Hardest of these sports to make/medal at the Olympics

I think that cross country skiing could be the hardest. I xc ski and run at a high level. Both sports are equally demanding like any endurance sport (i.e. triathlon, swimming). Cross country requires three factors: major aerobic engine (similar to marathon running), high power/strength (similar to 400/800m runners) and flawless technique (i.e. swimming).

The part that makes xc skiing "easier" to make Olympics than running is that less of the world's population is on skis, smaller chance of finding a freak like Bolt or Kimetto. The top level of performance is not equivalent to a 2:03 marathon, but it is still extremely high. From my racing experience in both sports, I would guess 2:06/7 on a relative scale.

The main factor is money. For example, the US has a half dozen amazing skiers that can turn in top 10 world cup, Olympic, WC performances at peak form (level of Rupp, Ritz, Jenny Simpson, Simmonds, Hall). They make practically no money. Very little sponsorship and without the help of the USST, they would be completely unable to compete.

Our best is Kikkan Randall. She is ranked as number one sprinter in the world and is a recent world champion. She might earn as much as Ritz through sponsorship (Subway restaurant), but she doesn't get free world class facilities, support and coaching like he does.

This makes reaching the Olympics in XC really hard. You have to commit to being completely broke for over a decade and even if you make it to top 10 finishes at the Olympics, you still wont be making a six figure salary.

In running, you can usually pull down a good living if you can even qualify for the Olympics or finish top 10 in a major race (i.e. marathon). Except for Hartman!

This is different if you are Norweigian, Swedish or German. These countries love their skiers and their sponsorship deals are significant.

Peace.

Erik Flora, a former Olympian, might just be the Salazar of XC ski coaching, but he seems more down to earth and personable. He's been Kikkan Randall's coach since she was 18 or 19.

Otherwise your summary is pretty much on. The US has only won one Olympic medal in skiing, and if you count the millions of people that would have access, from Washington/Oregon across the northern states to New England, the Rockies, and Alaska, it's very tough to break into the top 20 or 30 in the world let alone a spot on the Olympic podium. Sponsorship/support are really tough. Young skiers can make the US team but then have to pay their won way to Europe. Only the A team gets full support and there are only 4-5 per year (at best), and that's men and women combined.

LennyZ wrote:

The part that makes xc skiing "easier" to make Olympics than running is that less of the world's population is on skis, smaller chance of finding a freak like Bolt or Kimetto. The top level of performance is not equivalent to a 2:03 marathon, but it is still extremely high. From my racing experience in both sports, I would guess 2:06/7 on a relative scale.

How do you know that Northern Europeans aren't the Kenyans of XC skiing? i.e. just freakishly good, and it wouldn't matter if other countries were into it.

No, you are completely wrong. Having more participation doesn't mean that it's harder too medal. Having more people better than you makes it harder to medal. And in swimming this is the key issue.

Who is it going to be easier to beat: the runner who has been training seriously for 5 years or the swimmer who has been training seriously for 15 years? You are wrong.

Cheer up, BRO! wrote:

How do you know that Northern Europeans aren't the Kenyans of XC skiing? i.e. just freakishly good, and it wouldn't matter if other countries were into it.

Because whenever a winter sport nation decides to pour money into cross country skiing they will win some medals a few years later. The performance level is really low. Sometimes even biathletes beat specialist cross country skiers. A lot of cross country ski training is running. And few of the top dogs can even break a 30 min 10k.

It's a ridiculous niche sport.

Finisher wrote:

Sprints. No question. A few individuals are born with fastest man in the world potential. If you don't have it, you can train all you like, but it will never happen. It is more like a lottery (with drugs).

.

Well, it's certainly debatable. And it's not the "fastest" but rather the "speediest" man. Bolt is rather slow over 10k.

Olympic champion endurance is probably as rare as Olympic champion speed?

kkks wrote:

No, you are completely wrong. Having more participation doesn't mean that it's harder too medal. Having more people better than you makes it harder to medal. And in swimming this is the key issue.

Who is it going to be easier to beat: the runner who has been training seriously for 5 years or the swimmer who has been training seriously for 15 years? You are wrong.

The question is "which is easier to medal?" It's more likely that if you train ideally for swimming from birth that you would medal than if you trained ideally from birth to run. Your genetic limitations are more likely to keep you out of the Olympics in running than in swimming because more people compete in running.

kkks wrote:

No, I'm not kidding. The average swimmer has a lot more training experience than a runner. More people participating doesn't make it harder. More people training for 5+ additional years makes it harder.

How "demanding" the sport is is not the question being asked. It may take more time and skill, but it's more exclusive too, limiting participation numbers. Same goes for other high skill, costly sports- much fewer participation numbers. Distance running is physically demanding with less technical skill, but as I said it's cheap, accessible, and has A LOT of open-purse money that makes it highly profitable for those from third world countries.

I disagree that sprints and distance running are equally hard to medal. There's much, much fewer post-collegiate sprinters and sprinters around the world because it's less lucrative than distance running. It's easier for a sprinter to get tier funding from USATF than a distance runner. Also, sprinter are generally less developmental and younger in age than distance runners, who have a larger age spread due to the potential for development. The depth in distance running right now is unreal and keeps getting better.

Clam Evans wrote:

The question is "which is easier to medal?" It's more likely that if you train ideally for swimming from birth that you would medal than if you trained ideally from birth to run. Your genetic limitations are more likely to keep you out of the Olympics in running than in swimming because more people compete in running.

No.

Since the average training time is shorter in running, genetic potential (if you believe in such a thing) wouldn't be as important. Because as a group, you haven't approached your genetic limit as closely as those in swimming have since as a group they've been training longer.

And yes the question is which is easiest to medal in. Not which is the easiest if both are trained from birth. And in the real world since swimmers are trained almost from birth, swimming is harder to reach the top.

not impressed by cc-skiers wrote:

A lot of cross country ski training is running. And few of the top dogs can even break a 30 min 10k.

It's a ridiculous niche sport.

Probably a troll but I'll take the bait.

Ski training used to be a lot of running, now with better roller skis not so much. However, most world class skiers are carrying around 10 to 15lbs of extra upper body muscle needed for double poling, so they are not going to run sub 30 min 10km because that's a lot of extra muscle not needed for running. Most of them are over 6 feet tall, which is rare for a long distance runner. Ben True (13:07 - 5km) was a great x-c skier, but not world class, these guys are aerobic beasts.

Plus they look way better than runners with their shirts off.

For anyone who has ever tried x-c skiing, they know it is a tough sport.

goldmedalthief wrote:

For anyone who has ever tried x-c skiing, they know it is a tough sport.

Every sport can be tough if you're not in shape for it