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

Re: [hr100] Re: Hardrock by the numbers

Expand Messages
  • Steve Kral
    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
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      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]
    • chris@chrisgerber.com
      A few of us went up Virginius today, if anyone wants to see up-to-date conditions, they are posted on Facebook (should be viewable to anyone):
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        A few of us went up Virginius today, if anyone wants to see up-to-date
        conditions, they are posted on Facebook (should be viewable to anyone):

        https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150225192582314.313918.615607313&l=f41786df20

        The snow is melting *very* fast up there. We had to reset quite a few
        HRH markers that had nearly melted out already.

        If you're planning on being there at night, microspikes or crampons
        may be a Good Idea(tm). I'm *very* comfortable on steep snow, and
        plan on using them. It was a rockin' glissade... bummer it's a CCW
        year. :)

        - Chris
      • thebeave7
        Here are some more photos from our trip up Virginius Pass today... http://www.ericjlee.com/Photo/thumbnails.php?album=279 Lots of snow up high, and it ll be
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Here are some more photos from our trip up Virginius Pass today...
          http://www.ericjlee.com/Photo/thumbnails.php?album=279
          Lots of snow up high, and it'll be there for next week's race. The down low stuff is melting really fast and might be clear below 12k. Rivers are moving and lots of water flowing down the road/trail. Happy prep to all racers and pacers.

          Eric Lee

          --- In hr100@yahoogroups.com, chris@... wrote:
          >
          > A few of us went up Virginius today, if anyone wants to see up-to-date
          > conditions, they are posted on Facebook (should be viewable to anyone):
          >
          > https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150225192582314.313918.615607313&l=f41786df20
          >
          > The snow is melting *very* fast up there. We had to reset quite a few
          > HRH markers that had nearly melted out already.
          >
          > If you're planning on being there at night, microspikes or crampons
          > may be a Good Idea(tm). I'm *very* comfortable on steep snow, and
          > plan on using them. It was a rockin' glissade... bummer it's a CCW
          > year. :)
          >
          > - Chris
          >
        • Klondike4@aol.com
          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
          Message 4 of 17 , 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]
          • Matt Mahoney
            If the purpose of the qualifying races is for safety, then Leadville is probably a better test of a runner s ability to tolerate high altitude than any of the
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              If the purpose of the qualifying races is for safety, then Leadville is probably
              a better test of a runner's ability to tolerate high altitude than any of the
              other qualifying races.

              If the purpose is to limit the starting field, then obviously the current system
              is a failure.

              -- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@...


              >
              >From: Steve Kral <bvstablemail@...>
              >To: hr100@yahoogroups.com
              >Sent: Sat, July 2, 2011 7:15:47 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]
            • Steve Kral
              Although I don t see any prohibitions on use of this Yahoo Group for commercial purposes, I ll go ahead and apologize in advance to anyone who feels using it
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 3, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Although I don't see any prohibitions on use of this Yahoo Group for commercial purposes, I'll go ahead and apologize in advance to anyone who feels using it for advertising contradicts its intended purpose.

                And that said, since people in the past have expressed interest in finding accommodation during Hardrock through this Group Email....I was talking to a hotel proprietor this morning who said she had a recent cancellation and knows people have been looking for rooms.

                Cassandra
                www.trianglemotel.com
                Suite B
                $130 a night + tax
                available July 5-10
                970 387 5780
                King bed, futon, kitchen

                Disclaimer: I stand to make no commission on this transaction!

                Cheers
                Steve Kral


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Scott Brockmeier
                Maria Sylvia Petzold is looking to pace someone. Below is a note she sent to the ultra list. Scott
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 3, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Maria Sylvia Petzold <maria.sylvia.petzold@...> is looking to pace someone. Below is a note she sent to the ultra list.

                  Scott


                  ```````````````````````````
                  Hi there,

                  I was wondering if there's anyone of you out there running Hardrock
                  this year and still in need for a pacer.

                  I paced 60 miles last year (Howie Stern), and 28 miles the year before
                  (Howard Cohen) - both to a PR.

                  Hardrock is something very special to me - it was my first experience
                  in Colorado, and finally made me move to Colorado from California.
                  So, I'd like to have an excuse to be out on the course, and benefit
                  from the aid stations, and meet all the great Hardrock people, aside
                  from getting sunrise in the San Juans, after a night long of
                  struggling.

