# The Grimsby 10K



## Chris Hobson (Jul 22, 2018)

Some here will know that I have been slightly unwell since the beginning of the year and, as a consequence, I have been unable to stay fully fit. As I have gradually recovered, I have been doing my best to build my fitness level back up again. The timing of this particular event has meant that it was going to be quite a significant test of how well I am progressing. I set my best time for the 10K distance, 47:40, back in May 2017 at Beverley. I wasn't expecting to beat that time but I felt that, if I could get anywhere close to it, that would be a good sign. The required 1K split times would have to be 4:46 on average in order to equal my Beverley time. My new Garmin sports watch does 1K split times automatically and gives my wrist a little buzz to let me know each time it is reporting one. This is extremely handy for monitoring my pace when trying for a specific target time. With more than three thousand entrants, this year's race went off in two waves, ten minutes apart, sub one hour runners in the first wave, over one hour runners in the second.

My strategy for 10K runs is to set off at a steady pace and then gradually work my way up the field. My theory is that,as I keep moving forward, I then keep moving into the company of slightly quicker runners and so I should be able to slowly keep building up my pace. I kept up this strategy for the whole race, passing plenty of runners and not being passed by anyone. The 1K splits yielded some slightly surprising results though. The first 1K time was 5:08, this wasn't a worry because the mass start meant that I was often boxed in by slightly slower runners and was bound to lose a little time. The next four splits came out at 4:46 / 4:43 / 4:46 / 4:39. Very consistent running and meaning that I had whittled ten seconds off the deficit that I had set up on the first K. It also shows that my moving up the field was not down to me accelerating as I had previously thought, but by other runners having set off too quickly and then dropping off the pace. At the half way point though it was me that started dropping off the pace, although still moving steadily up the field. The next four splits were 4:51 / 4:58 / 4:53 / 4:49. On average about ten seconds slower so I'm now definitely dropping behind. At 9K I pulled out all the stops and emptied the tank and set my quickest split of 4:35 clawing back eleven seconds. Just on the last 200metres a guy overtook me, the only one on the whole run that had done so. My modest sprint finish put him firmly back in his place.

So, how did I do in the end? Chip time was 48:13, just 33 seconds down on my best ever 10K time. Placed 608 out of 3073 finishers, just inside the top 20%. Not bad for an old git just two months away from his sixtieth birthday. I'm definitely feeling that I'm over my problems and working my way back to full fitness. Yay!


----------



## Northerner (Jul 23, 2018)

That's a great result Chris!  I think my quickest 10k is about 55 minutes, so I have a feel for your pace! I usually set a predicted goal time and miss it by a mile (literally! ) I think it's because I am so used to running on my own, when my Garmin tells me my pace is much better, and have a dislike for crowds.


----------



## Chris Hobson (Jul 23, 2018)

Going over earlier 10K times I discovered that I wasn't as close to my Beverley PB as I thought I was. It turns out that 47:40 was the gun time and my chip time was 47:17. This means that my recent performance was actually 56 seconds slower than my best rather than 33 seconds. Still OK but not as close as I had previously thought. They must have better runners in Beverley as, in spite of my better time, I only squeezed into the top 25% there, 354/1576. Feeling curious, I have also looked up my time for my very first 10K in Hull in 2014 I was actually outside the hour at 1:03:17, position 1337/3653, so I've still come a long way having lopped a massive 16 minutes off my original time in just three years.

For anyone who hasn't taken part in an organised running event, the difference between gun and chip time may need clarifying. Gun time refers to the starting gun, although it is more likely to be an aerosol can with a horn on the top. I have been at an event where they used a cannon. When the gun goes off an electronic clock is started which times every one's run. The thing is though, we are talking about a mass start, sometimes involving three or four thousand runners who obviously can't all cross the start line together. Every runner has a timing chip either in their race number bib or attached to their shoe. Your own personal electronic stopwatch starts as you cross the timing mat at the start line which is obviously several seconds or minutes after the starting gun has gone off. Hence you end up with two finishing times, the chip time being the most important as the gun time is pretty irrelevant really.


----------

