599 replies to this topic

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

Hi All,

A bit later than usual basically because there isn't anything new confirmed yet, but as I am going to give out a little info at a running club "Six Foot Program Launch", it may be appropriate to give a 'heads up' about a few things.

To recap:

Qualification period is now 15 months, i.e. from Dec 2010 onwards for all. This was announced just after the 2011 race and it is important that everyone qualifies at the earliest opportunity.

If you already have a qualifying time then any other qualifying time before our waves are adjusted can be submitted in order to improve your wave allocation. It will be better if everyone in waves are there on current performance, unless they are definitely going to run and stay with a slower partner.

Unconfirmed, but likely:

• Entries will open at 9am on Thursday 1st December for 'Guarranteed Entrants " only, and kept open until 9pm Friday 2nd December. Entries for other sections - 'Other veterans' and 'Novices' will be concurrently opened at 9am Saturday 3rd December on 'first in first served' basis.
  
• Once the latter two categories are filled, a number (to be determined) of waitlisted entrants will be taken in each category and allocations from waitlist to confirmed will be made automatically by the system- as an entrant withdraws, the first on waitlist will be offered a spot, and if no acceptance in 24hrs will be removed from waitlist and spot offered to next in line.
  
• The 'early wave' will be done away with. All runners irrespective of age will be assigned to a wave based on their performance ability. Note that early wave runners still had only 7hrs to complete course, so they will not be disadvantaged.
  
• The start of first wave will be moved forward to as early as logistically possible. At this stage that will most likely be 7am (previous early wave start). Wave stagger times and sizes will be as before.
  
• Parking at Jenolan Caves is limited, and the amount of cars impedes on finish area logistics. This year a number of cars were turned back at the car parks because there was no space- an unfortunate experience for those who had to travel approximately 200km. It is intended to limit the amount of cars that travel to JC to spectate, and this may be done by issuing parking permits.

All for now. There will obviously be some negative reaction to some of the above. However please note that the changes are necessary for logistics, the continuing safe management of the race, and for a possible bigger announcement that may be made shortly.

Happy training and good luck with qualification.

[GoldCoastRunner]

Fantastic cannot wait. Hope to get a spot as i have not done this one before I take it the novice spots are limited to just a few?

[johnnyboyrun]

oh Yeah!!! cant wait for this one!!!!!!! Glad entry for the others wont be on the 1st of december as i will be on a plane to IMWA..... 6ft is one of my favs!!

[tim]

I have not really been keeping up to date with this race and i am a little confused as to the conflicting information on the web page.  Can I ask this question.  I have run and finished 9 sixfoot track races but missed last year's race.  Does this mean I now need to run a qualifier?

[Horrie]

tim, on 04 October 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

I have not really been keeping up to date with this race and i am a little confused as to the conflicting information on the web page.  Can I ask this question.  I have run and finished 9 sixfoot track races but missed last year's race.  Does this mean I now need to run a qualifier?

Yes you do Tim. You have Fitzroy Falls on Saturday or Glenbrook Trail on 27 November. Good luck with it.

[tim]

thanks Horrie.

I thought that may be the case but checking the web site it still says 5 years for previous finishers.  

I am sure this has all been said before but the new rules seem to undervalue experience.

[Dave]

Of course when you do qualify, as having already finished 9 previous races you get a guaranteed spot if you decide to enter. I am sure all of those who have to go through the "first in first served" entry basis would not undervalue that advantage!

[thomo]

tim, on 04 October 2011 - 07:50 PM, said:

I am sure this has all been said before but the new rules seem to undervalue experience.

I'm sure you knew that was the case before you posted.

That it has all been discussed and discussed and discussed.

[tim]

thomo, on 04 October 2011 - 08:11 PM, said:

I'm sure you knew that was the case before you posted.

No I was unsure since I imagined the web site would have been up to date.

[Rico]

Yeah baby!  Looking forward to facing the entry morning showdown at home on a laptop rather than in the pacific ocean with an iphone like last year.

[Dave]

tim, on 04 October 2011 - 08:16 PM, said:

No I was unsure since I imagined the web site would have been up to date.

