Disappointed at NYC Marathon--Should I go back-to-back?

Your trolling sucks now- downgraded to 0/10

Strava or it didn't happen.

outsiderunner wrote:

Would have come darn close to a PR, and so it looks like you were wrong, not I.

So your goal in signing up for this race on short rest and after being sick, driving to MD, and getting a hotel was to come close to a PR? Not how I remember it. You weren't close, whether you got lost or not you weren't running a -4:25 on the second half today. You were wrong. No one said you couldn't run 3:04, they said you wouldn't meet your goal so it was an injury risk with little chance for success.

outsiderunner wrote:

I will do some research, and then determine when and where I should run.

Don't forget the deadline to register for Chicago 2017 is Tuesday 11/29 at 2 pm.

outsiderunner wrote:

my watch was truly wacky in the second half of the run.

I think sometimes simpler is better. My watch is a simple Timex Ironman with a split button I manually hit. I trust the mile markers on the course. I measure my training loops with my bicycle odometer (carefully celebrated). I know which hedgerow marks the mile point, which driveway is at mile two, etc, for training splits. Yes, I'm a Luddite, I suppose, but the less one relies on sometimes imperfect technology, the less there is to worry about. Outsiderunner, how was the crushed stone surface? I find it great for training, but not ideal for racing. Do you think it slowed you at all?

You weren't going sub-3 or going to PR even if you didn't "get lost" (I don't believe you either, for what it's worth). And the reason is that you didn't listen to the people in this forum. You thought you knew better. You didn't. Consider it a life lesson.

Allen1959 wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

my watch was truly wacky in the second half of the run.

I think sometimes simpler is better. My watch is a simple Timex Ironman with a split button I manually hit. I trust the mile markers on the course. I measure my training loops with my bicycle odometer (carefully celebrated). I know which hedgerow marks the mile point, which driveway is at mile two, etc, for training splits. Yes, I'm a Luddite, I suppose, but the less one relies on sometimes imperfect technology, the less there is to worry about. Outsiderunner, how was the crushed stone surface? I find it great for training, but not ideal for racing. Do you think it slowed you at all?

Thanks for the constructive feedback. There is nothing wrong with being a bit Lud. I did what you describe when I ran only 5k/10k. I used an $11 Casio watch, which I still have...somewhere. Is not the odometer stuff a hassle when it comes to longer distances?

In regard to the surface, I though it was pretty good. Not the fastest, but not slow, either. Molkinsloth and I discussed it, and he though it to be a bit slippery here and there. Actually, I sat at a table with Molk and his two friends, and we all compared notes on the course and surface. I liked the course, and thought the trail was pretty hard-packed. I think I even said it was "similar to pavement," and Molk agreed. I usually run on roads, but occasionally run on gravel. This crushed stone on this trail was faster than the gravel/stone I have run on here in my area. It was a damp morning, with a fog lifting as we began, and so that is perhaps why it had some slick patches. It was also quite cold this morning, colder than I had thought it would be. With the NW wind going out, my left arm was almost numb for the first 6-8 miles.

How nice it is to be called a liar over and over. I have never met such people, anywhere...ever.

outsiderunner wrote:

How nice it is to be called a liar over and over. I have never met such people, anywhere...ever.

It would be very easy to prove all of them wrong. Why don't you share your GPS? What do you have to lose? You don't need Strava. A link to your Garmin Connect activity would be fine. You say you are looking at the data. Let us see it. Don't you want to clear your name?

Where you and many others were wrong was in ranting about how I would bonk, get injured, DNF, or perform very poorly. None of this happened. As I said, the race, overall, was a very positive experience. I felt very good, and was happy that I had something left in the last few miles, even with the mishap, even with getting thrown out of my rhythm, and even after running hard in NYC. Likewise, I attained more marathon experience. How this can be viewed as anything but posiitve is beyond me. But for the perpetually sullen, mean-spirited type, I gather it is par for the course.

Clear my name?! For what? For making a wrong turn in a race? Am I on trial? I have given you plenty of information. Why must you always assume the worst? Please, look at yourselves.

outsiderunner wrote:

Where you and many others were wrong was in ranting about how I would bonk, get injured, DNF, or perform very poorly. None of this happened. As I said, the race, overall, was a very positive experience.

Read the first post in this thread. Your question was whether you should go back-to-back in order to cash in on the fitness you had acquired, in order to go sub-3 or PR. You failed to do both of those things. How was this a positive experience?

outsiderunner wrote:

Clear my name?! For what? For making a wrong turn in a race? Am I on trial? I have given you plenty of information. Why must you always assume the worst? Please, look at yourselves.

You don't have to clear your name unless you want people to believe you. The bottom line is that you have a story that I, and many others, find hard to believe. There is a very simple way to convince us.

I have already stated why it was a positive experience, and I stated it in clear terms. In case you have not noticed, not every race is a sub-3, and at no point did I ever say that I had to have a sub-3 in order to have a positive view of my effort.

It seems clear to me, and to a few others, that you will remian sullen haters no matter what I do.

gsdfmsdfmdsmfmsd wrote:

outsiderunner wrote:

How nice it is to be called a liar over and over. I have never met such people, anywhere...ever.

It would be very easy to prove all of them wrong. Why don't you share your GPS? What do you have to lose? You don't need Strava. A link to your Garmin Connect activity would be fine. You say you are looking at the data. Let us see it. Don't you want to clear your name?

Just because we call him a liar does not mean that he is not a liar.

This is starting to sound like the Robbie Young thread now. It is an interesting coincidence that the infamous Brit Liar-Cheater-Fraudâ„¢ Robbie Young has a marathon PR of : 3:07

This "I got lost in my marathon and my watch was acting all screwy because I was running in the Bermuda triangle which also messed up some other guy's watch... which is a good excuse why I can't show you anything" story is starting to unravel.

This is a surprise.

(Another poster said it is IMPOSSIBLE to get lost on this course, which is now a big problem for this "lost marathoner with a screwy watch" debacle story.)

outsiderunner wrote:

I have already stated why it was a positive experience, and I stated it in clear terms. In case you have not noticed, not every race is a sub-3, and at no point did I ever say that I had to have a sub-3 in order to have a positive view of my effort.

So you went back to back so that you could run slower in the 2nd marathon?

rjm33 wrote:

Just because we call him a liar does not mean that he is not a liar.

This is starting to sound like the Robbie Young thread now. It is an interesting coincidence that the infamous Brit Liar-Cheater-Fraudâ„¢ Robbie Young has a marathon PR of : 3:07

This "I got lost in my marathon and my watch was acting all screwy because I was running in the Bermuda triangle which also messed up some other guy's watch... which is a good excuse why I can't show you anything" story is starting to unravel.

This is a surprise.

(Another poster said it is IMPOSSIBLE to get lost on this course, which is now a big problem for this "lost marathoner with a screwy watch" debacle story.)

I agree. The story would be more believable if it wasn't an out and back.

What's clear to me is that we can all agree that you're certainly not a 2:55 guy.

Congrats on not getting injured, now that that's apparently the metric for a successful race.