Nordic combined is the Race walking of Cross country skiing. All the real skiers just ski, not risk injury jumping off a mountain. But good for those guys to figure that out and get a way better shot at winning a medal.
Nordic combined is the Race walking of Cross country skiing. All the real skiers just ski, not risk injury jumping off a mountain. But good for those guys to figure that out and get a way better shot at winning a medal.
I'd say more like the steeple.
Big Olympic Fan wrote:
Nordic combined is the Race walking of Cross country skiing. All the real skiers just ski, not risk injury jumping off a mountain. But good for those guys to figure that out and get a way better shot at winning a medal.
Since when race walking includes jumps, incredible athleticism, speed and sheer guts? Terrible comparison. Also, nordic combined is fun to watch. Race walking, lol.
huh not exactly wrote:
Since when race walking includes jumps, incredible athleticism, speed and sheer guts? Terrible comparison. Also, nordic combined is fun to watch. Race walking, lol.
The comparison was made by suggesting that slower skiers need to find another event because they can't win in the real event. As the previous poster said though, more like the steeple.
huh not exactly wrote:
Since when race walking includes jumps, incredible athleticism, speed and sheer guts? Terrible comparison. Also, nordic combined is fun to watch. Race walking, lol.
Agree 100% - horrible comparison. There is nothing like race walking (except the usual comparison to who is loudest in a whispering contest). Nordic combined is a bit of an odd combo, but very athletic and fun to watch (as much of the US is finding out - think you'd see the same interest if the US medalled in race walking?). Interesting that the US team has gotten so powerful in that format (along with Tim Burke making headway in the biathlon), yet is still lagging far behind Europe in the straight nordic events (classical, skate - both sprint and longer distances). Not exactly sure why that is? Not likely to see US anywhere near the podium at the other events (unless Freeman has the race of his life and some other guys have off days). But glad to see the Nordic combined guys doing great.
You suck wrote:
Click Here
Bill Demong and Tim Burke were on the same HS XC TEAM. I just caught that snippet on the NBC broadcast. Apparently they were both a part of the 1996 New York State Champion Team from Saranc Lake NY. The roster apparently was full of US Athletes...
1. Zach Handler
2. Matthew Dougherty (US Triathlon Team)
3. Matt Cook ( US SKI Team and Current US Ski Coach)
4. Sean Burke (US Ski Team B Level)
5. Billy Demong (4x Olympian 6th Place Yesterday in Nordic Combined)
6. Tim Burke (Current #5 in the World In Biathlon)
7. Chris Morris
Pretty Stacked Right ?
http://www.letsrun.com/save
That is pretty amazing - here is a link to an article about the team. They were Class C champions in 1995.
http://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/page/content.detail/id/503066.html?nav=5008My statement was aimed at Nordic ski racing, not just the combined event. This success will bring new fresh faces into the sport of XC ski racing for years to come, for sure. In no way would anyone say that full out Nordic/XC ski racing is akin to race walking.
Big Olympic Fan wrote:
Nordic combined is the Race walking of Cross country skiing. All the real skiers just ski, not risk injury jumping off a mountain. But good for those guys to figure that out and get a way better shot at winning a medal.
The better comparison is to the decathletes running the 1500m. The cross country ski fitness of those combiners is most like that of nationally competitive 15 year old cross country skiers. Seriously. Look up the average speed of their cross country portion and compare it to that of the real cross country skiers. It's not because they are bad athletes, just athletes that are not suited well to that event.
watchful eye wrote:
With the finish of Johnny Spillane in the silver position plus Lodwick finished back in fourth place overall & the sixth place finish of Bill Demong. This is nearly (winter sports will never be as popular as summer sports) as explosive a motivator as the finish of Shorter 1st, Moore 4th & Jack Bacheler 9th place finishes in the marathon of 1972. Many young strong kids will drop running & pick up skiing with a passion, mark my words!
Write awkward much?