What, so information like this?

http://www.sixfoot.com/2012entry.php

Which is also clearly linked from here?

http://www.sixfoot.c...trycriteria.php

Joking aside, we (Striders) are seeking a person to take up the task of keeping the website up to date. The previous occupant (Kev) has indicated he is seeking to step back/down. Long term goal is to shift to an easier to update site format (thinking  CMS vs having to plod around with HTML) but in the interim HTML and FTP skills are an advantage, no necessity to being a Strider but would be handy!

Edit : PM me or better still email president@sydneystriders.org.au if you are interested & capable

Edited by Dave, 04 October 2011 - 08:48 PM.

[tim]

Dave, on 04 October 2011 - 08:45 PM, said:

What, so information like this?

http://www.sixfoot.com/2012entry.php

Which is also clearly linked from here?

http://www.sixfoot.c...trycriteria.php

sorry I only I looked here http://www.sixfoot.c...trycriteria.php

clicked on the link and it said


2012 Race Entry
   Entries will open in December 2011

  

• All entries will be online - in 2011 the race filled in 10minutes  so please read the information posted here so you do not miss out
• All runners need to follow the overview of entry procedure - will be updated for 2012
• All runners need to meet the entry criteria [updated 26th March 2011]

so then i clicked on the entry criteria and it took me back to the first page.

Edited by tim, 04 October 2011 - 08:52 PM.

[flyingemu]

tim, on 04 October 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

I have not really been keeping up to date with this race and i am a little confused as to the conflicting information on the web page.  Can I ask this question.  I have run and finished 9 sixfoot track races but missed last year's race.  Does this mean I now need to run a qualifier?

I'm sure Colin would consider a C2K finish as a suitable qualifier.....

[Dave]

Tim, if only you looked 1 line lower!

Changes in procedure for 2012
The following changes are confirmed:
The period for a qualification event has been reduced from 5 years for veterans and 3 years for novices to one year, 3 months for all. To qualify for the 2012 race your qualifying run needs to have been later than 1st Dec 2010

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

I had known that Kevin updated the website to include the 15 month qualifier, but had been unaware until this afternoon that the old info was still on the site somewhere. Will get him to remove that or ammend across board. However as Thomo indicated it was discussed and also emailed to all on newsletter list.

The race does value experience, hence the guarrantee section as Dave pointed out. But at the same time the race does expect everyone to be fit enough at the time. If one has missed 6ft - and all other races one assumes - for over a year, even up to 5 yrs, then as part of ones training it would be expected to do a race of some sort that matches the qualifying criteria. Not too much too ask.

edit:

Btw, I have just got home from another excellent NRG (Northside Running Group) 6ft launch. Always a pleasure to be part of it and address the newbies in particular and hopefully allay their fears, if not about the race itself then at least about the entry process and qualification.

Edited by SixFootTrackMarathon, 04 October 2011 - 09:25 PM.

[GoldCoastRunner]

I am curious and this may be met with a onslaught of abuse, BUT I have to ask.

If you have run the event before and thus guaranteed entry (provided you have a suitable qualifier) then isn’t it feasible that with the large demand for this race and large number of now "Veterans" of the race kicking around the place that new entries to the race will soon no longer be accepted due to the large demand from veteran competitors filling almost all the spots on there early entry/preferred entry scheme......

I dunno but the race comes across a bit of a "private club" (in the lose sense of the term) keen to have past entrants enter again and again at the sacrifice of new competitors toeing the line.

I may have this all wrong, but at this stage as someone who is looking from the outside in, as a "newbie" to the race the culture doesn’t seem to promote it self well to new competitors.

[arrtgrrl]

Gold coast runner.. i think for guaranteed entry you have had to have completed 5 or more six foots and then qualify..

Naomi

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

GoldCoastRunner, on 05 October 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

I am curious and this may be met with a onslaught of abuse, BUT I have to ask.
/////
I dunno but the race comes across a bit of a "private club" (in the lose sense of the term) keen to have past entrants enter again and again at the sacrifice of new competitors toeing the line.

I may have this all wrong, but at this stage as someone who is looking from the outside in, as a "newbie" to the race the culture doesn’t seem to promote it self well to new competitors.

Fair questions if the answers are not clear on website.

