I think this year’s trot had the most complicated skip decisions to date. Here’s my post-mortem, based on speeds observed among the top 5 runners.

Single skips:

3 – I actually considered this one, especially when most people decided to run down to the trail on the way to 3. From the trail, it’s a pretty direct route up the big reentrant to the control and misses all the dark green. I estimate 2-4 to be about 6:30. If the dark green around 4 was really thick, this could have been a big win, however, it really wasn’t bad and 3-4 turned out to be a pretty fast leg. As a result, the main group did 2-3-4 in 12:05, so this only gained 5:35.

9 – This is another skip that looked better than it was. 8-10 is 400m uphill with some light green, so that’s 4:00 at best. 8-9 is obviously fast, but what’s not obvious is that 9-10 is basically a trail run. There must have been an old trail (probably closed for safety reasons) running directly above the rock faces. While slightly overgrown, it was a nice flat ledge to run on, much faster than a typical contour route. The main pack did 8-9-10 in 9:32 so this also netted only 5:32.

12 – This was fairly obvious and just about everyone who didn’t do the double skip at 3 and 4 skipped this one. 11-12-13 is 1400m through mixed climb and vegetation with no good trail alternatives. Probably around 14 minutes. 11-13 is a downhill trail run of 400m plus another 250m through relatively open woods. I did it in 5:34. Net gain: 8:26.

21 – I didn’t even see this one, but it’s not bad. The main appeal is emotional, since the grind along the stream to 21 seemed like it took forever. There are several routes from 20 to 22; I think the best goes up the hill to the trail and then cuts over to the road at the clearing on top of the hill. None of the top runners took this route, but I think it could be done in 8 minutes. 20-21 took me 10:07, but my calves were cramping by then so I had to walk some of it. I think the leg is doable in 9:00. 21-22 looks like around 5:00 to me. Net gain: 6:00.

22 – This was the most popular skip after 12. Probably the second best single skip as well (although not the clear winner I thought it was). Most of 21-22-23 is on road but route is not direct. I think it would be about 11 minutes unless the person still had really good legs. A compounding factor is that by most accounts the map was off in the neighborhood of 22. Several people lost extra time there. Still, since there was no way to know that, it shouldn’t change the evaluation of the route – just a bit of bad course setting (if true, I didn’t go there so I can’t say). 21-23 was 5:26 for me, but I couldn’t take advantage of the running section. 4:30 is probably a good time. Net gain: 6:30.

23 – Another one that few saw and nobody took. If you really had some good legs at this point, you could head east to the highway and then blast 900m to the control in around 5:30. I know I was in no shape to even consider such an effort, so I would have done much worse. Again, the appeal is mainly emotional because the route from 23 to 24 was so unpleasant. However, it wasn’t really that slow (400m in 5:10 would indicate that the light green mapping was correct). Net gain is at best 5:30 – probably less.

24 – Third favorite after 12 and 22. 23-25 is nearly identical to 24-25 except you get to the campground sooner. Basically you’re saving all of 23-24 plus about 200m of trail running. Net gain: 6:00.

So it looks like 12 is the big winner and the rest of the skips really come down to personal preference of eliminating climb, vegetation, or distance. Net gain is in the 13-15 minute range. Can this be beat by skipping two consecutive controls?

3 and 4 – The most obvious double skip, and the one taken by the winner, Mikell Platt. 2-5 is an easy 400m downhill leg through open woods. Let’s say 3:30 (Platt probably did it faster). As with the single skip of 3, this would have been much better if the vegetation was as thick as the map indicated. But with all the rest of the contenders together at 2 and 5 we have a pretty strong consensus of 16:49 for the long way. Net savings: 13:19. Not bad, but using up all your skips early to gain what can be achieved with single skips later is probably sub-optimal. On the other hand, Mikell might have just wanted to be rid of us and was willing to take a small hit to be on his own.

17 and 18 – This lops off the opposite corner of the course. There is less distance saved and 16-17-18 have better trail routes, so it’s no surprise that this one doesn’t work as well. My time around the horn was 12:38 and that included a boom at 17. A clean run would be around 11:00. 16-19 is only 300m, but it’s difficult terrain. Anything under 3:00 would be really fast. Net gain is only 8:00. Nobody went for this pair.

