Ugh. I used to have a head for numbers. The Rockville 10k results were just posted to Athlinks, and I realized I read my results completely wrong. When I was at the MCRRC site the day they were posted, my eyes must have crossed or something because I took the components I liked from both the net time and gun time to create some kind of completely fictitious result. Sorry for the hype. Turns out I only improved by ~0:30 or 0:05/mi over my next-best 10k. I guess I'll take what I can get.
Speaking of numbers, I just found this site, which claims I should be able to run a 1/2 marathon in 2:10:xx. I take that as a challenge.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A PR is still a PR! And after the injury/pain issues you've had, it's even better :)
ReplyDeleteThe McMillan calculator is an interesting concept... it's good for setting goals, but (at least in my case) not always accurate. I think a 2:10 half would be very do-able for you though!
... but, wait. So I clearly didn't make up those numbers since a post or two ago I directly copied the results line into this blog. I am NOT making up the 28:31. They must have adjusted the numbers upward at some point. These are the things that drive me nuts...
ReplyDeleteer, 58:31.
ReplyDelete"Thanks for your question. The simple answer is that despite our best efforts to automate everything with chip timing human error still gets in the way sometimes. We had a couple of runners use the wrong chips which creates problems and a couple runners start with the 10k but run only 5k and that creates problems and when the scorer (me!) misses one little key stroke in attempting to fix those problems it can make the wrong bibs line up with the wrong times etc. Once I realized that had happened, I scored everything again from scratch and I do believe that the results are now accurate."
ReplyDeleteSo now the official site is 'long' but the Athlinks site has the original shorter time. I give up! :)