do you prefer winning races or better times?

In general, I prefer faster times. It really depends on the level you are at. Unless you're winning state, national or better titles, not many are going to care, so I would rather get the faster time. A good PR will always hold up the test of time, even after 40-50 years.

Not too many folks are impressed with my high school tri-county xc championship title from 1971, more are impressed with my 4:13 PR in HS, which would win state most seasons, still to this day.

I enjoy both very much, but the time goal is always a little more important to me - it seems to be more on an objective I have more control over. I don't know who is going to show up at a race.

errr.. more OF an objective.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning....

well i don't know it's no fun to win a race in a slow time, but i do kinda feel like it's always fun to pr no matter what, but if you're not pring it's great to just win a race.

I like both. I'm nowhere near fast enough to win large, competitive races, but I love racing them. And I love the smaller races that I typically win, though I don't get as excited about them. Even in the smaller races, I can compare time to the previous year, and push myself that way.

It doesn't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning.

I've always enjoyed a PR over a win. Probably because we used to always seek out "Trophy Runs" - an out of the way race that, more likely than not, no one else knew about and win by a minute or so. I always felt a little bit guilty and never ran as fast as a stacked race.

Of course that being said, being a former Apalachicola Seafood Festival 5k Champion has a nice ring to it as I move on in years...

Babbs wrote:

well i don't know it's no fun to win a race in a slow time, but i do kinda feel like it's always fun to pr no matter what, but if you're not pring it's great to just win a race.

Thanks for the illiteracy.

I prefer a little of both.

It has been awhile since I ran a low key race and won and I would love to do so again. But winning a race with a weak time is only satisfactory to a certain point. I would much rather PR or come close to my PR.

why do you ask? obviously you prefer one and need support to your choice..

Better times, no doubt. What does it mean if you win a race against 5 other runners that run 9 minute pace? But if you run another pr with 30,000 other runners and come in 4,000 and something now that's an accomplishment.

I think it definitely depends on the situation. If you are running a local 10k where the 2nd guy is 35 min +, then a time. But if you are racing people of similar ability to you, and you manage to pull out a win, I don't care if the pace was slow at the start or what, it's a win against solid competition.

In my day I won a lot of local 5K's, 10K's and Half's, but I would give it all up to have run sub 30:00.

agreed with Burbank Tom. I have won my fair share of rinky dink races that meant nothing in fairly tepid times. And I have gotten my butt kicked in races where I ran great. Much prefer running a great race to winning a race. At least if I run a great time, I know that I was performing about as well as I could.

I'd rather say I ran a sub 14 5k, than brag about winning a ton of local runs in 15:40 anytime.

No preference, I like both.