XC course design...new vs. old

Runner: Old

Spectator/Coach: New

I ran the Wisconsin course yesterday. The footing is already good virtually everywhere and they are still getting some spots converted from where there were buildings etc. By next season it will be even better. The footing is good and the sight lines are good and so it gives all the runners a good chance to race without too much problem with injuries. I suspect that what knock German down last year at Nationals would not occur on this course. While the footing is good, the surface is deep enough that it is not as fast has a course that is packed harder.

These courses are not the Brit-type course, but for team sports with top runners I think that it is the right way to go.

In general I like the new course designs better than the old, but there is something to be said for having some sections of the course obscured from view, where a breakaway can achieve "out of sight, out of mind", or get gobbled up unaware by a hard-charging chase. Lavern Gibson is a little too wide open for my taste. From the previews on Flotrack, Wisconsin's new course looks like it has more blocked sight lines and looks more appealing to run. I think some courses have certainly gone overboard with trying to be spectator friendly, the one I'm most familiar with being the new Franklin Park course in Boston vs. the old courses that were on the golf course - the new course has too many little loops and lacks the tough hills and varied terrain of the old courses.

The old cross country course at Franklin Park had over 2 miles of concrete - and you liked that?

perspective wrote:

The old cross country course at Franklin Park had over 2 miles of concrete - and you liked that?

No, I definitely didn't like that but it seemed like it would have been easy to change that section and put it on grass or dirt. The surface on the new course is way better than the old courses but the old courses had better terrain, more variety, and covered more area so it didn't feel like a glorified grass track.

Many of our high school courses went through wooded trails, over rocks and creeks, and up steep hills. Good luck finding that in a college course.

Berea (KY) used to have a course (still there?) that was basically a lap or two around their soccer field (some kind of field) then up and down the gnarliest hilliest trail I've seen in an XC course. The fact no one fell off and died is beyond me!

Alan

VCB? What you talkin' bout VCB?

i like running on the new, it lets me run by spectators more. i like spectating old, when the runners go into the woods there is suspense and i like to see them all come out to see if there have been any big moves.

courses should be designed like roller coasters in my opinion, start with a big hill and gradually go downhill with smaller hills thrown in along the whole course, then have tighter turns at the end of the race so you will feel like your going faster.

First of all, let me just say in my opinion, a XC course should never be on a golf course. I don't care how hilly it is, or how spectator friendly it is or is not, I say no golf courses. The sport is called cross country, not cross lawn.

This sport should run its races in wild places. Dirt roads and paths, up and down long hills and rollers, across rough fields. And throw in some sharp turns and narrow paths toward the end to thin things out.

I'm definitely kidding myself to think there should even be obstacles like having to clear a fence, run through a stream, or to have to jump down into a gully and climb back up the other side.

Are runners going to get hurt? Yes, they are. But athletes get hurt in lots of sports.

Of course you can't have a course like this in a lot of places, especially flat or overly urban places. But at least put the major meets like conference finals and the NCAA meets in places where you have some real "country" to cross, not just some grass field.

So no, I don't like the little girl courses that are being designed lately. But then, there have always been some. The current effort to dumb-down the courses to make them more spectator friendly will eventually be seen as boring and unchallenging, and the trend will cycle back to tough, challenging courses.

The toughest non-muddy course ever would have to be the Dell Urich Golf Course in Arizona. (site of the 1986, 1991, 1996 NCAA XC Championships)

Oh, yeah, let's have those mighty races where the gun goes off and the runners disappear into a forest of steep up and down hills pocked marked with hidden roots and sharp edged stones, only to emerge 25 minutes later to end the gut wrentching suspense that is felt by the one or two spectators who don't mind attending a sport where little to nothing is seen.

What a wonderful sport!

Let's also play a football game where no one sees anything and wonder why few people will come to the game.

not enough woods in college xc, and loops suck

I think we are forgetting about what's important.

