Why can no-one do xc properly?

Physiologically speaking, there's no doubt that even pace is the best strategy. But in cross-country running, physiology is not all that's at play.

Many courses narrow significantly, fairly soon after the start. An even-pace runner can get held back by the general mass of people who start fast and then slow dramatically. It simply can be difficult to get by them in the narrow spaces available, and doing so may require taking a line that involves extra distance and/or bad footing.

Moreover, the multiple turns in many xc courses make it difficult to keep the leaders in view--and "out of sight, out of mind" can take over. It's easy to lose mental contact with people that you can't see. (Contrast this with the wide-open view that's usually available in road races.) I was an even-pace guy myself, but will still admit that it takes considerable mental tenacity to feel like you're really competing for a win when the leaders have "disappeared."

We were always told to get out fast because the course will narrow and you'll be stuck behind people who got to the narrow spot first and won't be able to get past them. But I can only think of one cross country course I ever ran where that was an issue and even on that one you could bide your time and find places where there was passing room. There was another course where everyone went through a narrow gate about a quarter mile in but from there you had 5-3/4 miles to catch guys who got through the gate ahead of you. The thing about turns and losing sight of the leaders might be an issue occasionally but again, I haven't seen more than a course or two where that would be the case.

Cross Country is only concerned about one thing... Place.

That is what makes this sport great. But also partly to blame why I think it died at the national level. Where as team sports are about winning, running has become about chasing the clock. You can lose and feel good. Not so in team sports. (Example: If you set a record for most passing yards in a super bowl but lose you don't care.)

So in XC there is the team thing in play. Throw in hills, turns, etc. and you just can't pace evenly (effort perhaps).

But it all comes down to place. If you are the best going out hard and burning out your inferior competitors who might hold on and kick at a slower pace is not a good strategy.

Racing is racing! The issue with many European athletes is that they don't want to race hard. They would prefer to run to the level of their fitness. The issue with XC running is that not always the most fit athlete wins. The athlete who goes for the win, sacrifices some energy in the beginning, and then settles into their pace will be the champion. It's not a track meet. Even in a championship track meet, the leaders go out slow and then try to sit and kick. There is no even pace for cross country, it's all about winning. Many cross country runners are not true distance runners, they are middle distance runners that have to create their own racing strategy to win. Good luck trying to win your race with an even pace. You would make a good teammate (3-5 runner for your team) but not a good 1 or 2 with your racing plan.

^^this I do find very interesting. I like your point about it being about middle distance guys who are the best, but surely it SHOULD be the 5-10k guys, provided they execute the race properly.

As to your pointing the finger at me, I am the absolute worst team-mate: despite whatever plans I have going into the race, if I feel I have even the slightest chance of winning (which I would if I'm there with 200 to go, my kick is monstrous), then I'll go off with the leaders.

It's about time. Good for you.

You are completely correct that the best way to run XC is with an even pace...or more accurately...an even effort. Most people do go nuts...especially high schoolers and it creates enormous opportunity for somebody who can stay cool and stick to their guns.

This assumes, of course, there is nothing particular about the course...like it goes down to a narrow path where you can't pass 1/4 mile into the race.

I firmly believe the real damage is done in the first 300-400m. This is where everyone really loses their marbles. They've settled down well before the mile...mostly because reality has set in.

Running the first 400m in 70secs...let's say...is going to handicap a 16:30 5K runner quite a bit...yet so many do it. I'll bet they lose 15-20secs on their overall time.

I coached a runner who literally stole a 12th place finish in the states...simply through good pacing. He was about a 17:10 runner. The first mile was all uphill...some of it kind of steep. We talked a lot about even EFFORT and practiced it quite a bit. I told him a 6:05 first mile would be just fine. He executed it perfectly...hitting the mile in exactly 6:05. He was in 40-50th place. As the course descended he blew through the field and ended up running 17:10 on the tough course.

He beat runners he had no business beating. But the opening hill made the good pacing even more important.

People talk a lot about tactics. But I still feel the best tactic is to get from the start to the finish in the shortest possible time. Hence...good pacing is the way to go...for most anyway.

This is a really stupid post. The guy who covers the race in the shortest time wins, and the best way to do that is to run even effort. I have lost count on how many times I have past these "studs" who take it out hard in the last part of the race. There are no bonus points for chest hair.

The leaders are able to take the best tangents and increase their lead without even trying. Not everyone in the pack can take these tangents because it is not a single file line.

If you are an experienced runner then, yes even pacing is the best. Young inexperienced high school runners tend to run with the people around them and not run their own pace. So, if they start out slower and the kids around them slow down, they will just continue to run next to them.

Willy's son McKipsang wrote:

When I question this here the only answer I get is that the top guys go off hard, and they win, so it's got to be worth it.

Sounds like a pretty good answer to me.

Once you get a pattern of top guys going out slower and winning, then you will see behaviors change.

Star wrote:

Willy's son McKipsang wrote:

When I question this here the only answer I get is that the top guys go off hard, and they win, so it's got to be worth it.

Sounds like a pretty good answer to me.

Once you get a pattern of top guys going out slower and winning, then you will see behaviors change.

It is a pretty good answer if you're talking about people who have even semi-legitimate chances of winning the race. But a lot of people who have no chance of winning but who will score for their teams would likely run faster and place higher if they paced themselves more evenly.

Sure. Those that go out hard and fade need to learn how to place higher.

But some do it as a sacrifice to bait competitors.

I agree that you would think that each individual should run the way that provides the highest placing for that individual.

Why don't you try running your next race at an even pace and see how it goes?

Why can you no do English language properly?

I thought Craig Virgin came from well off the pace to win his two titles.

Well, collegiate teams compete in the US and they do not, in general, suffer from this problem. Especially when it is windy people complain about the opposite problem - too slow in the first half, followed by a big acceleration and fast last 2-4km.

HRE beat me to the punch on this one - his 2 main points are right on with what I try to teach the guys I coach. We're a mid-level DII team, most of the guys aren't going to have too many chances to compete for race wins. So for them we work on building their confidence to go out "conservative but honest", to trust that when everybody else goes out at Mach I to just settle into their regular race pace early. If you do the team scores at 3k we look like we're in trouble, but by 5k we're moving up in a big way and at the end we're usually above our ranking coming in. The races that have intermediate splits our guys are passing lots of runners the 2nd half and rarely get passed by anybody. At first a lot of them don't buy into it, but after racing that way a couple times they're on board. Of course the few times we've had an exceptional talent we modify the plan a little some races, for example a smaller Invy they might have a chance to win - but even at conference and Regionals we want those guys going out at the right pace.

As for course narrowness, I can't think of the last XC course we raced on that had anything of that nature. Some of the ski courses I coached our team at had something stupid like the tunnel at Lake Placid at the 1k mark (of a 20k course) that caused everybody except the top 10-15 skiers to come to a complete stop, in which case we tried to get our skiers out more aggressively than usual. But even with some of the XC courses we run here in Vermont being somewhat primitive I can't think of one where I'd tell my guys to vary from our usual race plan to avoid a bottleneck.