The guarranteed section last year only included 'veterans' that had completed 5 races or more (going for buckle and upwards), plus previous winners, podiums of certain qualifiers, sponsors, volunteers etc. The total entered in that section came to less than 250.

It should grow, but we may or may not trim it down to those with 5, then say 8 upwards etc to keep it in vicinity of 260, but need to do the stats first.

Then to your earlier question on amount of newbies being "a few", last year 320 spots were reserved for novices and the balance were veterans with 1-4 finishes.
Again, this was based on stats of previous years.

So, 6FT is actually catering for new competitors unlike other limited field races of its type. By all accounts, since both vets and novices are complaining, we are striking a fair balance.

Then again...there is always that pending 'bigger announcement' that can improve things

[GoldCoastRunner]

Ahh cool I get it now. The confusion was I thought 1 pervious finish classed you as a vet not 5 finishes. If that is the case then all is now clear.

Thanks 6ft track that explanation makes much more sense.

[arrtgrrl]

oooh im wondering if the pending announcement might be an increase in starting numbers ;-)
Naomi

[Colin]

arrtgrrl, on 05 October 2011 - 03:40 PM, said:

oooh im wondering if the pending announcement might be an increase in starting numbers ;-)
Naomi

Not that I would know, but you wouldn't be starting rumours now.

[arrtgrrl]

ha ha just wishful thinking lol and seemed liked a good guess :-)

Naomi

[flyingemu]

Love ya work Colin! Sound like pretty sensible changes to me.

Hopefully the colour of the shirts this year match my shoes, lol.
Come to think of it, I have so many pairs of shoes it won't matter what colour the shirt is.
Come to think of it, if the shirt is the same dodgy quality as last year, I won't wear it anyway. I've only worn my shirt from last year once.

Anyway, the countdown to the race of the year has begun!

[arrtgrrl]

emu we all know that you will go out and buy matching shoes, shorts and hat to go with the six foot shirt lol

[flyingemu]

arrtgrrl, on 06 October 2011 - 01:29 PM, said:

emu we all know that you will go out and buy matching shoes, shorts and hat to go with the six foot shirt lol

lol, sure... unless the shirt is pink, then i'll borrow your skirt.

[arrtgrrl]

ha ha no skirts for me.. they slow you down :-)

[slowlane]

What is the reason for doing away with the early wave?

[walshy2]

Can I please just clarify a point from the below criteria

If a veteran runs a qualifier that allows them a higher wave start than their 2011 6ft time would allow, their 2012 wave allocation is based on their 2011 6ft time not a faster qualifier?

If the idea is to provide wave starts based on most recent performance, why not base wave alloactions on last years 6ft time or any other qualifying time within the qualifying period for veterans as wave allocation for veterans based on last years 6ft time disadvantages those who may have run a slower time back then due to injury, illness etc?


"For Six Foot veterans, your wave start will be based on your most 2011 six foot time, or your qualifier time if you did not run in 2011 - we prefer an indicator of current form rather than a 3yr old time in determining the wave starts. For Six Foot novices, your wave start will be based on your qualifying race/time "

Edited by walshy2, 07 October 2011 - 08:08 PM.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

walshy2, on 07 October 2011 - 08:06 PM, said:

If a veteran runs a qualifier that allows them a higher wave start than their 2011 6ft time would allow, their 2012 wave allocation is based on their 2011 6ft time not a faster qualifier?

If the idea is to provide wave starts based on most recent performance, why not base wave alloactions on last years 6ft time or any other qualifying time within the qualifying period for veterans as wave allocation for veterans based on last years 6ft time disadvantages those who may have run a slower time back then due to injury, illness etc?

Exactly , see what I said here:

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 04 October 2011 - 12:09 PM, said:

If you already have a qualifying time then any other qualifying time before our waves are adjusted can be submitted in order to improve your wave allocation. It will be better if everyone in waves are there on current performance, unless they are definitely going to run and stay with a slower partner.

My apologies for the 6FT website not being totally consistent...I am not an admin there.

I will accept a 'better qualifier' until just before our waves and bib numbers are determined as close to race as possible. The less faster people we have behind slower people the better. They will thank me for it on the single trail.

