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

Re: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS

Expand Messages
  • Stan Jensen
    ... While it s good that you re trying to come up with alternatives, an early start at Western States would definitely make it harder on the RD, the
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 24 2:55 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dale Keen wrote:

      > You know it might not hurt to let the 60 and over start at 3 in the
      > morning instead of 5 am. This would not make the race tougher for the
      > race director at all. They would still have to make the cutoff times
      > etc. Something similar to this idea might be able to work. Something
      > to think about.

      While it's good that you're trying to come up with alternatives, an
      "early start" at Western States would definitely make it harder on the
      RD, the volunteers and others. Ask me off-line if you need more details.
      Also, what about the 350+ runners who now have to pass those slower
      runners on the narrow trails in the early sections? Just my $0.02 ...

      Stan
      --
      Stan Jensen, P.O. Box 3426, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-3426
      http://www.Run100s.com/ mailto:StanJ@...
    • jmcdon07@wt.net
      The important thing to remember is that this is the race that set the standards for almost all the other 100 mile races. True, there are variations (Wasatch,
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 24 3:54 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        The important thing to remember is that this is the race that set the
        standards for almost all the other 100 mile races. True, there are
        variations (Wasatch, Hardrock, etc), but the vast majority of 100
        milers still maintain the 24/30 hour cutoff instituted by W/S way
        back when. Some of these races are tougher than W/S. Some are
        easier. You can complete or DNF at one of these races just as easily
        as you can at States no matter what your age is. The big problem
        here is that if you change one rule, you start to justify changing
        other rules. Please, let's not compromise the integrity and sanctity
        of Western States.

        --- In ws100@egroups.com, "Dale Keen" <dalekeen@h...> wrote:
        > There are alot of us that could get to mountainous races etc. Like
        you
        > propose. Here in Texas we do have heat. I think the heat here is
        alot
        > tougher than moderate elevation like the Western States. I grew up
        in
        > Colorado so I know about elevation extremes. I think the qualifying
        > standards should be left alone. Don't discriminate against we flat
        landers.
        >
        > >From: Jim Winne <ultrajim@p...>
        > >Reply-To: ws100@egroups.com
        > >To: ws100@egroups.com
        > >Subject: Re: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS
        > >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 11:50:08 -0700
        > >
        > >I should point out that I'm 53 and have never done WS, though I
        have
        > >seen it from various perspectives; aid station volunteer, pacer and
        > >safety patrol. It is a great race and certainly the "Superbowl" of
        100
        > >milers! However, as with all things, constructive criticism can be
        a
        > >good thing, so here's my 2 cents.
        > >
        > >I'm opposed to the 32 hour cutoff but do think there are other ways
        > >to increase the finishing rate for older (and all) runners. First,
        I'd like
        > >to see pacers for the whole race for those over 60 (maybe 65)
        > >reinstated. While it doesn't physically help an older runner, I
        believe it
        > >does help mentally by addressing safety concerns older runners may
        > >have (thus reducing fatigue from the stress of worrying),
        particularly in
        > >a snow year where falling is a real probability.
        > >
        > >Secondly, and most importantly, I think the qualifying standards
        need
        > >to be looked at. I personally know people who have entered on the
        > >basis of only ever having done one 50M "trail" race with minimal
        > >altitude change (2500') and no knowledge of the nature of WS. It is
        > >unrealistic to expect these people, or those who enter on the
        basis of
        > >a single, relatively slow road 50M, to finish within 30 hours.
        While I
        > >don't begrudge them the right to enter a 100M, the fact is WS is so
        > >popular it has to resort to a lottery. As long as a lottery is
        necessary, I
        > >feel all would be better served if the qualifying standards were
        > >tightened to better reflect a realistic barometer of finishing. I
        think the
        > >50M standards should be changed to a minimum of 3 50 milers in the
        > >past year or a sub 10 hour in the past year with at least 2 other
        50+
        > >milers run in the past 3 years, all on trail with at least 6000'
        of climb.
        > >This might be a more accurate gage of potential success and could
        > >also significantly reduce the number of entrants, which would have
        a
        > >direct, positive impact on the lottery. I personally would not
        enter with
        > >any realistic expectations of finishing without a recent sub 10
        hour on
        > >a difficult course. I know there are some people who run 10-12
        hours
        > >and can still finish WS but they are generally all seasoned ultra
        runners
        > >who through years of experience have learned what it takes to keep
        > >going for up to 30 hours.
        > >
        > >Finally, moving the lottery date back closer to the race should be
        > >considered. If entry requirements were tightened and entrants
        > >significantly reduced, many concerns about this are eliminated. For
        > >example, the average entrant would be more experienced and
        > >probably not need 8 months to train specifically for WS. As one
        gets
        > >older, injuries become more frequent and the current 8 months
        > >between entry and race is a long time for many to stay injury
        free. If
        > >the lottery was moved closer to the race, it's likely more entrants
        > >would be healthy on race day. As has been pointed out, WS is an
        > >expensive proposition for many and I think many people start, even
        > >though they know they're injured/undertrained, because they have
        > >invested so much time/money. This is the main reason I haven't
        > >entered the lottery. With my history of injuries and knowing that I
        > >would obsess/overtrain with 8 months lag time, I'd probably not
        make
        > >the starting line. But as the saying goes - I ain't getting any
        younger!
        > >
        > >Good luck to everyone in this year's lottery and I'll be there
        again next
        > >year in one capacity or another.
        > >
        > > - Jim Winne
        > >
        > >On 23 Aug 00, at 22:38, greg m soderlund wrote:
        > >
        > > > Taking Carl Pegel's cue, I would like to address his request for
        > > > consideration of a special 32 hour cutoff for the 60+ age group
        at WS.
        > >
        >
        >

