Personal bests. Love them? Love them not?
On the one hand, there is no denying - I wouldn't even try - the thrill of running a better time than you have done before. On the other, if running is an eternal quest for a new personal best, then is it unavoidable that not getting one takes away some of the joy of the run itself? To a certain extent that's been my experience, and it bothers me.
My first half marathon, back in 2001, I really had no clue what to expect. No formal training plan - didn't even occur to me - I figured you trained by running gradually longer runs. But never did more than 14 or 15 km, and that only a couple of time. Plus I had no idea what an organized run was like (and I use the word "run" deliberately, because that's exactly how I saw it - race? - huh?), and went into it feeling kind of unprepared for the whole experience. It was F1 who had encouraged me to do the run, and he and his wife were supposed to be there, but something came up so it was just DH and I who drove to Kingston and navigated this thing on our own. Two complete novices without a clue. There is actually a kind of funny story about DH but I won't get sidetracked now.
In any event, it was really a beautiful day, weather wise, and I did well, finishing under 1:44. Kind of hit the wall somewhere around 15 or 17 km, but pulled through and a had a good finish. I still remember how exciting it was to pass the 20 K marker and know that I was going to run to the end and actually complete a half marathon.
Next year we went back for half marathon #2. This time F1 was there, doing the 5 K along with his wife and DH, and another friend was also doing the half. I hate to say this, but it's the truth - I only remember a few bits and pieces of this run. Starting out with our friend and quickly moving ahead, tossing my fleece to DH and F1 and F1's wife when they came out to cheer at a certain point, hearing that it was 48 minutes at the 10 km point and thinking, "that's awfully fast", hitting the wall again, probably somewhere around 16 km, and then finishing with no one there to watch. Why? Because I was early. This was my personal best, just under 1:41, and no one, least of all me, expected that to happen. I must have been pretty pumped about taking almost three minutes off the previous year's time, but had no sense that this was unusual.
So of course it was a terrible letdown to be over 1:42 in 2003, and then from 2004 to 2006 to have times ranging from just under 1:46 to 1:50 (the last largely due to injury recovery but it wasn't my strongest day to begin with, and the new course with more hills that was introduced in 2005 didn't help). The first two years were too easy, and somehow I expected to keep taking off time, to get down to 1:40. And I've been chasing the Holy Grail of my 2002 PB ever since - no run has ever been quite good enough because it's always been more than 1:41.
It has only recently occurred to me that the Kingston course with my PB wasn't certified, and it's entirely possible that it wasn't actually the full 21.1 km, and that in running since on certified courses I've been chasing something that never actually happened. My 1:43 at last year's Scotiabank felt like a fast half and yet it still came up two minutes short. Who knows?
But it bothers me that I care about this, that I don't have the same feeling of satisfaction just from completing a half that I had the very first time. Despite the fact that I'm actually, in many ways, a better runner now, can go for longer distances, don't hit the wall at 16 km, aren't as sore afterwards, etc. Bothers me to the point where I plan to train, train, train for the Scotiabank Half next year with the overarching goal of 1:41 or less. Just because now that I'm a better runner I have to prove that by doing a certain time.
It's really kind of nuts. Why is it good enough and an accomplishment for everyone else to just get out there and run a distance, but not me?
Case in point: Around the Bay in March of this year. Both F1 and I did better than we had expected and were very happy that we had done the race. F1: "That was great! Let's do it again next year!" Me: "No way - I'm never going to be able to do it in this good a time again".
Who cares?!?! Running 30 km is still an achievement! And I had a great time doing it so why not do it again? Anyway, I knew that I was being stupid and did agree to go back in 2008. But part of me is truly relieved that ATB is three weeks before Boston and that I'm running it as a warm-up; i.e.: as a "good run" but not a "race". So I have a built-in excuse for not matching this year's time. Crazy...
And now, of course, I've done two marathons and had the same experience as with the half - second was faster than the first. So, my emotional response is that every marathon since should be a maximum of 3:35, even though that's not realistic. But, as with ATB, I have this sense of relief that my next marathon is Boston, and I'm going to Boston to run, not to race. To have the experience. No PBs expected or probably (for me) achievable.
In the end, this really doesn't surprise me. I've spent my whole life as a perfectionist with high expectations. But only in relationship to myself, not in competition with others. I want to do a 1:41 half, not to beat someone else, but to prove something to myself. I would love to run a 3:30 marathon because someone I know said they figured it would happen one day. Yes, it was neat to be third in my age group in Kingston this year. But my brain immediately downplays it, since my time was just under 1:44, not 1:41... Sigh...
This could easily segue into "running vs racing" but not tonight.