Just trying to be 'benevolent'  for rohan's sake...not that he cares about 6FT.

slowlane, on 07 October 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

What is the reason for doing away with the early wave?

Actually...what is the reason for having an earlier wave made up of diverse performances? None whatsoever...they still have 7hrs to complete the course. However there was no reason to move it until now, because the only way we can start the race earlier is to get rid of the early wave.

Edited by SixFootTrackMarathon, 07 October 2011 - 09:31 PM.

[Trailmad]

I would like to ask the question since it says that the qualifier has to be after December 1st 2010. What is the case if one qualified doing last years Two bays race in January 2011, but DNF'd in 2012 due to a torn hammmy. Is that race considered a qualifier for this years race or does one have run Two bay in 2012 again to qualify. is the fact having a DNF revert you back to novice status or what?

I am running the Kepler challenge on 3rd December in NZ...race starts at 8am. if the entries open at 9am on the day, this is going to place me in a totally awful predicament, isn't it? Are there any other options available to enter?....very confused what the rules are and what i need to do be able to run in 2012,,,,,help please!!

cheers

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

Trailmad, on 09 October 2011 - 12:33 AM, said:

I would like to ask the question since it says that the qualifier has to be after December 1st 2010. What is the case if one qualified doing last years Two bays race in January 2011, but DNF'd in 2012 due to a torn hammmy. Is that race considered a qualifier for this years race or does one have run Two bay in 2012 again to qualify. is the fact having a DNF revert you back to novice status or what?

I am running the Kepler challenge on 3rd December in NZ...race starts at 8am. if the entries open at 9am on the day, this is going to place me in a totally awful predicament, isn't it? Are there any other options available to enter?....very confused what the rules are and what i need to do be able to run in 2012,,,,,help please!!

I don't see what your confusion is.

if you haven't completed a 6Ft you are a novice and enter under the novice category. If you have a qualifier since Dec 2010 you can use that.

On any day of month, some people will not be able to access a computer, may be flying somewhere etc. So just like you would do for a rock concert booking you get someone else to do the entry for you. Online entry- when it opens- is the only way you can enter, the rules are pretty straightforward.

cheers

[slowlane]

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 07 October 2011 - 09:30 PM, said:

Actually...what is the reason for having an earlier wave made up of diverse performances? None whatsoever...they still have 7hrs to complete the course. However there was no reason to move it until now, because the only way we can start the race earlier is to get rid of the early wave.

Actually, there is. It gave the older competitors a chance to clear Nellies without being bowled over by the masses. Very hard to bounce back from injury the older you get. Whilst not a necessity, it was a very nice gesture. As most of this wave cleared Nellies within 30 minutes, the race start could still be bought forward by 1/2 hour.

The way I am reading this is that the Early wave competitors are being sacrificed for the sake of having greater numbers in the race, very sad.

[Coogee1979M]

slowlane, on 09 October 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Actually, there is. It gave the older competitors a chance to clear Nellies without being bowled over by the masses. Very hard to bounce back from injury the older you get. Whilst not a necessity, it was a very nice gesture. As most of this wave cleared Nellies within 30 minutes, the race start could still be bought forward by 1/2 hour.

The way I am reading this is that the Early wave competitors are being sacrificed for the sake of having greater numbers in the race, very sad.

I am guessing that one reason for the removal of the early wave is to reduce the chance of someone from the early wave finishing before competitors in Wave 1.

If my memory serves me correct (and it is getting worse with age), in 2011 the first female across the line was from the early wave, even though her time was worse than the first female from wave 1.

Even if the early wave remained in place with a 30 minute time differential, the possibility of an early wave starter being first to Jenolan Caves would still exist.

[rodthehornet]

Slowlane,

There are roughly 50 runners in the early wave.  I can see where this is going and if it means a change in start times to increase capacity, then an extra XXX spots is going to win out over 50 early starters who are not being denied a spot in the field.  You cant bring the field half hour forward as all of wave 1 and a fair chunk of W2 would catch the early wave on the single track with 30 mins less of a head start.  I run out of W2 and catch about 5-10 early starters on the single track to the river already with 60mins start.  It would be bedlam with all the W1 runners catching the 50 early starters on the single track.  

