The weather stinks right now. Neither winter nor spring, it is the dreaded "mud season" here in Vermont. The snow is gone, the earth is brown and the roads become a soupy bog of mud and horse shit, just like in Monty Python's medieval village. The only good thing about mud season is that this is the season when you make maple syrup, other than that it stinks. As the good book says, "So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth." Rev. 3:16 (KJV).
That is right I said "spue."
Looking forward to fairer climes, I eagerly anticipate running season 2009. Previously, I stated my objective for 2009 was to run a dank 1/2 marathon. Philly Distance run seemed the logical choice. After some rest and reflection, I wonder why I would train my balls off just to run a piddly 13.1 miles? So another marathon is in order. The question is, which one?
I am still planning on doing Philly, so this means an early fall marathon. Likely Chicago or Baltimore. But there are other smaller and more quaint marathons as well, like the Green Mountain Marathon in VT, which might be attractive opportunities to get a high finish.
I would like y'all's input. (can you have two 's in one word?) Particularly veterans of the B-more and Chicago races.
HAS THE MARATHON WALL BEEN TORN DOWN?
2 days ago
5 comments:
y'all's is how I spell it, and I use that word frequently.
Baltimore is a fun marathon if you know a lot of the spectators on the course. Also, you are probably among the top 6 runners in Baltimore/Maryland and will win some prize $$. I can't speak for Chicago.
It would certainly be nice to win some money, but it shouldn't factor in as a HUGE reason to do the race.
Chicago PROS: opportunity to run faster there than at New York. Another big marathon, one of the marathon majors so a cool race to do.
Chicago CONS: you'd have to fly and get accommodations, and you are notoriously cheap. You'd also have to register pretty quickly and make the commitment much earlier than Baltimore.
Baltimore PROS: close, especially if you're living in the area at the time. All of us would be out supporting. Fun to run around your town. You also wouldn't have to register until way later
Baltimore CONS: can be a slower course, and a smaller race so you'd likely have some stretches where it would just be you by your lonesome.
Vermont: "If you ain't first, you're last". I don't think getting a high place in a race is all that cool unless you're first. But that's just me. If you finished in the top 5, it'd be like "okay, cool." I would personally prefer a PR race like Chicago where even if I finished 1000th place I ran a solid time.
Mostly I say these things because I remember your quote from your little book that says your marathon PR is more likely to come in your first 5 or so races at the distance. The Jake Klim/Red Fox mentality is I only want to do a marathon right now for purposes of running faster than last time. I think that's a pretty good idea until it's time to start doing races more just to do them.
"and you are notoriously cheap."
Et tu Brute?
Ha, don't sweat it. When it comes to races, I spend money like it's going out of style. With 27 races last year, a couple of hotels, a couple of flights, man did that take its toll on the checkbook. Thankfully I paid for most of my racing this year before the funds ran out!
Post a Comment