Wejo's comment on Foot Locker West

bring it wrote:

Perhaps you would like to go for an Ozark trail run with me SoCal Pete.

Okay, seriously, I personally don't want to run up steep hills with anyone. Or, to be more precise, I don't want to run down them anymore. Good grief, my quads were nearly crippled the last time I ran Mt. SAC! ;-)

Though, for the record, the top elevation of the Ozarks qualify as "foothills" around here. Good grief, the Baldy race starts at 6000 feet!

Also, for the record, my point wasn't that other places don't compare with So Cal. They do! My point was that only very ignorant people honestly believe we don't have hills, mud, all sorts of weather (including snow), and, most importantly to this thread, tough cross-country courses.

lollllllllll wrote:

cant u tell?

no real XC courses there besides MT Sac(everything is flat and/or on roads)

they cant handle real XC weather(try and come to the North east or midwest in November/december)

They are afraid of little pieces of metal

sooooooo if all the North east and midwest runners are such tough badasses how come they've gotten wrecked by CA runners the past few years at FLN? (i wanna say back in 2005 if you score FLN CA vs. the nation, CA won with like 25 points)

its too bad that all that mud running toughness doesn't translate to actually being fast and winning races.

Well Pete, you wrote a lot but you did not answer the most important question? Do you think a major XC race alterate course should be on the road(a flat fast one at that!)?

Sorry, but I can't agree with that! All the smart people out there in cali and that is best they can come with?.....sorry, but I think the XC officals compromised the integrity of the sport!...and that should never ever happen!

come on!...please tell me a XC race should never (alterate) take place on a (flat hard surface) road?

ex: can you see the NCAA XC finals doing this(using the roads)?....see how crazy this is?

let me ask you something?.....just what kind of race would call this years Footlocker West championship?...Are you calling it XC?...

Well as seeing theres no spikes in california and about 400 meters of asphalt might be a little tough to stick half inchers in.

Ive run in Chicago in late November with awful mud and Rhode Island in early December with 6 inches of snow and I did fine.

Although now living in California and having raced at Mt. Sac multiple times there is no way i could have run that course in adverse conditions. Although you ignorant east coasters cant understand it. Its just no the same.

The most important thing is to look out for the runners. The best runners may not have mad it to Nationals nor to track season in this case. I think it would be best to plan for another xc course just in case it happens again. I think they made a good call in not letting the runners compete on such a course. NCAA's was a nightmare with the conditions last year but it sounds as if it doesn't even compare to the Mt. Sac course.

because the past few years nationals has been in CA...would love to see the cali guys fly across the country 2 days before the race and run nationals in the snow of the midwest or of van cortlandt...

Usher wrote:

Just curious: I know this is a very long shot, but if anyone who sees this post was at Kinney MW in 1991 (when Ihmels barely broke 17 on a very muddy course), I'm curious how much worse this was. I was there, and although it was as muddy of a course as I have ever seen, I wouldn't have called it dangerous, mainly because there aren't many steep hills at Kenosha.

Being a midwesterner who's familiar with all kinds of conditions, I defer to the judgement of the meet officials, and the fact that they have a "rain course" speaks to a situation we never face in the midwest: When a normally arid region suddenly has heavy rain.

Usher, you beat me to it. I was going to point out the 1991 FLMW results. Ihmels later went on to win the national title that year, too. I've ran that Wisconsin Parkside course when it's been at its worse. There are a few hills and A LOT of muddy turns when it gets nasty. One of the downhills leads into an immediate sharp right turn. One year I made a nice ten foot slide feet first through the turn. That was some REAL xc racing. I think everyone was a few minutes off their PR for 8k that day.

And what about the Great American XC Festival a few years back? I remember those conditions being pretty bad.

I was there (ran in the open race) an i seriously do not think the course was runable..period.

not that it was "too tough" or "too muddy" but i do not think you could actually run up poop-put hill or the switch backs, regardless of what length spikes you put in. perhaps if we had them wear crampons??

