As a coach, I always tried to find courses that were more hilly than the postseason courses. A lot of those are very fast courses, so the harder ones beforehand make them stronger than the competition that chooses the easier ones.
It’s cross country, not cross track. If anyone here is ever in Southern California go run the Palos Verdes High School cross country course. Hardest course in the nation by a long shot
Can vouch for this. I ran that course at their invitational, 2 mile race but easily the toughest I've done, it puts the old Mt. SAC course to shame.
I think Agony Hill is a bit over half way in and when you get there it feels like you're walking near the top even going flat out. Pretty much like the super steep hill at Woodward but on steroids and way longer.
Can't remember if they took it out but we also had several hay bails to jump over in the last 800m. Doesn't sound like much of a challenge but it is when you're dragging ass and it's usually hot and dry too.
It’s cross country, not cross track. If anyone here is ever in Southern California go run the Palos Verdes High School cross country course. Hardest course in the nation by a long shot
There is a course in the Cuyahoga Valley National Park in northern Ohio that is a home course for a high school in the area and it also hosts an invitational meet. I believe only 3 guys have cracked 17:00 on the 5k course and only one girl has gone under 20:00 in the history of the course going back 20+ years.
Andrew Jordan, a 8:46/4:10 high schooler on the track and a 13:28 guy in college, could only muster a 16:56 there. That same year he ran in the 14:40s for 5k elsewhere. The only girl to break 20:00 on the course is Bridget Franek. After high school Franek went on to Penn State where she was the NCAA steeple champion and also represented the US in the steeple at the 2012 Olympics.
Usually only 5-6 guys break 18:00 and about the same number of girls crack 21:00 in any given year. If there is a more difficult XC course anywhere I would like to know where it is.
My home XC course in the early 80s was about 2.6 miles, as it was in use when that was the standard high school distance. It started with 100 yards flat, then up a hill so steep some had to use their hands to climb it. Once on top, you were only at the 200 mark.
All hills, all off-camber, crummy footing, roots and rocks, long grass, steep/short grades that were jarring, same going down that felt like you were jumping off a ledge. I set the course record at 13:30 or so, then went a few seconds faster later in the season at a dual meet. The fastest I ran that season on a "flat" course was a high-15. After the course was used about 15 years the school switched to a 5K course at a soccer complex.
I GPS'd it a few years ago and it came up to 100 feet less elevation gain than Mt. Sac.
It's hard to decide who has the hilliest / toughest courses. I ran the Palos Verdes marathon, so the area has hills. But the Northwest? It has mountains. Does anywhere in the US have the numerous volcanic mountains that you find in Oregon and Washington? No. Seattle is build on "7 hills." Portland is hilly. Spokane, too. I haven't trained in MT, and not much in Idaho, but I'm sure they think they've got the toughest courses in the USA. Gerry Lindgren commented that our ( Mead HS, Spokane) had the toughest course in the USA. But that was a long time ago. Wherever you are, enjoy the hills and beauty. It's what make XC special.
This problem of ridiculously flat courses and fast times is only going to get worse. Now that XC times are digital and in large databases to be easily compared, and rankings are based off XC times, it appears in PA that there is a competition amongst XC meet directors to have the flattest fastest course so teams will want to come to their invitational and get fast times to improve their rankings. I can't prove this, but I'm 100% sure that there are a number of courses in PA that are are billed as 5K's but aren't even 3 miles long. When you see a large race held (250+ runners) and 97 % of them set all-time 5K XC best times, you are seeing a short course.
I suspect it is done by having a very flat course with a number of wide turns where the measurement is performed on the course line that runs between the 2 outer boundary lane lines, yet the runners can actually cut the course short easily by taking all the corners and turns tightly. Something is up - it's ridiculous to see masses of good HS runners run 1.5 minutes or more faster on a new invitational course than they do on a well-known accurately measured legacy course.
Cross country courses with hills > pancake-flat ones. Agree or disagree
I always liked a variety. For me- as long as it's on grass, trails (not black top/concrete) it's a course and the various topographies will suit different runners.
I always wanted to see a cross-country circuit with top runners racing for their club. Maybe 4 races to a season with a championship race at the end. Team and individual competition.
Have courses that are flat, rolling, hilly, mix it in and each type could suit different runners/teams.
XC should be as close to trail running as possible. Over fallen trees/branches, water crossings, rolling hills, and a bit of the flat stuff. Save the pancake -flat crap for the track.
Problem is that everyone with a say in the matter is incentivized to favor flat courses. Athletes, coaches, ADs, etc. all want to see fast times you aren’t getting that with a hilly course
What about downhill courses?
If there was a true downhill course anywhere, and I don’t mean a course that has a lower finishing elevation vs the start, it would be harder than a flat course. Going down hills, especially steep ones, is not easy.
XC courses should not be 5000m. That only encourages comparisons across courses and facilitates the downward spiral we’re in to have the fastest course. Courses should be unique, challenging, and interesting. Establish a good route and keep it forever, so we can compare times *on that course* across decades. Make it 4678 meters, or 5231 meters, or whatever distance it turns out to be. And that’s the distance. And no, you really shouldn’t compare times from one course to another.
This. Heck, XC may be the only running sport left for some schools as the rules change and programs have to make cuts.
Cross country courses with hills > pancake-flat ones. Agree or disagree
Brutal courses with adverse weather conditions is true cross country. I ran NAIA cross country nationals in 1985 on the University of Wisconsin Parkside cross country course. Hilly course add to that 12 inches of rain the 15 hours prior to the race. Many sections were a lake and it was a mud bath. That's true cross country