indeed. or it could be a case of the race developing more ideally under near-perfect conditions? oftentimes championship-type races, especially ones where qualifying for the next level depends on place, not finishing time, tend to go out slow and pick up noticably towards the finish, resulting in less-than-incredible times; or there is only one truly good heavyweight in the field who isn't challenged by the field, resulting in non-eyebrow-raising results; or the heavyweights in the race tend to hang back and let others do the early work, also resulting in rather typical times. in the comparitively rare instance that several choose to push the pace from the start, we get something like what happened on the mcalpine course this past w/e. i wasn't there, but that's what i assume to have happened.
"It is absurd to divide people into good or bad. People are either charming or tedious." -- Oscar Wilde --- "Greg Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >From one year to the next who can remember exactly how to mark the >course? >> Loops do tend to get shorter, curves straightened, and corners cut. That's >> why we have tracks. Then we can try to remember about how far from the >curb >> they should be measured and where the steeple starts. >> Tom >> > >The McAlpine course has permanent markers every 200 meters. The trails are >crushed stone and have a natural border. Unlike many course where the trail >must be marked every race with paint or flags the McAlpine course is a >dedicated XC facility and the trails never move or get shorter. Their are >two big inside turns on the course but they were barricaded to insure that >runners could not cut. So for McAlpine the course was the same last >Saturday as it was the year before and the year before that, and so on. > >Instead of everyone trying to figure out how the south cheated why don't we >praise them for finally learning how to compete? _____________________________________________________________ Sign up for a 6mb FREE email from http://www.spl.at