[quote]GoHornets wrote:
[quote]You suck wrote:
Click Here
Bill Demong and Tim Burke were on the same HS XC TEAM. I just caught that snippet on the NBC broadcast. Apparently they were both a part of the 1996 New York State Champion Team from Saranc Lake NY. The roster apparently was full of US Athletes...
1. Zach Handler
2. Matthew Dougherty (US Triathlon Team)
3. Matt Cook ( US SKI Team and Current US Ski Coach)
4. Sean Burke (US Ski Team B Level)
5. Billy Demong (4x Olympian 6th Place Yesterday in Nordic Combined)
6. Tim Burke (Current #5 in the World In Biathlon)
7. Chris Morris
That is pretty amazing - here is a link to an article about the team. They were Class C champions in 1995.
Funny looks like they went to any other school where Football still reigns supreme I mean they got inducted at Halftime of a football game ... really lame especially with an Olympic athlete most towns would be celebrating the Olympians and not the football team lol!
This was a huge accomplishment, and it might have some impact but it won't create a Nordic skiing influx equivalent to the 70s running boom, or to a lesser extent the Bill Koch-led boomlet in the later 70s through mid-80s. Nordic combined is a very obscure sport and athletes are developed in very few places (Steamboat Springs, Winter Park, CO; Anchorage, AK; northern Michigan; Lake Placid...and a smattering from Minnesota or New England).
The combined athletes are not as strong as the open skiers for a reason--and it's not because they are not as good to begin with. Ski jumpers are very light--tending to be built like xc runners--and you don't see compact/strong jumpers. So jumping and skiing are somewhat opposed for body type.
These skiers are better than top level 15 yr olds (other than the exceptional one that breaks through once every 10 or 15 years [Kris Freeman]) at least in the US. Take it up a notch, maybe 17 or 18 yr olds. So, indeed they would not be competitive at the top but they are still very good. Some combined athletes could get good enough to ski on the World Cup circuit, but they would have to beef up and their jumping would suffer.
If you want a big boom, then Kikkan Randall and Andy Newell or Torin Koos would need to win some sprint medals. Sprinting is where US is strongest and the ticket to draw increased interest. The races are short (2.5 to 3 min) and dynamic, and could be presented and marketed in any big northern city (truck snow into NYC, Boston, Philly, Denver, Mlps, Milwaukee, Chicago....) bring in some marketing, big prize money, and rock music and have at it.
in a snowy place like Vermont, you can pick up xc skis for free (just go to Burlington where people drop off their stuff for recycling and there are tons of them) and you don't have to pay anyone to go xc skiing. Ice skating, hockey, and football take major funds. XC skiing isn't much more expensive than running, and you don't need to buy new shoes every month (100mpw) or two.
jjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
in a snowy place like Vermont, you can pick up xc skis for free (just go to Burlington where people drop off their stuff for recycling and there are tons of them) and you don't have to pay anyone to go xc skiing. Ice skating, hockey, and football take major funds. XC skiing isn't much more expensive than running, and you don't need to buy new shoes every month (100mpw) or two.
Not true.
If you want to skate ski, you need groomed trails, can't skate in deep snow. A good pair of skate ski's cost $400, plus boots, bindings and poles. The initial investment is a big one, then you need roller ski's for the 8+ months of the year when there is no snow, also expensive. Plus boots for the roller ski's, and poles.
Traditional xc skiing is for the old ladies who like to go out and walk along on the snow, barely ever get the heart rate up and for the most part, just get in the way.
I grew up in New England, playing hockey was much cheaper. A pair of skates, gloves, shin gaurds and a stick. Get a shovel and head to the nearest pond, now a days kids are too lazt to shovel the ice, but we did back in the day. Played hockey on the ponds 7 days a week, in the spring in the rain until the ice wouldn't hold us anymore, never see that these days, too bad.
