A little more thoughtful that most of the posts on the other thread, but critical nonetheless.
Thoughts?
A little more thoughtful that most of the posts on the other thread, but critical nonetheless.
Thoughts?
I just posted in one of the other threads about this (not the article in particular, but addressing to an extent the points she made):
The course most years is fine. I don't think a course has to be fast to be good. But this makes twice in the last six years that the muddy conditions played too great a factor in the results, and as such I think Nike might be better off considering using a different course in the area at least in those extreme conditions (2010 and 2012). Yes, other years have been muddy as well - 2007, 2006, and 2005. I don't remember the 2005 and 2006 races well enough to mention whether or not the conditions were too detrimental to the race, but 2007 wasn't despite the mud (perhaps you can say it hadn't crossed that line of "too muddy" yet).
None of the years have been fast at Portland Meadows. Part of that is because it's not a naturally fast course (although, in dry conditions, it is faster than Balboa). I don't have any problem with that; fast courses are not the best for championship races, in my opinion. I like courses that provide a challenge.
But in 2010 and 2012, that challenge just seemed a little past the line of reasonable. Years like those, where we know before hand that the conditions are going to be ridiculous, it seems reasonable that Nike could use a different course in the area (such as Ft. Vancouver) so that the course conditions don't detract from the event. I don't think spectators, would mind a longer walk to the course given the choice, and there would be enough parking on-site that meet management, chaperones and athletes probably wouldn't have to deal with that at all.