Not sure if anyone here ran in JUCO nationals in New York in 1994. that was nasty, but runable.

However, i do agree that the rain course should be, at least in part, on grass, so that it is not a 100% road course.

And Pete, I love the Baldy race. well except for the 4 mile run off the sumit after the finish!!

The SoCal guys ran pretty well in that sloppy Great American race a few years ago.

I don't know if spikes would be a good idea on the Mt.SAC course rain or no rain.

I don't think the state of CA allows spikes in HS races. That was my recollection from the Stanford XC Invite.

That might be a state federation rule, which may not apply to Footlocker though.

I just came back from NTN where my Girls Team placed second and we're from Southern California.

It was muddy, wet and cold. We laced up the spikes put on the gloves and raced in conditions that were far worse than at Mt. Sac.

When I read comments about how Mt. Sac should not have run the rain course. It becomes obvious that the people posting these opinions have never been to Mt. Sac. Without spikes, it would be nearly impossible to even walk up the hills and equally as difficult to stay on ones feet coming down these hills.

Why not just put on spikes. Two reasons:

1) Asphalt: A good section of the course is asphalt.

2) Finish on the track. I'm sure Mt. Sac would not want their track torn up by 1/2 inch spikes.

Southern Californian's can run well in adverse conditions.

This argument is academic. If the course had been anywhere else but Mt. Sac. It could have been run in nearly any conditions. But Mt. Sac is unlike any cross-country course. I suggest you come out and take a look at it for yourself.

Saugus Girls XC Coach,

Rene Paragas

xdderrty04x wrote:

lollllllllll wrote:

cant u tell?

no real XC courses there besides MT Sac(everything is flat and/or on roads)

they cant handle real XC weather(try and come to the North east or midwest in November/december)

They are afraid of little pieces of metal

sooooooo if all the North east and midwest runners are such tough badasses how come they've gotten wrecked by CA runners the past few years at FLN?

Because FLN is a glorified road race. Look at Nike Team Nationals, run in the slop, and you'll see that it's dominated by teams from the Northeast and Midwest. The pussies from CA can't hang.

Yeah, you placed second in bad conditions to an EAST COAST team. And it wasn't even close. HAHAHA!!! Thanks for playing.

new englander wrote:

xdderrty04x wrote:

sooooooo if all the North east and midwest runners are such tough badasses how come they've gotten wrecked by CA runners the past few years at FLN?

Because FLN is a glorified road race. Look at Nike Team Nationals, run in the slop, and you'll see that it's dominated by teams from the Northeast and Midwest. The pussies from CA can't hang.

Isn't there a bit of a conflict, given that FL West is the same day?

Manluis is an awesome team, which I'm sure you had nothing to do with their fine performance.

That doesn't change the facts about Mt. Sac.

Modern Civ History Teacher and Saugus XC Coach. And you are NY Represent...?

Rene Paragas

I sit in the third row of your second period class.

Exactly what I was thinking. These vags don't know anything about real xc.

ah hemm wrote:

Pointing out that Mt. SAC is the only place with a rain course is not helping your cause. Do you know why no other place has a rain course? It's because everywhere else, especially here in the Midwest, people run on the same course no matter what the conditions are. Trust me, I'm sure we've ran through equally harsh conditions more times in the midwest as it possibly could have been there in the Golden State. Just admit that it was a pathetic thing to do for a cross country race and get on with your West Coast lifestyle.

Just keep in mind that the runners weren't polled as to whether to run the rain course or the traditionalMt. SAC course. It was a decision made by the race officials.

As a collegiate runner, I've been to both a regional and a National Championship meet where weather conditions had necessitated rerouting the traditional course. One was in Western Washington and the other in East Stroudsburg. If it happens at the collegiate level, why not get off these high schooler's jocks. They can only run what they are allowed to run.

hey now... nobody every blamed it on the kids. don't be trying to introduce other elements to this bashfest.