Running downhill on rainsoaked clay is about the same as running or driving downhill on a flat sheet of ice.
Another thing people are forgetting that we live in the age of lawsuits for stuff like this. Doug Todd made the right call.
Running downhill on rainsoaked clay is about the same as running or driving downhill on a flat sheet of ice.
Another thing people are forgetting that we live in the age of lawsuits for stuff like this. Doug Todd made the right call.
I have a strong grip on reality.
Someone who was actually there already posted and said one could walk the course.
If the course was walkable, it was runnable. It might not be pretty, it might not be fun, and yeah, some people would fall, but thats part of the game.
Aside from disastrous conditions occurring at the time like hurricane Katrina and twisters, you run. Its cross country, thats just how it works.
This has nothing to do with being a pussy, or "manning up", or California vs New england. I for one don't much care about that.
Its about bad game time decisions by the authorities there, and even worse decisions to hold a road race instead.
I'm not bashing, and lets refrain from the ad hominem attacks, shall we?
You run in the foot of sticky clay - yeah you fall, yeah it gets stuck to your shoes, and maybe you have to walk some parts, but thats just the nature of the sport.
be realistic wrote:
mud and clay do the same damn thing. stop beijng pussys
That's simply not true. The mud that the rest of the country is used to running in doesn't even exist in So. Cal. every part of Sac that isn't on asphalt is on clay. It's not about whether the clay made it more difficult or inconvienient for the runners, it's that it made it impossible. They simply could not have gotten enough friction to get up the hills, even in spikes the mud is to thick to get a purchase. What people are saying in regards to the clay stiking to shoes isn't that it made them heavy, but that clay on clay has no friction. None. It would be like ice-skating. Even if they could get up the hills (a huge if) the runners would have no ability to control their speed going down. They wouldn't have the convenience of being able to slow up, they would simply slide. With respect to Rene, having run both the NTN course and attempting to run the Mt. Sac course in the rain I would most definitely give the difficulty over to Mt. Sac. It was a good call on the race director's part.
wrong again.....The clay and mud in Tn and ky are just as bad but we don't complain! We just lace them up and run!
If you have not been to Mt. Sac and if you are not experienced with So. Cal clay, then you simply do not know what you are talking about.
I was not at the course, so I also can not offer an opinion if the course was runnable that day. However, I raced Mt Sac many times in the late 70's and early 80's, and am very experienced with so cal mud. I can easily see that it would not be runnable or walkable after a heavy rain.
I had plenty of trails around my house which were not runnable after a rain. It's not that I was a pussy. I went to Nor. Cal for college where it rains all winter, and had no problem running there (except for one trail which also had lots of clay).
You simply can not run up or down these clay trails. You can walk if you consider turning sideways, digging in deep with each step to be walking. But even they you had better get on the side of the trail where there is some vegetation, and don't go too fast or you'll slide back more than go forward. About 30-minutes per mile seems right.
It's unfortunate that they can't find a suitable alternate real cross-country course. I'm sure there is one around somewhere reasonably close, but that would be a logistical nightmare if it is not right on the Mt. Sac campus.
There are expecting rain for the finals in Balboa park. That's a course you can run rain or shine.
There are expecting rain for the finals in Balboa park. That's a course you can run rain or shine.[/quote]
Well I sure hope that doesn't happen, because if it does rain and the West Region does go out there kick ass then it will negate everything all of these guys have been so intelligently accusing the west of doing.
You know, dodging a "tough" course because they are from "california". Most people forget that the west region is made up of a lot more than california. I have to wonder if the guys in Utah, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Northern Arizona & Montana(and many parts of California) are able to man up like the rest of the tough country in the midwest and east. Western Oregon and Western Washington only get more rain than anywhere in the U.S. and those other states may only get 1-8 feet of snow where they train. But alas, the west region had to dodge the course because they just aren't tough enough.
I suppose it would be a good idea to hold a race on a course that got 3 feet of snow the night before as well too, even if you had a snow plowed road as an alternative.
Because the theme here is NEVER back out. No matter how ridiculous, how dangerous or even if it is just not runable you run. And if you don't your just not tough.
Well I for one will be watching to see just how tough these guys are from the other regions when Fernandez smells victory.
It'd be of interest for all of you to know also that the normal Mt. SAC course is run on a fair amount of asphalt - and for the FLW it still (like it did on saturday) finished on the track.
The four main components of the race that were missing were: the valley loops, switchbacks, poop out hill, and resevoir hill.
i think if you really have a problem with the race being switched to a course that is run on the road then you will also have a problem with the normal course because it has lot of road running on it.
For the detractors: it was UNSAFE for the runners. That is all.
To all the critics: send Doug Todd an email and ask him to send you one in return the next time his course gets this much rain and then in turn you will fly out and run a race on the course with all of the other critics and then you can come back here and tell us all about it.
Signed,
A non-Californian.
man up wrote:
To all the critics: send Doug Todd an email and ask him to send you one in return the next time his course gets this much rain and then in turn you will fly out and run a race on the course with all of the other critics and then you can come back here and tell us all about it.
Signed,
A non-Californian.
Our weather for this weekend calls for rain on Thursday night and all day Friday. Just like last week. C'mon on out, all you tough guys!
As for the other poster regarding the amount of asphalt on the Mt. SAC course: The airstrip is all of about 200m, as well as the section from the bottom of the switchbacks over to Poop Out. When they approach the finish, they are routed onto the grass shoulder. So maybe 500 meters of 2.9 miles is on asphalt. The rest is on the clay.
Pamela Andersons Left Nipple wrote:
As for the other poster regarding the amount of asphalt on the Mt. SAC course: The airstrip is all of about 200m, as well as the section from the bottom of the switchbacks over to Poop Out. When they approach the finish, they are routed onto the grass shoulder. So maybe 500 meters of 2.9 miles is on asphalt. The rest is on the clay.
Right... I guess I shouldn't say "a lot" of it is run on asphalt but the way some of these guys are talking, ANY asphalt on the course suddenly devoids the whole meaning of "XC".
This post was removed.
This post was removed.
This post was removed.