Jonny Posted February 6, 2019 Report Share Posted February 6, 2019 It was so nice to be able to see so much TV coverage of the Worlds at Solitude this week, but so frustrating that the Red side of the course was at such a clear disadvantage both in GS and SL. The lower 200 meters gave Blue (right side) a much less turny track for both events, or so it appeared. Was there not something the course setters could have done between the two days of racing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powdahbonz Posted February 6, 2019 Report Share Posted February 6, 2019 As I watched PSlalom last night, I believe the red course had one win on Red for women and Men..and Men's win was due to Fisch falling on blue. The top definitely seemed harrier for blue but the bottom was lopsided. There were at least 3 racers that had tactical errors that appeared to eliminate their shot only to have them finish ahead at the bottom. Turned down the commentators..would have been nice to have some feedback from folks that understood the basics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HillB Posted February 6, 2019 Report Share Posted February 6, 2019 Better-seeded riders chose the blue course. Sometimes there's course bias, but if you talk to many World Cup riders, they prefer the one run elimination format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveo Posted February 6, 2019 Report Share Posted February 6, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, HillB said: Better-seeded riders chose the blue course. Sometimes there's course bias, but if you talk to many World Cup riders, they prefer the one run elimination format. As in... Not swapping sides and running twice? If so, then these world cup riders you speak of were not at Pyeongchang. I'll see if I can find the interviews... Or when you say many, do you mean it in the literal sense of greater than one. So both gold medalists? Surely not. Edited February 6, 2019 by daveo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HillB Posted February 6, 2019 Report Share Posted February 6, 2019 Not every rider is guaranteed a second run. Top 32 get a second qualifying run. What was televised for Worlds was finals, not qualifications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 26, 2019 Report Share Posted February 26, 2019 Yeah, so, parallel is a format that I hate. From day one, couldn’t stand it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwavedave Posted February 26, 2019 Report Share Posted February 26, 2019 1 hour ago, bobdea said: Yeah, so, parallel is a format that I hate. From day one, couldn’t stand it I agree, but most racers like it. If you make it past qualifiers, you potentially get to do a whole lot more runs as opposed to just 1 or 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 28, 2019 Report Share Posted February 28, 2019 On 2/26/2019 at 4:08 PM, bigwavedave said: I agree, but most racers like it. If you make it past qualifiers, you potentially get to do a whole lot more runs as opposed to just 1 or 2. At the time that it was introduced a lot of people bitched about it. Maybe now they’re conditioned? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Morrow Posted March 13, 2019 Report Share Posted March 13, 2019 I prefer parallel as opposed to a single course, riding against someone makes me push harder and makes the race feel more competitive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJB Posted March 31, 2019 Report Share Posted March 31, 2019 (edited) In re-run format, it was only 10% of the time the slower rider would come back in 2nd run and win. It doesn't affect the game that much. 80% of the time the final podium comes from the top 4 qualifiers (in men's field) as well. Re-run parallel format is too long to watch and doesn't fit well into keeping peoples interest. I appreciate they were willing to try something. Although, from a spectator standpoint, I think the lag time between heats is still too slow. Edited March 31, 2019 by MJB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atom Ant Posted April 24, 2019 Report Share Posted April 24, 2019 Current racers can state anything they want about the modern FIS-approach and set up with the dual format. Whatever. Take one watch of some old-school, single course approach of yesteryear and tell me the following: It features less exciting courses that make less use of the terrain and provide the racers with less opportunity for strategy and various risk / reward in racer approach It makes poorer use of what alpine equipment can do The focus on a single rider at a time, from a broadcast / audience point of view is less engaging (due to having only one rider to watch at a time) It makes the sport appear less approachable for current-non participants because it bears no resemblance to beer league / NASTAR Reference documents (understand this is Super G): Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted May 1, 2019 Report Share Posted May 1, 2019 (edited) Both your first and second point are spurious. Any slope will have more available terrain and cross fall line access with only a single course posted on it as opposed to two. A wider course will almost always allow for greater choice in line. I agree that particular course doesn't appear the most inspired, but what of that is due simply to how it was laid on the slope available? I also wonder at the institutional knowledge behind the layout with an immature sport. Ski racing seems to be sufficiently captivating to dominate most of the airtime. I strongly dislike trying to watch two separate courses at one time. It's not possible to focus on the subtleties of each run simultaneously. I'm not sure why you think single format is less approachable. Assuming it is though, why should that be the goal of competition; especially high end? Shouldn't the purpose be to push the competitors to their maximum, and display all their available skill? F1 and MotoGP are about as unapproachable as it gets, but they're both the pinnacle of sport in their respective fields. Amazing to watch as well, with large audiences. I do wish SuperG was still run. It looks like so much fun, and is closer to my style than either current format. Interesting to watch two of the greats struggle to keep the edge cutting cleanly. I wonder what sort of configurations they were running. Edited May 1, 2019 by Gremlin D'oh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atom Ant Posted May 1, 2019 Report Share Posted May 1, 2019 Gremlin, I think your so focused on the bullet points your missing the tongue planted firmly in cheek. Dual is boring to watch, does not display the talent of the riders or capability of the equipment, makes far less use of the terrain, is harder and less engaging to watch, and is less relatable. Bad for the sport, ultimately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted May 1, 2019 Report Share Posted May 1, 2019 *Whoosh* Happens to us all at some point I suppose. Serves me right for letting myself feel clever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ursle Posted October 27, 2019 Report Share Posted October 27, 2019 In the 90's we had two teams(animal house#1 & #2) ski racing at Okemo on tuesdays on a nastar course, it was great for years there were about 250 people, then. Somebody got control that wanted a dual course, one race later there were 30 participants, now the tuesday league has fun with 30 people instead of 250, and yes, it's a single course again. The Okemo regular weekend nastar runs two courses in the space that one course doesn't quite fit in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.