If the concern is being bowled over, just self seed at the back of the wave that suits your speed.  Best I can see noone is being 'sacrificed' on the Nellies Glen altar as you so eloquently put it.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

slowlane, on 09 October 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

Actually, there is. It gave the older competitors a chance to clear Nellies without being bowled over by the masses. Very hard to bounce back from injury the older you get. Whilst not a necessity, it was a very nice gesture. As most of this wave cleared Nellies within 30 minutes, the race start could still be bought forward by 1/2 hour.

The way I am reading this is that the Early wave competitors are being sacrificed for the sake of having greater numbers in the race, very sad.

A person over 60 that will be running 6:30 pace will start with other 6:30 pace runners, those of 5:30 pace with others of 5:30 pace and so on. I don't see how they would be disadvantaged down Nellies.

I gave the logistical reasons why I need to remove the early wave, and if you still believe you do need it then you are selfishly putting yourself above the organisation of the race.

Even without an extra xxx spots, the early wave needs to be removed because everyone would benefit from an earlier start and the logistics at finish are can be better managed.
If we do get an extra xxx spots then the removal of the early wave is not negotiable.

Rod is spot on about the 30min differential leading to single track jam...but in any case there isn't a good reason to have that wave, when the cut off is still 7hrs.

[slowlane]

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 09 October 2011 - 10:24 PM, said:

I gave the logistical reasons why I need to remove the early wave, and if you still believe you do need it then you are selfishly putting yourself above the organisation of the race.

I do not appreciate that comment. I have not attacked your decision. I am simply putting a point across in the hope that you will at least give it some extra thought.

As for me, I don't care either way what happens. If I want to do a race then I'll do it regardless. However, I train with several gentlemen in this wave that have supported the race for a number of years and are not happy with this decision and are now reconsidering if they will start in 2012. I have seen some of these men injured and have also seen how long it takes for them to recover. The fact that they are 70+ and still able to do 6ft is a credit to them and amazing to me knowing how hard the course is.

Again, I do not want this to go the way of some other threads. I realise there are various issues that need to be considered and as you are the race director then your decision is the only one that matters and they will have to wear it. All I am doing is letting you know how some people feel.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

I do not appreciate that comment. I have not attacked your decision. I am simply putting a point across in the hope that you will at least give it some extra thought.

You don't appreciate me saying you are selfish if you 'want' your own needs put above 1000 others....

....but you expect me to 'appreciate' this?

slowlane, on 09 October 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

The way I am reading this is that the Early wave competitors are being sacrificed for the sake of having greater numbers in the race, very sad.

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

However, I train with several gentlemen in this wave that have supported the race for a number of years and are not happy with this decision and are now reconsidering if they will start in 2012. I have seen some of these men injured and have also seen how long it takes for them to recover. The fact that they are 70+ and still able to do 6ft is a credit to them and amazing to me knowing how hard the course is.

There were 27 'gentlemen' between 60-69 who used that wave, coming from various locations, and one over 70...and you train with several?   Quite often what people say they do and what they actually do and will do in future are two totally different things.
'Needs' are really 'wants'...and a successful organiser would need to know the difference.
And how many of these 70 yo's people have fallen on Nellies Glen, knocked over by others? Just stick to facts and you will understand why we need to do things. As Rod said, if you are toey running down NG, then 'self seed'...and in any case you are placed with similar speed runners, rather than runners between 4:48 and 6:54, as was the case with these 28 runners.
For the record there were a further 21 ladies between 50-59, hardly what one calls 'old' these days in marathon runners and 3 between 60-69...making a grand total of 50.

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

Again, I do not want this to go the way of some other threads. I realise there are various issues that need to be considered and as you are the race director then your decision is the only one that matters and they will have to wear it. All I am doing is letting you know how some people feel.

...and I have stated now several times what the real reasons are, the logistal problems we already face and the future demands, and the only way we can even start addressing those is to accept that we have to do this. If those 50 people are telling you they won't do it, then what do you think we should do? Would you call their 'wants' selfish?

Edited by SixFootTrackMarathon, 10 October 2011 - 10:45 AM.

