jesseriley wrote:
Have to agree with Sage, as usual. Races can do whatever they want, but they often prefer to do it secretly. Hardrock hasn’t openly expressed their entry standards (if any!).
Like Sage, I am uninterested in Barkley as a run/race, although I think the stories/lore are interesting and I'm glad it exists.
I also wish HR would have more women so as to provide a better race/run experience *for* women.
Otherwise, though, I bristle at Sage's take on the HR entry process and to what degree faster runners 'deserve' to get in...The biggest bottleneck is the limited number of entries (~145) with almost 20x as many people trying to get in. The beautiful part is the exponential ticket allocation, so a qualified entrant doubles their number of tickets each year. A dedicated person interested in running the race will get in if they keep applying. If all the veteran tickets were given to newbies, it would simply shift your expected entry date by a year....Again, the most reassuring part of the lottery is that it rewards those (on average) who keep trying to get in. This aspect is transparent and not a secret.
Sure, it's not as fast at the front of the race as it could be, but then again nobody ever decreed that as the sole metric of an interesting and useful event.
When it comes to Hardrock, I cannot understate how little myself and many other runners (or hopefuls) are particularly interested in how fast certain runners can or cannot run the race.