After all, when life gives you lemons (Bum foot), you throw them as hard as you can at the person who has whatever you want and steal it from them when they drop it. (I'm going to make a GREAT father some day) Thats how I got my wife, so why mess with a good process?
You see, with my ~2-3 weeks off from running, I have a bit of an issue - at least internally in my head. In 11 weeks I have the Rock and Roll San Diego Marathon - and three weeks after that I have the Rock and Roll Seattle Marathon. *slaps forehead* Obviously I got caught up in the hype of the RnR series medals and bit off a little more pavement than my legs could chew.
The issue is that I was originally targeting San Diego for a run at a new PR. (Note: What the PR is doesn't matter, I could just as easily be targeting for 5:30 or trying to beat the sweeper) Since I took some time off, I am seriously considering making San Diego a training run and pushing hard at Seattle.
So, the question is, which race looks "harder"? Whichever one looks harder I'll likely make a training run / fun run and push harder than a woman delivering a 12 pound baby on the easier one. Because, I want a PR, but I want to work as little as possible at it. Here are the stats:
- 26.2 miles
- 300 Ft Net Downhill
- One large 300 ft hill at mile 10
- Two small 100 ft hills at mile 13 and 16
- 26.2 miles
- 0 ft Net Downhill (start/finish at sea level)
- Two small 125 ft hills
- One and a half 200 ft hills at mile 16 and 18
My gut says that the rollers of Seattle will actually be a bit harder and the fact that San Diego is net downhill and most of its hills are up front should make it easier, right?