[Brick]

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 10:17 AM, said:

I do not appreciate that comment. I have not attacked your decision. I am simply putting a point across in the hope that you will at least give it some extra thought.

As for me, I don't care either way what happens. If I want to do a race then I'll do it regardless. However, I train with several gentlemen in this wave that have supported the race for a number of years and are not happy with this decision and are now reconsidering if they will start in 2012. I have seen some of these men injured and have also seen how long it takes for them to recover. The fact that they are 70+ and still able to do 6ft is a credit to them and amazing to me knowing how hard the course is.

Again, I do not want this to go the way of some other threads. I realise there are various issues that need to be considered and as you are the race director then your decision is the only one that matters and they will have to wear it. All I am doing is letting you know how some people feel.

I know the Six Foot Track race director would not tell you this himself.
But quite a few of his very close friends run from the Early Wave so I am sure he knows what it means to them all.
I guess he is putting the need of the many ahead of the need of the few.

[slowlane]

Brick, on 10 October 2011 - 10:55 AM, said:

I know the Six Foot Track race director would not tell you this himself.
But quite a few of his very close friends run from the Early Wave so I am sure he knows what it means to them all.
I guess he is putting the need of the many ahead of the need of the few.

Fair enough and I appreciate your reply, thankyou.

Colin, are you calling me a liar? I suggest you re-check your records for people that have birthdays this year or did not start this year, you will find there are several. Check their club...same as mine.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

Colin, are you calling me a liar? I suggest you re-check your records for people that have birthdays this year or did not start this year, you will find there are several. Check their club...same as mine.

What are you on about? You said you train with 'several' and all I did was show you how little runners used the early wave and that only one was over 70. You can't argue with the records. I don't even know who you are mate so what has your club got to do with it? Why are you starting a fight over something so trivial?
And if they "did not start' this year, then and only turn 60 this year, then this is something that they did not have so why worry?
The early wave was not brought in because of the safety over 60+ dowen Nellies. At the time I believe it was because 'mountain man' wanted the extra hour and at that stage it was inconsequential given the numbers that then ran, and it gained more starters. In fact Mountain Man wanted the extra hour to be a 'finish' i.e. 8hrs.
Now given that you still are only allowed 7hrs, it is has no real benefit, in fact by starting in the appropriately paced wave you are 'safer' down NG.

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

Fair enough and I appreciate your reply, thankyou..

But you don't appreciate me taking the time to explain something trivial to you?

Edited by SixFootTrackMarathon, 10 October 2011 - 06:31 PM.

[slowlane]

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 10 October 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

But you don't appreciate me taking the time to explain something trivial to you?

I don't appreciate that you have to attack people and try to belittle them in your replies.
I am not arguing with the records but you are obviously only looking at this years results.

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 10 October 2011 - 06:29 PM, said:

And if they "did not start' this year, then and only turn 60 this year, then this is something that they did not have so why worry?

I never said they were 60+.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 07:03 PM, said:

I don't appreciate that you have to attack people and try to belittle them in your replies.
I am not arguing with the records but you are obviously only looking at this years results.

You talking about this reply?

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 09 October 2011 - 10:24 PM, said:

I gave the logistical reasons why I need to remove the early wave, and if you still believe you do need it then you are selfishly putting yourself above the organisation of the race.

Yes, if people are telling you -as their self appointed spokesman it seems- that they will reconsider doing it, then they are "selfishly putting themselves above the organisation of the race."

May I remind you what you said in your very first post to me:

slowlane, on 09 October 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

The way I am reading this is that the Early wave competitors are being sacrificed for the sake of having greater numbers in the race, very sad.

Given that provocative statement, you can be glad I actually took the time to explain the decision to you.

slowlane, on 10 October 2011 - 07:03 PM, said:

I never said they were 60+.

Only 60+ 'gentlemen' were able to make use of that wave. So what age are they?

It appears that having been given a response you are not happy with, you are now trolling to cause an argument.
Where's Horrie...isn't he the resident 'troll identfier'?  

Edited by SixFootTrackMarathon, 10 October 2011 - 08:12 PM.