On the one hand, there is no denying - I wouldn't even try - the thrill of running a better time than you have done before. On the other, if running is an eternal quest for a new personal best, then is it unavoidable that not getting one takes away some of the joy of the run itself? To a certain extent that's been my experience, and it bothers me.
My first half marathon, back in 2001, I really had no clue what to expect. No formal training plan - didn't even occur to me - I figured you trained by running gradually longer runs. But never did more than 14 or 15 km, and that only a couple of time. Plus I had no idea what an organized run was like (and I use the word "run" deliberately, because that's exactly how I saw it - race? - huh?), and went into it feeling kind of unprepared for the whole experience. It was F1 who had encouraged me to do the run, and he and his wife were supposed to be there, but something came up so it was just DH and I who drove to Kingston and navigated this thing on our own. Two complete novices without a clue. There is actually a kind of funny story about DH but I won't get sidetracked now.
In any event, it was really a beautiful day, weather wise, and I did well, finishing under 1:44. Kind of hit the wall somewhere around 15 or 17 km, but pulled through and a had a good finish. I still remember how exciting it was to pass the 20 K marker and know that I was going to run to the end and actually complete a half marathon.
Next year we went back for half marathon #2. This time F1 was there, doing the 5 K along with his wife and DH, and another friend was also doing the half. I hate to say this, but it's the truth - I only remember a few bits and pieces of this run. Starting out with our friend and quickly moving ahead, tossing my fleece to DH and F1 and F1's wife when they came out to cheer at a certain point, hearing that it was 48 minutes at the 10 km point and thinking, "that's awfully fast", hitting the wall again, probably somewhere around 16 km, and then finishing with no one there to watch. Why? Because I was early. This was my personal best, just under 1:41, and no one, least of all me, expected that to happen. I must have been pretty pumped about taking almost three minutes off the previous year's time, but had no sense that this was unusual.
So of course it was a terrible letdown to be over 1:42 in 2003, and then from 2004 to 2006 to have times ranging from just under 1:46 to 1:50 (the last largely due to injury recovery but it wasn't my strongest day to begin with, and the new course with more hills that was introduced in 2005 didn't help). The first two years were too easy, and somehow I expected to keep taking off time, to get down to 1:40. And I've been chasing the Holy Grail of my 2002 PB ever since - no run has ever been quite good enough because it's always been more than 1:41.
It has only recently occurred to me that the Kingston course with my PB wasn't certified, and it's entirely possible that it wasn't actually the full 21.1 km, and that in running since on certified courses I've been chasing something that never actually happened. My 1:43 at last year's Scotiabank felt like a fast half and yet it still came up two minutes short. Who knows?
But it bothers me that I care about this, that I don't have the same feeling of satisfaction just from completing a half that I had the very first time. Despite the fact that I'm actually, in many ways, a better runner now, can go for longer distances, don't hit the wall at 16 km, aren't as sore afterwards, etc. Bothers me to the point where I plan to train, train, train for the Scotiabank Half next year with the overarching goal of 1:41 or less. Just because now that I'm a better runner I have to prove that by doing a certain time.
It's really kind of nuts. Why is it good enough and an accomplishment for everyone else to just get out there and run a distance, but not me?
Case in point: Around the Bay in March of this year. Both F1 and I did better than we had expected and were very happy that we had done the race. F1: "That was great! Let's do it again next year!" Me: "No way - I'm never going to be able to do it in this good a time again".
Who cares?!?! Running 30 km is still an achievement! And I had a great time doing it so why not do it again? Anyway, I knew that I was being stupid and did agree to go back in 2008. But part of me is truly relieved that ATB is three weeks before Boston and that I'm running it as a warm-up; i.e.: as a "good run" but not a "race". So I have a built-in excuse for not matching this year's time. Crazy...
And now, of course, I've done two marathons and had the same experience as with the half - second was faster than the first. So, my emotional response is that every marathon since should be a maximum of 3:35, even though that's not realistic. But, as with ATB, I have this sense of relief that my next marathon is Boston, and I'm going to Boston to run, not to race. To have the experience. No PBs expected or probably (for me) achievable.
In the end, this really doesn't surprise me. I've spent my whole life as a perfectionist with high expectations. But only in relationship to myself, not in competition with others. I want to do a 1:41 half, not to beat someone else, but to prove something to myself. I would love to run a 3:30 marathon because someone I know said they figured it would happen one day. Yes, it was neat to be third in my age group in Kingston this year. But my brain immediately downplays it, since my time was just under 1:44, not 1:41... Sigh...
This could easily segue into "running vs racing" but not tonight.
posted by Jogger Barbie | 9:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home