I wasn’t really expecting much out of the race and my finishing time showed it: 26:21
Despite having one of my slowest 5k times in recent memory, I was pleased with my technical approach to the race. The Scholar’s Run isn’t known for it’s gentle rolling hills. In fact, on the tougher part of the course, you past by a cemetery, just in case you can’t make it up the hill and just need to roll over and expire. Funny… another race in the area has the same setup… curious.
So, what’s so special about a slow time but technically pleasing to someone… Negative Splits… bay-beee. And for those that aren’t familiar with Runner’s Jargon, a “Negative Split” is when you run a certain distance (a split) faster than the previous one. Typically in marathons, you’ll say you ran a negative split if you ran the first half of the marathon faster than the first half. In 5ks, you usually have to run all 3 (or 4 if you are counting that last 0.1 and using your average pace). So in my case, I went from 8:42 min/mi to a 8:32 min/mi and to a 8:30 min/mi with the last 0.1 having a kick of 36 sec which averages to a 6:00 min/mi pace.
So although I wasn’t anywhere near the awards for my age group, nor anywhere close to a time that I would find satisfactory for my historical performance, I did walk away from the race with the hunger of racing again. A spark, once again, lighting the fire of focusing on the race and training ahead. I am 13 weeks out from Flying Monkey and still unknown if I will be wearing a bib at that event or not.
PLANET3RRY 
The problem with negative splits is that if you keep getting faster and don’t stop running, eventually you’ll reach escape velocity and spin off the Earth. Just a thought.
sometimes it is just fun to be out there running, although I know we tend to get wrapped up in the numbers.
So what’s up with the Flying Monkey??
Negative splits in a 5K and unheard of for me. GO MAN GO!!!