[Horrie]

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 10 October 2011 - 08:07 PM, said:

It appears that having been given a response you are not happy with, you are now trolling to cause an argument.
Where's Horrie...isn't he the resident 'troll identfier'?  

Troll alert. I don't get it. They aren't 60+ but they are upset about the early wave being eliminated. And they all belong to the same club. What club would that be? The troll club?

[Jogger]

Apologies all for the delay in updating the website. All my fault. Hopefully someone will remove my access now!

Quote

Troll alert. I don't get it. They aren't 60+ but they are upset about the early wave being eliminated. And they all belong to the same club. What club would that be? The troll club?

Horrie - there are a number of old-timers that are very very passionate about the race and really appreciated the early start (male over60 and female over50). They feel that the decision to remove it has come very quickly with no notice and they are just having their say - there is no need to be nasty about it. I know which club but I daresay when the info filters thru then more people from other clubs will complain. I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with the decision, but its right that people can voice their opinion without being slammed. Yes there are only 50-odd but some of those runners have knocked up a heck of a lot of finishes and the race would not be where it is today without some of those pioneers.

Quote

Note that early wave runners still had only 7hrs to complete course, so they will not be disadvantaged.

I have heard a lot of feedback to the effect that a more sedate start with only 50 runners was a big advantage. True 7hrs for a counting finish but 8hrs+ before they got pulled by a sweeper. Only the RD can make the call whether to sacrifice the early start for 150-200 extra runners -if it was me I would go for the extra runners, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice it for zero extra runners.

[Jogger]

Of course I forgot to add : jeesusit'salmostsixfootseasonagainandIamalreadyexcited!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote

I dunno but the race comes across a bit of a "private club" (in the lose sense of the term) keen to have past entrants enter again and again at the sacrifice of new competitors toeing the line.

the numbersguy will chime in soon and remind us all that approx 40%-50% of the field each year is newbies.

Quote

I may have this all wrong, but at this stage as someone who is looking from the outside in, as a "newbie" to the race the culture doesn’t seem to promote it self well to new competitors.

does the race need to promote itself anymore? demand way exceeds supply.

[Horrie]

Jogger, on 10 October 2011 - 10:54 PM, said:

Horrie - there are a number of old-timers that are very very passionate about the race and really appreciated the early start (male over60 and female over50). They feel that the decision to remove it has come very quickly with no notice and they are just having their say - there is no need to be nasty about it. I know which club but I daresay when the info filters thru then more people from other clubs will complain. I am not agreeing nor disagreeing with the decision, but its right that people can voice their opinion without being slammed. Yes there are only 50-odd but some of those runners have knocked up a heck of a lot of finishes and the race would not be where it is today without some of those pioneers.

Sorry Jogger but I was only having a light hearted dig. I will now be more serious.

When you wanted to pass on the mantle of RD there weren't exactly people bashing down your door to take it on. Colin stepped in and since he has, there has been unprecedented growth in the event. To cope with the growing demand he has needed to make some changes. Changes such as having run a qualifier within 15 months and now the elimination of the early wave are going to upset some of our veterans. I remember the good old days when I entered my first 6 Foot about a week before the event. But times change and we have to move with them. If there is a way of opening up more places in the field, any RD would be negligent if he did not look at all his options.

[Kato]

SixFootTrackMarathon

I feel your frustration.  There are people who are complaining about not enough new runners being allowed.  There are people complaining about not enough veterans being allowed.  There are even people who are, it seems, complaining about the steps you're taking to get more novices AND veterans into the race.  Hopefully folks can take a step back and see the bigger picture - they mightn't entirely agree with the way things are done (opinions are like nipples - everyone has one) but the motives for doing them that way are sound, and on public display.  Keep up the good work!

As for the "eight hours before the sweeper" deal for the early wave, with all entries now limited to people who have a qualifying race less than fifteen months old there will be very little demand for this concession.  If they can't manage the bustle of the pack down Nellies Glen, they should start at the back of their wave.  I can't see more than a very flimsy argument there.

[SixFootTrackMarathon]

Let's put the 'early start' issue to bed, there are other things to talk about and I am happy to address anything else.

