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

Re: [hr100] No balls, no levy for the next year.

Expand Messages
  • Julian Jamison
    Perhaps fruitless to reply, but here goes... Matt, for the record, I have absolutely no problem with the organizers taking 5-10 spots and handing them out to
    Message 1 of 11 , Jul 21 9:40 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Perhaps fruitless to reply, but here goes...

      Matt, for the record, I have absolutely no problem with the organizers
      taking 5-10 spots and handing them out to fast guys, although obviously that
      would hurt my future chances as well. I don't think I would recommend it,
      given their stated goals, but it would certainly be a lot of fun to watch.

      However, to respond to your specific points (speaking for myself only, of
      course):

      1) Hardrock is a race. When I lined up in silverton two weeks ago, I wasn't
      especially trying to beat other people (although obviously the top guys
      were, and that's appropriate), but I was trying to finish and to finish as
      quickly as possible.

      2) The fact that it's a race does not imply that the organizers are
      obligated to accept or recruit or encourage all the fastest mountain
      100-milers in the world to be there. It doesn't imply that all participants
      are obligated to try to finish as quickly as possible. It only implies that
      there are rules and it will be timed, and that the faster you go the more
      you will be applauded (perhaps rewarded) by the organizers -- although of
      course they can applaud lots of other dimensions in addition to speed.

      3) Julien Chorier (nice name!) won the race not because his name was drawn
      from a hat, but because he ran the fastest among all those who entered
      according to the well-defined procedures. This is the same as any other
      race. Nobody, however fast, can show up on the morning of the boston
      marathon and race it without having followed all the proper procedures. Lots
      of people *might* have been faster on any given day for any race (at least
      any ultra - possibly not for a few olympic events - but who gets to decide
      that?).

      4) If a potential competitor is sick and can't race, does that mean the
      winner was only a lucky 'winner'? What if a sponsor wants them to race
      elsewhere? What if the fastest guy in the world misses his connecting flight
      in chicago? What if I decide to put on a 5k tomorrow, with a $20k entry fee
      and $1mil first prize (all comers gladly accepted, if you get this email in
      time) and only eight people show up? Yes, Western States has a way for
      [some] fast [50mi and 100k] runners to automatically qualify, and yes some
      races in some years end up being more competitive than others, but it's all
      on a continuum. Where exactly do you draw the line and why? How accessible
      does it have to be? Isn't the winner simply the winner?

      5) You and I have a better chance to get in to hardrock next year than
      Kilian Jornet or Geoff Roes because we are being rewarded for having
      participated in the past, and as an incentive system so that future entrants
      are more likely to maintain a connection with the race over time. This is
      what the organizers want; it does not contradict the definition of a race.
      This is not fair if speed is the only measure of worth with respect to the
      race, but it is quite fair if community is worth something. Ultimately the
      choice comes down to values, which are not objectively determined. So whose
      values carry the day? The people who are putting on the race, naturally.
      Your values may be different, and just as legitimate (if less relevant), but
      that doesn't make their values wrong.

      Good luck to both of us (and everyone else) in next year's lottery.