                  I am pretty easy going, and can either indicate things like stream
                  crossings, obstacles on the trail, etc. ahead of time, or not talk
                  much at all, if preferred. Or, I can motivate. I can go over
                  logistics ahead of time etc.
                  I'll stick it out with you if you have a moment at an aid station and
                  need to rest for an hour. The only condition I would have for pacing
                  is: be determined to not drop, even if it's hard (it's Hardrock! :)),
                  unless there's a medical urgency or a safety concern.

                  I'd really just like to be at Hardrock 2011 :)

                  Please email me off list if interested.

                  Thanks, and good luck to all Hardrockers!
                  -Maria
                  --
                  "We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a
                  habit." - Aristotle

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ward, Kenneth (Corvallis)
                  Hi All, Now ten days after the race I’m finally starting to feel able to respond to this important thread. This year’s race was 50% harder than any of the
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 20, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hi All,

                    Now ten days after the race I’m finally starting to feel able to respond to this important thread. This year’s race was 50% harder than any of the 60 ultras I’ve done including three HRs. I agree with Jeff that there’s been too much emphasis on training and which races qualify someone. Completing the race is more than a matter of respecting the course, there’s a huge number of dependant and independent variables which in my view fall in this order: desire, number of previous finishes, acclimatization, decision making during the run, and then finally comes conditioning. People can and do finish the race after multiple DNF’s and it’s tremendously exciting and rewarding to see. Nobody should be treated differently because of a DNF, but there should of course be no reward for a DNF either.

                    Overall, the run committee and BOD does an outstanding job of designing the lottery and the qualification standards under extremely difficult conditions. Everyone wants something for themselves, and how does the Board balance it all ??

                    There’s only one rule that I believe should be changed, and I would like to formally request that the Board consider this one rule change. Likely it could not be implemented until one year from when it is changed, to allow entrants to respond to the change. The one rule that does not seem consistent with other qualifying standards is the rule that gives three years of eligibility to someone that starts the race but does not finish.

                    This year I did not study the DNFs because there were so many. Last year, when there were lots fewer DNFs, I tried to determine how many of the DNFs had qualified under “the rule” that I suggest changing. Surprisingly to me, by looking at realendurance.com, there appeared to be only 4-5 people who had to qualify for the lottery under “the rule”. So it would not be a great impact, and I believe many of those who use “the rule” could qualify if the rule were changed. In addition, there may be people who use “the rule” to qualify who provide exceptional service to the race. Those people could still be allowed to qualify based on a special exemption that the Board could choose to grant.

                    In summary, I don’t think changing this rule will have much effect on the race, nor upon the chances on anyone else in the lottery. However, I do think changing this one simple rule would have a great effect on people’s perception of the awesome “wild and tough” designation, and the great, difficult standards which have always signified the lottery contestants. Hardrock is the best race in the world bar none, and the most pure and consistent to its long-held philosophy. This is something to celebrate, not to criticize. As an RD, I know that however we continue to improve our races, however great they are, there’s always room for slight improvements.

                    Thanks for listening and for the consideration,

                    Ken Ward
                    Near Sea-Level, Corvallis, Oregon

                    From: hr100@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hr100@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Klondike4@...
                    Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2011 5:54 PM
                    To: hr100@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [hr100] Re: Hardrock by the numbers




                    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@...<mailto:bvstablemail%40yahoo.com>>
                    To: hr100@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hr100%40yahoogroups.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@...<mailto:olgav100%40gmail.com>> wrote:

                    From: Olga Varlamova <olgav100@...<mailto:olgav100%40gmail.com>>
                    Subject: Re: [hr100] Re: Hardrock by the numbers
                    To: hr100@yahoogroups.com<mailto:hr100%40yahoogroups.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@...<mailto:zagbag5%40yahoo.com>> 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@...<mailto:hr100%40eGroups.com>

                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hr100-unsubscribe@...<mailto:hr100-unsubscribe%40eGroups.comYahoo>! Groups Links

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

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



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Stevan Pattillo
                    The object of Hardrock is to finish. Steve-o Stevan Pattillo Research Technician MST-7 Los Alamos National Laboratory 505-665-7423 You can make time, but you
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 22, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The object of Hardrock is to finish. Steve-o







                      Stevan Pattillo
                      Research Technician
                      MST-7
                      Los Alamos National Laboratory
                      505-665-7423

                      "You can make time, but you can't make-up time".
                      J. Dewalt Hardrock Hundred 2003

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.