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

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

Expand Messages
  • Ziesing, Hunter S
    3 AM start--great idea for you old farts. man this getting stuff is bumming me out. I barely made 30 hours at age 40. happy summers end ...
    Message 1 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      3 AM start--great idea for you old farts.
      man this getting stuff is bumming me out.
      I barely made 30 hours at age 40.

      happy summers end

      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Dale Keen [SMTP:dalekeen@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 3:36 AM
      > To: ws100@egroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ws100] Special cutoffs for 60+ at WS
      >
      > 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.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      _____________________________________________________________________
      IMPORTANT NOTICES:
      This message is intended only for the addressee. Please notify the
      sender by e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. If you are not the
      intended recipient, you may not copy, disclose, or distribute this message
      or its contents to any other person and any such actions may be unlawful.

      Banc of America Securities LLC("BAS") does not accept time
      sensitive, action-oriented messages or transaction orders, including orders
      to purchase or sell securities, via e-mail.

      BAS reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all
      messages sent to or from this e-mail address. Messages sent to or from this
      e-mail address may be stored on the BAS e-mail system.
    • thewashman@aol.com
      Yeah, and how about an exemption for us slow 50 year olds too? Let s not be disciminatory. Later, Jeff Washburn
      Message 2 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Yeah, and how about an exemption for us slow 50 year olds too? Let's not be disciminatory.

        Later,
        Jeff Washburn
      • Andrew Holak
        I ve just got to make a comment to those on this list over 60. You have my (and most other runners) utmost admiration for even starting 100 mile foot races
        Message 3 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          I've just got to make a comment to those on this list over 60. You have my (and most other runners) utmost admiration for even starting 100 mile foot races and running as well as you do. It saddens me to hear so many older people say that because of their age they have to sit their butts on an ATV or other motorized contraption to enjoy the outdoors. Older runners like yourselves prove that using these motorized crutches to enjoy the outdoors is not a necessity, and that with a little active attention, getting out and using this body we were given, you can stay active and enjoy the outdoors the way it was meant to be enjoyed...under your own power! Thanks for being an inspiration to so many!

          Andy Holak
          Duluth, MN

          >>> greg m soderlund <gsoderlund@...> 08/24/00 12:38AM >>>
          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.
          Although it is not my decision to make, I would not want to encourage
          special consideration for any age group at WS. I am talking as an RD
          here, not a participant. No one loves this sport more than I do and I
          would like to see every runner finish every ultra. I wish it were a
          perfect World so everyone could finish and run a PR at the same time.

          It may be important to remember that the original intention in 1977 was
          to run WS in the same manner as the Tevis Cup horse race. As it was told
          to me, Andy Gonzalez was able to meet the same cutoffs as the horses but
          two runners (the only other runners still standing) were not. It seems
          to me there were seven starters in this first "Official WS 100." Ralph
          Paffenbarger and Peter Mattei requested permission to finish the Run, but
          as unofficial finishers. The Run organizers agreed to their request and
          went home to get some sleep, or so the story goes. In the early morning
          hours, Mo Livermore and Bob Lind returned to the finish, which in 1977
          was at the horse arena on the Placer County Fair Grounds. Ralph and
          Peter arrived well after the 24 hour cutoff but were given "Official
          Finisher Status" but no buckle, thus was born the 30 hour final cutoff.

          I am well aware of the statistics as they relate to age at WS. There is
          a very real degradation in the finishing rate as the runner grows older.
          It's not fair and nobody likes getting older. My question to the other
          listers would be: Should the Run make exceptions for all age groups and
          both sexes? Should the Run look at all the statistical relations for
          each age group and tailor the final cutoff for all of them? Should the
          Run give special consideration to just one age group? Should the 59 year
          old be confined to the 30-hour cutoff and the 60 year old allowed an
          additional two hours? Can the Run be designed and administered in such a
          way that it is absolutely fair for every participant? Is it fair to ask
          the volunteers to extend their patience and efforts another two hours?

          In the end, I recognize that cutoffs for every ultra are arbitrary but
          still loosely based on the maximum amount of time that it would likely
          and reasonably take for the average trained runner to complete any given
          course. Many will not make the cutoffs for any number of reasons. This
          is the very thing that makes the ultra distance a challenge and
          attractive to so many, the very real possibility that one will not
          finish. It is this very risk that keeps me coming back. There will come
          a day when each of us cannot make the cutoff and that will be a very
          lousy day.

          Happy trails,

          Greg Soderlund, RD
          Western States Endurance Run http://www.ws100.com
          Way Too Cool 50K, Montrail/Patagonia American River 50
          242 Hartnell Place, Sacramento, CA 95825 Ph : 916-638-1161
          http://www.run100s.com/snu -- E-mail: gsoderlund@...


          ________________________________________________________________
          YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
          Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
          Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
          http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


          To Post a message, send it to: ws100@...

          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: ws100-unsubscribe@...
        • thewashman@aol.com
          You know, what we really need is an exemption to the $195 entry fee. WOW! As much as I want to go to Western States every chance I get, I m not sure I will
          Message 4 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            You know, what we really need is an exemption to the $195 entry fee. WOW! As much as I want to go to Western States every chance I get, I'm not sure I will be able to go for some time. I'm going to have to win a bigger lottery than the one for the race if I want to keep running the race.

            Later,
            Jeff Washburn
          • Falcontomc@aol.com
            There many 60 and over runners who who have no trouble with or need more liberal cut-offs. Western States is the great race it is because of the difficulty,
            Message 5 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              There many 60 and over runners who who have no trouble with or need more
              liberal cut-offs. Western States is the great race it is because of the
              difficulty, the various time constraints etc. We should leave it alone. I
              would love to try Kevins Kettle Moraine but have doubts as to whether I could
              make the 28 hour limit {i'm 57]. Its not great getting older and even worse
              having your friends discover AARP sends you Modern Maturity Magazine but we
              have to accept the fact we get slower with age. I look for Ultras I think I
              have a good shot at finishing. My heads down fire away.

              Tom Crull
            • Falcontomc@aol.com
              Right on Jeff! Tom Crull
              Message 6 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Right on Jeff!

                Tom Crull
              • 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 7 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
                • 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@...
                • Dale Keen
                  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
                  Message 8 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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@...>
                    >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
                  • 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 9 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
                    • 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 10 of 12 , Aug 24, 2000
                      • 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 11 of 12 , Aug 25, 2000
                        • 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.