Part of the “problem” is that I received some old (1972-1975) newsletters from the local publication I’ve been writing for, and I can't put them down. I was going to write a “scathing” article comparing and contrasting Runner’s World from 1977 to 2007. However, I think I’m going to take that concept and apply it to this publication. Here are some things that jump out at me;
The 1 hour race used to be popular.After some unexpected expenses, my wife told me to watch my spending. So yesterday I went out and bought some new running shoes. Hey, they were 30% off. Besides, I’ll cut back on a lot of things, but I’m not going to cut back on running shoes – especially with my knee acting up. I figure $63 is better than visiting the doctor.
They seemed to race odd distances, such as 1.3, 4.3 and 6.6 miles.
There were only about 50 runners per race, but 75% of them ran sub-6 pace.
They’d run a 6 mile race but also have a 2 mile women’s race.
Prediction runs were a lot more popular.
While guys like Steve Hoag and Ron Daws were studs, they didn’t totally dominate the local racing scene – like I would’ve thought.
It’s fun to see the names people (or relatives) that are still racing 35 years later.
Finally, we’re spoiled and we take for granted things as simple as up-to-date race schedules, the number of races available, certified courses, race directors, etc.
Speaking of cutting back, this is now officially a cutback week. Wednesday I ran an easy 6 miles. I’ve been meaning to add in a hill workout during the week, so I decided to ease into that yesterday. I ran 7 miles and included 3 hill repeats, which were about four-tenths of a mile each. Nothing fancy, just trying to make that “smooth transition” while adding something new to the training mix.
Quote of the day;
“For me, more does not equal better. I try to focus on good quality miles so I can run as little as possible throughout the season.” – Emily Brown, University of Minnesota All-American
3 comments:
Good running shoes are a necessity. I'd skip paying a utlity bill or hold back my kids' lunch money before going without a replacement pair of running shoes. Of course I'm kidding (sort of) but you get the picture.
Stay tuned...
Yup me too. I used to put 600 miles on a pair of shoes, then reduced it to 400, now 300. Nothing in running is more important.
Susan, but think of all the other Minnesotans that you'll get to know through interviews.
Post a Comment