You don't know what you're talking about greenie. I live in a ski town that is also a hockey town. Hockey is considered the more expensive. That said, skiing isn't cheap. More on that in a sec.But your ignorance shows with the statement that "traditional skiing is for grannies." You are dead wrong there. In the open (non-combined) sport of Nordic skiing, there is freestyle (skating) and classic (traditional kick and glide), and the races from high school/Junior Olympics qualifiers, to college, to World Cup and the Olympics, the frequency of skate and classic races are 50-50. Although there are specialists, to make it at the top level you usually have to be good at both. (Nordic combined and biathlon are exclusively skating).Skiing can be expensive, but not necessarily so and it is not always an elite/rich person's sport. A savvy shopper can get some good bargains with 2nd hand or close out equipment.At the minimum, you will need2 pairs of boots - $300 new/$150 used/~$150 closeout2 sets of poles - $300 new/$100 used/$150 closeout2 sets of skis - $300 to $450 new/$150 - $200 new/$200 - $300 closeout2 sets of bindings - $100 including mounts1 ski suit - $200hat, gloves, socks - $100waxes - $200 to $300 (and that includes a set of high end race waxes).So that's about $2800 for a full set of new gear and accessories. Most of the stuff can last for several years. An athlete can gear up for ~$1000 with used and close out equipment.That said, most top level skiers have several sets of skis for different conditions (e.g., warm/wet vs cold/dry), but those can be acquired over a number of years.Coaching - serious racers can get good coaching from $500 to $2000/year; the lucky ones with good high school programs don't have to pay much at all.Travel: this is the biggie, as it is for any sport (soccer, hockey, figure skating, gymnastics.....).Local - regional qualifiers: $300 to $700/year per skier.National championship: $1,000 to $3,000 depending on distance traveled, venue (Vail or Steamboat vs. Houghton Michigan...), etc.
green mounty. wrote:
Not true.
If you want to skate ski, you need groomed trails, can't skate in deep snow. A good pair of skate ski's cost $400, plus boots, bindings and poles. The initial investment is a big one, then you need roller ski's for the 8+ months of the year when there is no snow, also expensive. Plus boots for the roller ski's, and poles.
Traditional xc skiing is for the old ladies who like to go out and walk along on the snow, barely ever get the heart rate up and for the most part, just get in the way.
I grew up in New England, playing hockey was much cheaper. A pair of skates, gloves, shin gaurds and a stick. Get a shovel and head to the nearest pond, now a days kids are too lazt to shovel the ice, but we did back in the day. Played hockey on the ponds 7 days a week, in the spring in the rain until the ice wouldn't hold us anymore, never see that these days, too bad.
Last year the jr nationals were held in soda springs,ca. From the east coast it was expensive to get there, to top that off it was a week long comp, another big expense (lodging).
The big races in the Northeast take place in Stowe or up in Maine, long drives, expensive lodging for many of the competitiors.
Yes, if you only play hockey on a travel team it will cost you. If you love to play hockey you can develop (or could) a pretty strong game on the ponds. That used to be where it was happening, not anymore unfortunately.
Skiing is also much more time consumimg than running. Getting dressed alone takes time, sharpening your tips takes time, waxing your ski's takes time. Running is much easier, more accessible for most and will always be the most competitive endurance sport in this country and the world.
no, it wont.
green mounty. wrote:
Skiing is also much more time consumimg than running. Getting dressed alone takes time, sharpening your tips takes time, waxing your ski's takes time. Running is much easier, more accessible for most and will always be the most competitive endurance sport in this country and the world.
Skiing takes at least 2X as much time as running, and 2.5 to 3X as much if you're really serious. Top skiers now spend as much as 20-25 hrs a week for much of the year, just training.
How about that Bill Demong!!!
Bigfootiam wrote:
Bill Koch won an olympic medal, pretty much inveted skating, and it didn't start a boom, I would bet the house there will be a boom now, sorry
Yes it did. Nordic skiing will always be a niche sport because of limited accessiblity but there was definitely a surge in participation in the mid to late 80's and the results from this Olympics will probably nudge a few more people into the sport. Maybe not a boom on the scale of marathoning recently, but the niche will get bigger.
Nordic watcher wrote:
How about that Bill Demong!!!
He won by default. The three best guys got screwed by the ski-jump conditions.