Isn’t a better question, why don’t all the much faster track times translate to faster cross country times?
It’s almost as if conditions matter. Modern track/shoes inflate performance. Take those away and today’s prize ponies don’t run any faster than a barely sub 9 guy in the 80’s.
Beef dog wrote:
Isn’t a better question, why don’t all the much faster track times translate to faster cross country times?
It’s almost as if conditions matter. Modern track/shoes inflate performance. Take those away and today’s prize ponies don’t run any faster than a barely sub 9 guy in the 80’s.
I believe you're correct. Great track times don't always translate to great cross country times and vice versa.
One of Americas greatest cross country runners, Pat Porter won 8 straight USA titles in the 80's and very high finishes at the Worlds cross country championships, best 4th. Yet his track time were best of 13:31 and 27:46. In cross country he beat men much faster than him on the track. Cross country running and track are very different. So to say someone's track times are slower and therefore they shouldn't be able to run faster on a cross country course just doesn't make since, especially after 50+ years of seeing some runners excel at one and not the other.
Pat Porter(RIP) was a great cross country runner.
Look at his bio:
If you’ve ever been to Morley Field at Balboa Parj when it’s not race weekend and try to run the course, it’s almost impossible. I don’t know how they lay it out every year and get close to where it was a year before. Very confusing. You definitely cannot “see” the course when you’re there on any normal day.