        ______________________________________________________________________
        __
        > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
        http://www.hotmail.com
      • Jim Winne
        I realize many people don t have hills to train/race on but I m not proposing that the standards for 100K or 100M be changed and these would still be valid
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 24 6:33 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I realize many people don't have "hills" to train/race on but I'm not
          proposing that the standards for 100K or 100M be changed and
          these would still be valid options for everyone. I do, however, think
          there is such a huge difference between doing any 50M, much less a
          "flat" one, and WS that if a 50M is going to be used as a qualifier it
          should be reflective of the conditions at WS.

          The reality is that WS is a mountain run, with significant elevation
          change and there are currently qualifying standards in place. If the
          object of theses standards is to insure minimal fitness to have a chance
          to successfully complete the race, and we really are concerned with
          finishing rates, then the standards should realistically reflect that. If the
          standards are just to insure that you won't die out there and no one
          cares whether you have a chance to finish or that possibly unprepared
          runners use lottery spaces that could go to those that have
          demonstrated a greater likelihood of finishing, then leave them alone.
          My opinion is that this ain't just any 100 miler, it's Western States, you
          do and should have to earn your way in and priority should go to
          those who have the greatest likelihood of finishing as demonstrated by
          prior performances.

          From my observations, working the river crossing aid station at mile
          78 and pacing from Foresthill where we passed at least 30 runners
          after the river crossing, many runners are unprepared for the toll the
          the downhills take. As Greg pointed out on the ultra list, mile 75
          seems to be where the wheels begin to fall of and I believe one of the
          main reasons is the pounding the quads take to that point. Thus I
          believe some demonstrated experience with either distance (100K or
          more) or "hills" should be a prerequisite.

          With no facts to back it up, I would guess one reason for diminished
          finishing rates in a lot of 100 milers, is it's the "in" thing to do and
          you're not considered a "real" ultrarunner until you've done one. This
          results in more unprepared runners attempting them. So I guess the
          question is, given the fact of the lottery at WS, should the race be
          open to anyone who manages to minimally qualify even if they don't
          have a realistic chance to finish. Or should those who have a more
          realistic chance, based on stricter qualifying criteria (including
          experience), be given priority?

          On 24 Aug 00, at 22:15, Dale Keen wrote:

          > There are alot of us that could get to mountainous races etc. Like you
          > propose. Here in Texas we do have heat. I think the heat here is alot
          > tougher than moderate elevation like the Western States. I grew up in
          > Colorado so I know about elevation extremes. I think the qualifying
          > standards should be left alone. Don't discriminate against we flat
          > landers.
        • jmcdon07@wt.net
          Hey, I ve got it ... instead of a lottery let s just throw one great big happy immunity challenge ... and while we re at it let s vote runners out of the race
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 25 10:27 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey, I've got it ... instead of a lottery let's just throw one great
            big happy "immunity challenge"... and while we're at it let's vote
            runners out of the race at each medical check point ... we could even
            start serving rat meat and larve at the aid stations ... seriously
            folks, this thing is starting to get out of hand ... if it ain't
            broke don't fix it! Jerry McDonald

            --- In ws100@egroups.com, Stan Jensen <stanj@r...> wrote:
            > Dale Keen wrote:
            >
            > > You know it might not hurt to let the 60 and over start at 3 in
            the
            > > morning instead of 5 am. This would not make the race tougher
            for the
            > > race director at all. They would still have to make the cutoff
            times
            > > etc. Something similar to this idea might be able to work.
            Something
            > > to think about.
            >
            > While it's good that you're trying to come up with alternatives, an
            > "early start" at Western States would definitely make it harder on
            the
            > RD, the volunteers and others. Ask me off-line if you need more
            details.
            > Also, what about the 350+ runners who now have to pass those slower
            > runners on the narrow trails in the early sections? Just my
            $0.02 ...
            >
            > Stan
            > --
            > Stan Jensen, P.O. Box 3426, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-3426
            > http://www.Run100s.com/ mailto:StanJ@R...
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.