Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2638Re: [hr100] Re: Hardrock by the numbers

Expand Messages
  • Klondike4@aol.com
    Jul 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      To ensure that runners starting the race have demonstrated the ability within the past couple years to make themselves ready for the physical demands of a 100 mile race...."
      The basis for this thread seems to be (to me anyway) that a DNF somehow negates your ability or desire to finish - a premise that is simply - overly simplistic in its thinking and or simply beyond the capacity of a governing board to discern - because someone DNF's once, or multiple once's, has no bearing on their desire or capacity. While I understand the sentiment that its becoming harder and harder to gain entry - who's to say that the person you deny entry too is any better or worse than the person that gets their spot - how does that get discerned. Its hard enough to put on a run/race/event without asking the powers that be somehow be clairvoyant.


      As a two time DNF before finally breaking thru to a finish I can say for certainty that it had nothing to do with desire or preparation - and had the third time not been the charm I would have returned ad infinitum, till charmed.


      Without the ability to predict the future, I dont see how any sort of DNF can factor into the equation.


      Cheers and Good vibes to all toeing the line this yr. - Jeff WIlbur





      -----Original Message-----
      From: Steve Kral <bvstablemail@...>
      To: hr100@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, Jul 2, 2011 7:15 pm
      Subject: Re: [hr100] Re: Hardrock by the numbers





      Thanks to those who have shown the interest and taken the time to express opinions about my email "Hardrock by the numbers." The question of dropping this race as a qualifier or that race as a qualifier is an interesting one....but let's review the qualifier, keeping in mind, that QUALIFYING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LOTTERY.

      Hardrock's website notes that the qualifying standards are set up "for safety reasons." Blake reinforced this idea to me in a recent email: "We have qualifiers primarily to ensure that runners can be safe in the mountains and that they know what they're getting into. Having started one of the previous three runs {Hardrock} satisfies these criteria."

      I'm not sure what the "primarily" means in this case, no other concerns have ever been expressed anywhere that I have seen.

      So, if as Andrea suggests, Leadville or Western States were dropped as qualifiers, the Board of Hardrock would be saying, people that finish these two races in 2011 would not have the experience to be safe in the mountains for purposes of competing in Hardrock in the years 2012 and 2013. On the other hand, a runner who starts Hardrock this year and falls in the parking lot as he's leaving Kendall Mountain Recreation Center (remember, new race start this year) or just decides he'd rather watch the Adventure Channel in his hotel room on Friday, July 8 and goes back to his car...miraculously...is deemed by Hardrock...by virtue of his hazardous journey through the Kendall Mountain Recreation Center parking lot, to have the mountaineering experience necessary to qualify for Hardrock, not only in 2012 and 2013, but 2014 as well!

      How does that make sense?

      By virtue of Hardrock's rules, the runner who became disoriented and embarked on an ill-advised descent (or at least gave that appearance) last year, and caused the fellow participant to abandon his run attempt in order to ensure the safety of the wayward runner, somehow displayed to the Board the mountaineering experience necessary to be qualified for another 3 years. Humph?

      Now if Hardrock were to change the purpose of the qualifier to, for example, "ensure as much as practicable that runners can provide for their own safety in the mountains AND to ensure that runners starting the race have demonstrated the ability within the past couple years to make themselves ready for the physical demands of a 100 mile race...." then sports fans, you have a whole new ball game.

      Yes Steven in Austin TX, two non-Hardrock qualifying runs would be a great idea...with the stipulation being that one is in the calendar year preceding the Hardrock 100 in question.

      Yes Olga, who is so far down the list it's not even funny, limit qualifiers to those who have finished Hardrock in the past 2 years. I note your point on "run another qualifier," but unless said applicant had qualified by the "special mountaineering exemption," which is very rare, by definition of the rules, they would already have another qualifier. But the last 2 years is a great idea.

      And yes, Don Platt in Steamboat, under those conditions maybe the logic of a DNF counting as a qualifier....wouldn't be so logical.

      Keep those ideas rolling in boys and girls....the eyes and ears of Big Brother are upon us.

      --- On Sat, 7/2/11, Olga Varlamova <olgav100@...> wrote:

      From: Olga Varlamova <olgav100@...>
      Subject: Re: [hr100] Re: Hardrock by the numbers
      To: hr100@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Saturday, July 2, 2011, 6:10 PM

      I am all for making rules stricter. How about dropping Leadville, and adding
      that you have to "serve" the course in capacity of pacer, trail worker, race
      volunteer, marking, sweeping, and so on? Kind of Badwater pathway. Also, not
      "finished HR in the last 5 years", but limit to 2 years on that, and then
      run another qualifier?

      Olga, who is so far down the list it's not even funny, but here, enjoying
      this most beautiful playground.

      On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 8:17 AM, zagbag5 <zagbag5@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > I like the message you're sending!
      > Is there any consideration to change the qualifying standards?
      > I wouldn't be opposed to dropping Leadville as a qualifier (even though I
      > used it!) or requiring two qualifying runs to enter.
      > Seems like we need to narrow the potential runner list to those who really
      > want to run HR and not just hit up the lottery because they can and then
      > decide later. Just a thought; I'm not knowledgeable about the numbers of
      > entrants y'all get or how they look.
      > Coming this year to volunteer and enjoy some mountain air!
      > Steven in Austin TX.
      >
      >
      > > And just because the qualifying rules of Hardrock reward a DNF with
      > > three additional years of eligibility to post another DNF (an oxymoronic,
      >
      > > self-perpetuating vehicle for promoting DNF's), consider you can
      > > always run another qualifying 100-miler instead of posting a DNF in the
      > > Hardrock 100 Mile Run to retain your eligibility for the run.
      > >
      > > Remember, the Hardrock 100 Mile Run is conceived to be completed over the
      > course of 2 days, not 2 years....
      > >
      > > Best of luck to all,
      > > Steve Kral
      > >
      > >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >
      >
      >
      >

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      ------------------------------------

      To Post a message, send it to: hr100@...

      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hr100-unsubscribe@...! Groups Links

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]









      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 17 messages in this topic