Thanks to Horrie and Kato for their support- and Rod and Coogee before that. And I support what Horrie said, irrespective of who these guys are, because to persistently misrepresent the situation after an explanation fits the definition of a troll. And just like Kevin gets calls from a 'shire'/bush club on this , I have had emails and text asking me why I am allowing this guy to carry on dragging the name of 6FT down. Guys, my phone number is on website, give me a call -- I am the current RD and happy to explain things.

Firstly:

It is my intention to do away with the early start even if the race stays at 850 because this is the only way we can move the whole race forward by up to one hour. The current logistical situation post race, where we struggle to put on a presentation, while people rush off to cars before the road gets closed, and buses have to leave and descend, RFS demanding immediate decisions on this from the RD in middle of presentation etc is an absolute mess that we don't have to put up with for the sake of 50 people who want an early start but still have to run under 7hrs.

If we get a go ahead on extra people- extra wave- then the moving of race start would be an absolute requirement. But this is the secondary reason.

On the question of long time veterans having 8 hrs before getting pulled by a sweeper, that is a flimsy argument as well. What are last year's stats?
Only one runner 'finished' behind 7hrs and before the sweepers and she was a novice.
Another novice only made it to Pluvi - after nearly 3hrs to river, i.e. hopelessly out of depth, she was an overseas runner I allowed in.
Two veterans pulled out at Pluvi.

In other words, only one runner, a novice , benefited from this 'window' and even so she still has a DNF recorded against her name.

The Nellies Glen argument:
Last race the 50 runners were spaced between performances from 4:48 to 6:54. If they are placed in a wave of their performance, a narrower band, they will be accompanied by more people of their pace throughout the race. If they are worried about NG, they should simply start towards back of their wave.
If this is the best argument they have, then why not stay in their separate wave and start after all other waves- just hypothetical of course, but they wouldn't accept it.

Timing of announcement: This is something that I could tell them one month or one week away from race. It does not affect their preparation and is inconsequential to what they are doing at present. It is a race management decision. Another flimsy argument.

The history of this wave: Kevin can correct this, but he told me that one runner who could no longer complete it under 7hrs wanted the extra hour - because there was one hour light before current start- and also wanted it to go towards his finish. He no longer races there because that wasn't acceded to. There was no other logical reason for it and once it was there it was used by others. The RD made a rod for his own back by allowing this.
When finishers were 600 it was easier to mangage what now has become a shemozzle at JC finish, buses, traffic etc...this is no longer the case and we have to change things.

Hopefully the rest are happy with this, but it is really unnecessary to ask of me to explain in detail what is a very simple decision and to keep pestering and inflaming the issue on a forum when you have had an adequate response. That is the work of a troll. (time waster as per Kevin's post below).

Edited by SixFootTrackMarathon, 11 October 2011 - 09:32 AM.

[Jogger]

Quote

When you wanted to pass on the mantle of RD there weren't exactly people bashing down your door to take it on. Colin stepped in and since he has, there has been unprecedented growth in the event. To cope with the growing demand he has needed to make some changes. Changes such as having run a qualifier within 15 months and now the elimination of the early wave are going to upset some of our veterans. I remember the good old days when I entered my first 6 Foot about a week before the event. But times change and we have to move with them. If there is a way of opening up more places in the field, any RD would be negligent if he did not look at all his options.

I hear you, and support the changes but I don't like calling people "trolls" (time wasters and serial pests) when they are legitimate runners asking legitimate questions on behalf of their mates who don't use the internet much if at all. Its a tough gig being RD but well-reasoned discussion should always be encouraged, not slammed.

[slowlane]

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 10 October 2011 - 08:07 PM, said:

And if they "did not start' this year, then and only turn 60 this year, then this is something that they did not have so why worry?

This was the comment I was referring to, I was not referring to this group but rather those that turn 70.

SixFootTrackMarathon, on 10 October 2011 - 08:07 PM, said:

It appears that having been given a response you are not happy with, you are now trolling to cause an argument.
Where's Horrie...isn't he the resident 'troll identfier'?  

It seems if you don't like a reply you start making false accusations.

Forums are supposed to be for open discussion, not personal attacks.

Kev you are exactly right, people should be able to have their say without being slammed and a bar room brawl erupting.