Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Boston thoughts

Shannon and I spent Monday morning watching the Boston Marathon on Universal Sports and tracking about 20 of our friends out there running.

Congrats to all the finishers. Godiva had a good showing with the mens masters team taking 6th place.

The announcers of the race said some interesting things. I remember two things in particular.
  1. Compared to most other marathons, the Boston hills are "The Rocky Mountains".
  2. The runners are slower at the start in Hopkington because it is a higher elevation and the "air is thinner up there"
Speaking of mountains, I would also like to congratulate Aqua Josh for his 3:43 and 1st in his age group at the Blue Ridge Marathon.

To put his achievement in perspective, I will leave you with a profile comparison of Blue Ridge and Boston:



6 comments:

  1. Givin the choice, I'd definitely go with the mountains in Boston.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I ran the Blue Ridge with Barefoot Josh this year. After seeing your elevation comparison, I realize I wouldn't want to attempt the "rocky mountains of Boston." Wow, are they scary!

    ReplyDelete
  3. sweet. another downhill course!

    ReplyDelete
  4. My running has greatly improved since I started reading your blog hanging out with you guys. Go team!

    @John:
    Blue Ridge is a beautiful course, and highly organized. You should give it a shot.

    @Johnny O:
    You'd be at the finish of Boston, saying to yourself "Where's this Heartbreak Hill? Did I miss it? They said there was a hill on this course."

    @Anon:
    The downhills were fun, in a sadistic sort of way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Blue Ridge looks tough! Oh, and AC, you need to put the "Dark Tower" on that smaller peak next to Mount Doom in the profile of the Blue Ridge Marathon, which I officially redub, the "Mordor Marathon".

    ReplyDelete
  6. So the announcer would agree that we should train in Boston to improve our Blue Ridge times?

    ReplyDelete

Sorry. Had to enable that awful word verification due to spam.