11 and 12 – This is the big daddy and all the top runners missed it. 10-13 is 800m, but there’s a reasonably direct route on roads with almost no climb. Probably around 5 minutes with near zero chance for a boom. I actually took the first part of this route on the way to 11 (as did Nadim Ahmed, who was just behind me at the time). We took 9:18. Dave Frei, took the road at the bottom of the bluff and gained about 40 seconds on us. Dave says he bobbled the control a bit, so 8:00 is probably an optimal time. Adding this to our 5:34 for 11-13 gives a net of 8:04 over the already good skip of 12. Total net: 16:30!

While 11 and 12 are objectively best, I don’t think that the 12, 22 (or 12, 24) skip is tragically worse. Staying with the group and keeping a skip in reserve can certainly be worth 2 minutes. I suppose the big win would be if after the double skip one reconnected with Mikell. Either way, I have to give course setter Mike Shiffman credit for so cleverly disguising the best choice.

-- Eric B (ejbuckley@earthlink.net), December 08, 2003

Answers

I blew the skip decisions. I skipped 11 (which wasn't so bad) and 9 (which was not at all good). I really blew it when I skipped 9. When I glanced at the map, I didn't notice how flat the route to 9 was.

I think I got impatient and I was running with a little pack from about 4 or 5 to 8. I felt like we were running too hard when the terrain was thick and rough, and too slow when the terrain wasn't. I let that influence me (having thoughts like, "it'd be better to be running on my own and running the right pace"). When that thought first came into my mind I should have said -- "stop, look at the map, read the map." Lesson learned...I hope.

-- Michael (meglin@juno.com), December 08, 2003.

My own skipping strategy was pretty basic. I took a quick look at the possibilities on the way to #1, and nothing really jumped out at me and it looked like you'd have to spend some time running slowly or walking to really get into the permutations in a fine way. And the warning about the unfriendly north section of the map (perhaps overblown?) was in mind. By the time I punched at where #2 was actually hung, as opposed to where it was supposed to have been hung (I ran straight to the spot where a vetting streamer was hanging), a number of folks were out ahead of me. Up to that point the group had been running relatively easily. When we climbed out NE onto the ridge out of #2, nobody was paying any attention to me at all, so I decided to "go my own way" and up the pace.

Poor routes to #11 (went left and around on the road/trail because I was afraid of blowing by the control on the trail below, and I know from the after chat it was easy to see the rock from below if you looked) and to #25 (way left around on the trail and road after not enjoying the vegetation on the way to #24) cost a bit of time.

But not too much time. : )

-- Swampfox (wmikell@earthlink.net), December 08, 2003.

For completeness, I'll add 11, since Mike skipped that.

11 – I’m surprised that Spike would take this over 12, he was the only one to do it. As he says, it’s not terrible, but no better than 9 which he chastises himself for. 10-12 is basically 10-13 (5:00) plus 12-13 run backwards (6:00). Perhaps Spike could provide his real splits? 10-11-12 is 16:00, so the net is 5:00.

I should add, of course, that to perform such a detailed analysis during the run (I guess I spent close to an hour putting this report together) would be an absurd waste of time. The easiest way to lose a lot of time on route choice is to spend too much time thinking about route choice.

In my own case, my strategy was to look for “sawtooth” patterns unless there was a really obvious double skip. Skipping 12 jumped out at me right away while running the road to #1. I also noticed that 22 and 24 looked like potential candidates. I saw the double skip at 3-4, but underestimated it. Running through the field on the way to 6 I decided on 22 for the second skip and then turned my full attention to navigating for the rest of the race.

-- Eric B (ejbuckley@earthlink.net), December 09, 2003.

Thanks for this discussion, guys. I know that Mike Shifman enjoys it too. He thinks that this is his best effort so far to screw you up.

May I copy these comments to the Possum Trot website and include with my Possum Trot report to ONA?

-- Dick Neuburger (rneuburger@kc.rr.com), December 09, 2003.

No objections here. It was a fun event, and just think how fun it would be to go back to the primo O' venue in the KC area--Knob Noster- -and get to run for burgers again! That would probably be twice as fun and three times as delicious!

Sorry about the Chiefs, but don't worry--there's plenty of time for them to get their mojo back.

Btw, I sure hope you got post-race photos of Charlie. You could use them to demo what happens if you stand too close to a pipe bomb going off. He was such a gory mess that it made Ultimate Fighting look like a pansy sport. If you're going to send neophytes (to the KC area veg)out into the green again next time, you're probably going to have to have a few units of plasma on hand to service the victims.

As ever, --Swampfox

-- Swampfox (wmikell@earthlink.net), December 09, 2003.