in: PG; PG > 2008-04-13;
| # Posted 2008-04-14 06:28:14 | |
| feet: | I agree that 4 was the best skip in reality, but it can't be deduced from the map because it relies on the green in the neighborhood of 4 being much worse than mapped. As you say, sometimes you get lucky...
Even at the front, nobody much seemed to want to go left from 2-3. It was just Jon Torrance and me. Suited me just fine that way. |
| # Posted 2008-04-14 06:47:10 | |
| piutepro: | I agree, on 2 to 3, left was probably faster. I saw it, but decided to stay with a group of my speed, all going right. Which worked fine, as a strategy. But at 12 about 10 people had caught up with us, including the Saegers. This was when Peter G. and me decided (well, nobody else spoke Swiss German, good thing) to skip 13 and make it a trail run. We passed near 13, but we kept moving. It worked, we got away, then almost bungling it with a dumb head approach to 15 (too low) and going too high to 16 until we started reading the map again. |
| # Posted 2008-04-14 21:37:52 | |
| jjcote: | Feet are right that the reason that skipping 4 worked so well was that it was a bear getting out of there through the "light green". But what worked best also depended on one's personal strengths. With Stephen in tow, skipping 18 and saving all that climb at the end was definitely the best move, and it may have been likewise for other people who were a way back in the pack like us. |
| # Posted 2008-04-15 06:47:40 | |
| Joe: | On the way to 1 I told peter I thought 4 might be a good skip and then skipped 5 myself taking advantage of the faster runners exiting 6. He mentioned skipping the climb to 18, which I thought would be almost a wash with the added distance on the trail. the group just behind me at 18 (saegers group) skipped 19 which made no sense. they boggled it and I came into 20 about 20 seconds behind them. a total gain for them no more than 35 seconds.
4 was the better choice because of the green. |
| # Posted 2008-04-15 11:01:05 | |
| jeffw: | With Peter's new strength training regimen he probably wouldn't have even noticed the green coming out of 4. |
| # Posted 2008-04-16 21:23:47 | |
| TimGood: | I wish I had skipped 4. I think I was near Peter at 3 and then made mistakes at both 4 and 5.
I had some success skipping 19. It made sense to me because I usually don't see trails thru dark green on the map so did not see the skip option for 18, and 19 was all that was left. There were a lot of people just behind me at 17 (for some reason they were letting me lead). Three of us at the front went on to 18 and I think the rest skipped. 2 of us then skipped 19 (3rd had already skipped) and we finished 3 or more minutes ahead of the others. I think that back among the slower, tired people the trail run saved less time or else with the 3 at the front gone, no one stepped up to lead. Time wise, 18 might have been a better skip since I lost 1 - 2 minutes to Peggy's groups ahead of me, but place wise I dropped the pack with me and passed others who botched the skip of 18. |
| # Posted 2008-04-16 21:36:11 | |
| jjcote: | I just remember pointing up at the hill where 18 was and saying, "See that hill, Stephen? We're not going up there." I'm not sure he could have climbed the hill at that point, and skipping something up north would probably not have made it much easier. |
| # Posted 2008-04-16 22:12:15 | |
| walk: | In hindsight 4 was a good skip because of the thick mt laurel to contend with. unfortunately, the map was not a good guide to that choice. Consequently, I skipped 18 and the contours at the end. Like jj and Stephen, rather glad at that point not to have to deal with the climb. Of course missing the climb and fight associated with 4-5 would have been a good thing also. |
| # Posted 2008-04-16 22:49:21 | |
| PG: | I am always amused when I hear someone say they they wanted to save their skip for late in the course when they would be tired and it would do them more good. This ignores the fact that if they skipped early, then they wouldn't be so tired later.
As an analogy, suppose you were in a race on the track, 10 laps was the stated distance, but you were allowed to skip a lap, which ever one you would choose. It's hard to see how saving your skip for the last lap would be any better (or worse) than skipping any other lap. Same goes for the Billygoat. |
| # Posted 2008-04-16 23:11:17 | |
| jjcote: | The Billygoat is a little different. There's the possibility of not skipping early, and using the line of people who have skipped (but who are a little slower than you) as a handrail to get back up close to your rivals, and then skip to get ahead. And when you factor in climb, it's also different — simply saving distance later in the course is meaningless, but changing the character of the last part, by making it flatter or easier to navigate, can be beneficial. If you have to do math problems after each track lap, but you can skip one math problem, when do you skip it?
Skipping 4 saved distance, but skipping 18 saved climb, and some people are better off to skip climb (Stephen specifically asked me to pick a skip that would save climb). If the course had been run in the opposite direction, we would probably have still skipped 18. |
You must be logged in to add a message