Spectator friendly is important; as in most people who go to races like to see as much of the race without moving around a lot. I'm not saying we should run on grass 400m track but I am saying big loops that wind throughout a grassy area are a good thing for not only the spectator but the runner as well.

Runner acceptability is also equally important; good footing, good views (clear fields so runners can see far enough in front of them to know the general direction of the race) and fast courses. I know people are going to lose it over this last one but honestly I myself as a college runner would rather run a fast grass course where I can really run fast and FEEL fast without having to break that for a ton of hills. I think streams are a terrible idea and same with fencing. Runners do get hurt in this sport, through self inflicted injuries, we don't need broken bones from running into a fence because we couldnt see in front of a few runners.

I do agree that we have to do away with golf courses. Every other sport has it's own area/stadium to hold its matches/meets. Why should a cross country course be any different? But to answer the OP

I like new design for xc courses both for running and spectating.

If that's the choice, I would have to go with the older style course. I would hate to see everyone create courses that are all just a bunch of loops around a level field in order to make it spectator friendly.

Part of what makes XC special is that each course is unique, so I would say that the important thing in designing a course would be to make it distinctive. Having varied courses also rewards runners who know the course and run smart tactical races, which I also think is one of the things that makes XC special. You've got track season for racing under uniform conditions.

So for me, the ideal course would be a mix of hills, woods, low potentially muddy spots, flat fast grass, etc. that takes advantage of some sort of local features and and that makes the course unique in the tactics that you have to use.

Really, it ought to be similar to golf, where each golf course is basically similar but each also has unique features that reward players who can adapt to the special features of the course.

This apparently reasonable opinion is very far from the mark. In football you have subs and they can come in for a play or five; they do not have to finish. They have to stay as injury free as possible because that is absolutely necessary. Note that the Worlds are not held in stupid conditions to show who is the most 'manly'.

Running at a high level is absolutely as challenging as it gets (at a fair distance, not the 100m, which has other challenges).

Injuries in a sport are to be minimize when it does not diminish the sport and college XC is connected to college T&F and you cannot afford to have your few scholarship players injured (football gets how many of those things?).

ANother thing to account for in the "new" design is the fact multiple genders are using the same course, and in many venues it's used for masters competitions. That means you're pushing towards the USATF recommendation of a lead-in and tail-out with 2K loops to support 4/6/8/10/12K on the same course.

6 loops of a 2K course sounds excrutiatingly dull for a runner. IMO, the surest way to drive off kids entering the sport would be to make many courses reptitive loops.

I understand the need for most courses to repeat back onto themselves at some point, even for a significant portion, but any more than twice is just a terrible course design.

JR wrote:

The toughest non-muddy course ever would have to be the Dell Urich Golf Course in Arizona. (site of the 1986, 1991, 1996 NCAA XC Championships)

... but it's still a golf course. It’s pedigree of championship races doesn’t change that. Although it may reflect poorly on the decision-makers.

perspective wrote:

Oh, yeah, let's have those mighty races where the gun goes off and the runners disappear into a forest of steep up and down hills pocked marked with hidden roots and sharp edged stones, only to emerge 25 minutes later to end the gut wrentching suspense that is felt by the one or two spectators who don't mind attending a sport where little to nothing is seen.

What a wonderful sport!

Let's also play a football game where no one sees anything and wonder why few people will come to the game.

A tough course does not necessary demand a spectator unfriendly course. Granted, you're going to miss some parts due to the terrain, but I think that how much you miss is to a large degree a matter of course design, and second to the willingness of the spectators to move around from point-to-point to catch the action at different stages of the race, as the course snakes around. I've always said that if you want to watch XC you're going to have to run a little XC yourself. Yes, spectators want to see the race, but any fan of XC expects that they’re not going to see it all. And I think that any true fan would rather see parts of a race on a tough, challenging, and feral course, than every second of a race looping around a grass field.

As to the trip & fall hazards you fear, there is no reason why a trail can't be groomed in some minimal way to eliminate such roots and sharp edged stones, and still be a wild ride through the countryside.