself included -- sometimes run races just as workouts and dont' really try all out. Just doing it is fine. It's the talking about it that way afterwards that is kind of rude, I guess.

Agreed--a lot of times the girls on my team will ask to do a few summer races because they are local and for a charity or they give out cool stuff (tie dyed t-shirts, sparkle paint etc they are 13-17 year old girls keep in mind)or whatever. I don't really want them racing multiple 5Ks so sometimes they will race one in July but its certainly nowhere near where I hope they will be in late October when we're trying to get to the state meet. If they are doing more than 1 or 2 over the summer then I like them to treat them as tempos of course they don't announce that at the time or afterwards they just go out and run them and go through the line like everyone else. This year we also experimented with doing a 10 mile race that one of the girls parents was racing as a long run not race and I'm not sure I'll encourage them to do this race again next summer because while it certainly wasn't race pace I do think it was faster than what I want the long run pace to be given age and ability. Again we didn't announce it was just their weekly long run and they just ran across the line like the other people before and after them.

Alan Culpepper = no role model wrote:

Tell that to Pete Gilmore.

Yeah, Peter Gilmore just said in his recent New York Times interview he started racing less and training more. I'd say he's done pretty well.

“Quitting my job was a big gamble,” he said. “I didn’t have a sponsor. I was running 25 or 30 races a year. There were a lot of weekend road races around San Francisco, and if I won $200 in a race, that was good.

“But I thought if I could get back to full-time training, I would do better in big races. Now I’m running only seven or eight races a year and training more. So far, it’s worked out. It’s still a gamble, but it keeps you on your toes.”

Sure, I'd agree. And while Alan Culpepper is an example of the opposite (and, arguably, at least as foolish) extreme, neither one should be considered a perfect example for most people, there is a happy medium between the two. Racing regularly during the build-up (not just "tune-up" races) - going all-out despite not being fully rested or sharp - is something the Hansons also do, it's not something to fear.

Uh, did you even read my post? Peter Gilmore is racing less and performing better. Now he is actually comparable to Alan Culpepper, who also races very little and does very well.

Um, I sure did read it. Where did I lose you? I was referring to Gilmore's previous racing habits, as his new approach (while working out "so far") has not been proven to the degree that his previous approach did. AC and his racing habits (just like PG and his) are hardly to be considered proof of finding optimal success.

Spell czech wrote:

Sojouner, or Sojourner? If you are going to use a name like that at least get the spelling down.

It's my own name, not a freed slave woman. Truth is not my last name, but Sojouner is indeed my first name.

And by the way, kiss off.

i say that after i finish with your mom

annoyedddd wrote:

Man, I hate when people say that after a race. Its like an excuse to run like a wimp! Why would one pay the entry fee to simply "tempo" a race. I can understand running a race just for the sheer pleasure but, not use that as a way to hide your

fears of racing and getting beat.

sorry i had to let that out after listening to some runners today...

klone wrote:

Um, I sure did read it. Where did I lose you? I was referring to Gilmore's previous racing habits, as his new approach (while working out "so far") has not been proven to the degree that his previous approach did. AC and his racing habits (just like PG and his) are hardly to be considered proof of finding optimal success.

So he's the top American at both New York and Boston this past year, and you don't think his new approach is proven? Are you judging him by one measly performance (~New York Half)?