      cheers,
      julian


      On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Matt Mahoney <matmahoney@...> wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > Perhaps I misunderstand. If Hardrock is a "run" and not a "race", then why
      > is there a clock at the finish line? And why do they publish a list of
      > finishers and their times in order from fastest to slowest? And why are
      > there trophies for the fastest runners? And why do we wear race numbers? And
      > why are there cutoff times and a prescribed route and rules about pacers and
      > crews and all these other things that determine whether or not your effort
      > counts as a finish? Is it a race or not?
      >
      > Oh, I get it. Let's all congratulate Julien Chorier as the lucky winner for
      > having his name drawn from a jar, vs. 8 or 10 guys who might have been
      > faster but we'll never know.
      >
      > I know that I and 95% of the runners are just trying to beat the course and
      > not each other. For a lot of people, just finishing a 5K is an
      > accomplishment. That is why there are fitness walks where you get a T-shirt,
      > a chance to work out, socialize, and eat afterward, but there is no clock,
      > no awards, and no sorted list of finishers. So is Hardrock a race or a
      > fitness walk?
      >
      > There are a lot of races where there are more people who want to run than
      > there are spots available, such as the Boston and New York marathons, JFK
      > 50, Ironman, Western States, and the Olympics. They all have different entry
      > procedures. But what they all have in common is that they have a means to
      > qualify so that if you are fast enough, you can get in without going through
      > the lottery. Please note that I am suggesting a change that will make it
      > harder for me to enter. I have 4 prior Hardrock finishes, mostly back of the
      > pack. Why should I get 5 lottery tickets when someone like Killian Jornet,
      > Anton Krupicka, Scott Jurek, or Goeff Roes would only get 1?
      >
      > Hardrock would have no trouble selling 140 "charity spots" for $2000 each.
      > (The London marathon sells 80% of its 40,000 entries for a similar amount).
      > I applaud the race committee to not succumbing to greed. But if we don't
      > balance supply and demand by the laws of economics, then what I suggest is
      > that the top 5% or top 5 finishers at one of the qualifying races, whichever
      > is less, get an automatic entry. Everyone else would put their name on a
      > multi-year waiting list. Enter any time, and you run when your name comes to
      > the top.
      >
      > Opinions?
      >
      >
      > -- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@...
      >
      > >________________________________
      >
      > >From: Jean-Jacques d <jjda36618@...>
      > >To: hr100@yahoogroups.com
      > >Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 2:14 PM
      > >Subject: Re: [hr100] No balls, no levy for the next year.
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >Horse crap to Popov and the rest of the "youth elitist
      > movement:".
      > >Since when has Hardrock's goal been to "ensure that everyone who
      > enters, finishes"?
      > >Jones and Grant and hundreds of young runners have a lifetime of
      > experiences before them. Should they push all the older and aging runners
      > aside and deprive them of a few more years of experiencing the joy of
      > Hardrock?
      > >As originally concieved Hardrock was not a "race" but a
      > "run" to honor the miners of the area, not to furnish a contest
      > where youth and speed are the goals.
      > >What I hear is an echo of the moral morass of politics today where the
      > rich get richer and the poor get more so. Curses on all who would defile
      > Hardrock in the same manner.
      > >Jean-Jacques d'Aquin
      > >
      > >________________________________
      > >From: Michael Popov <michael@...>
      > >To: hr100@yahoogroups.com
      > >Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 9:24 AM
      > >Subject: [hr100] No balls, no levy for the next year.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >First of all, thank you for all your hard work at the race organization
      > and
      > >execution. Despite the challenging conditions, I enjoyed every bit of it,
      > >and think that the conditions/trails could be more severe or hard - be it
      > >elevation gain or the nature's kinks - it is what it is and everyone
      > is in
      > >the same boat. Actually, I think that two of aid stations were unnecessary
      > >on the course - if you're running Hardrock, you need to be prepared to
      > take
      > >care of yourself on your own. From what I experienced - there could be
      > more
      > >vertical, more talus, more pressure on the cut-offs, more snow, and more
      > >creek crossings - more fun! The will to finish gets so much stronger.
      > >
      > >I think that there should be a formula for the certain percentage of
      > >starters who DNF'd in the last year to get them less points in the
      > lottery
      > >for the next year. That would eliminate the wannabees who ran the
      > >qualifiers, but failed to finish the Hardrock on the first try, and also
      > >eliminate the repeat runners who are ageing and who will likely to DNF
      > again
      > >and bump up the Hardrock DNF stats. One way to look at it is to see the
      > >trends in the previous years, for example - if you DNF'd at HURT, and
      > then
      > >DNF'd at Hardrock at the same year, should you be having a chance at
      > another
      > >hard hundred miler unless you get your training straight? Maybe you should
      > >you let your spot go to young prodigies, like Dakota Jones, or Joseph
      > Grant.
      > >
      > >The bottom line is that requirements could be more severe, to ensure that
      > >everyone who enters, finishes.
      > >
      > >Michael Popov
      > >
      > >Pacific Coast Trail Runs
      > >
      > >[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]
      >
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Matt Mahoney
      ... I am aware of the entry procedure. How would the results be different if the first 10 finishers put their name in a jar and we decide who gets the trophy
      Message 2 of 11 , Jul 22 7:36 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Julian Jamison <julison@...> wrote:

        >3) Julien Chorier (nice name!) won the race not because his name was drawn
        >from a hat, but because he ran the fastest among all those who entered
        >according to the well-defined procedures.

        I am aware of the entry procedure. How would the results be different if the first 10 finishers put their name in a jar and we decide who gets the trophy by lottery, except that the other 9 don't get to run?

        >5) You and I have a better chance to get in to hardrock next year than
        >Kilian Jornet or Geoff Roes because we are being rewarded for having
        >participated in the past, and as an incentive system so that future entrants
        >are more likely to maintain a connection with the race over time. 


        Sorry, that's BS. Some of the members of the race committee have run Hardrock 10 or more times. I know they can use any entry procedure they want, but I think it looks bad when they write the rules to favor themselves over faster runners.


        -- Matt Mahoney, matmahoney@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.