I heard he cut the course 2 miles in.
I heard he cut the course 2 miles in.
Why don't we just have the athletes run up a mountain. That way we can see who the toughest athlete is for sure.
the truth hurtzzz wrote:
Why don't we just have the athletes run up a mountain. That way we can see who the toughest athlete is for sure.
I can't quite understand the sentiment behind these hysterical rants. It’s not a mountain race it’s cross country. It was wet and muddy, no more no less.
The thing about difficult conditions in XC is that it will bring out predator/prey mentalities in the athletes that have to race. These mindsets change throughout the year depending on current form, course and conditions. Those who saw the mud as an opportunity to excel (predator) did well and those that saw it as a burden (prey) did not.
A XC race is not for the purpose of determining who is merely the fastest; it is to determine who is the fastest given the conditions. Track looks to see who is the fastest and attempts to take the course variables and sometimes weather out of the equation. That is why NXN was exciting even if it rained a lot on the course.
I was on a couple of nationally ranked HS XC teams back in the day and I can still remember our coach taking pride that we were mentally tough enough to excel in all conditions on any given day. Not sure if it was true in actuality but I remember loving sand, hay bails, mud, etc., anything to disrupt the fast prima donna’s that relied on speed versus strength. That was why I always loved cross country over track, all we had to be was mentally tougher than the other team (of course 10 plus guys in any given summer running a 1,000 miles didn't hurt).
The problem is that running up a mountain is not Cross Country. With a question like this, it is obvious that you know nothing about the sport of Cross Ccountry. Why do you bother to chime in, whining about something of which you know nothing? Learn a little about the history of Cross Country and the nature of the sport, then come back with something intelligent to add to the conversation.
via sources, I have learned that upstairs at Nike is not happy with the reaction against their big event. Especially here on lrc. So keep it up. Or not.
agip wrote:
via sources, I have learned that upstairs at Nike is not happy with the reaction against their big event. Especially here on lrc. So keep it up. Or not.
And I doubt CBA/SLC, Montoya/Leingang/Burcham/Ryan are happy with that excuse of a national championship either and conclusion to their seasons, and in some cases, careers. Only Leingang has a chance to redeem himself (next week at FL).
agip wrote:
via sources, I have learned that upstairs at Nike is not happy with the reaction against their big event. Especially here on lrc. So keep it up. Or not.
Well, guess what. This weekend there is another xc race and no one is talking about it because of the NXN race. So, keep crying you little cry babies and we will all forget about the other race, whatever it is.
Nike stole the show again, good job. Make it wetter and muddier next year.
agip wrote:
via sources, I have learned that upstairs at Nike is not happy with the reaction against their big event. Especially here on lrc. So keep it up. Or not.
Easy problem, simple solution. Lose the mud fetish. Find a reasonable course within 20 miles of Portland. Meet organization is not the issue. Oregon is not the issue. Portland Meadows/boasting about the mud is the issue.
It's a cross country meet, not a Warrior Race.
I think if the Nike Upstairs folks are saying anything, they are excited by the high percentage of LR posters who do "get it", who do understand the sport of XC. The Nike Upstairs folks also understand very well that there are a few inconsequential children who post negative here on nearly every thread. Nike "gets it", they get it that their event is still on everyone's lips and minds going into the week after the event. Just do it!
I think if the Nike Upstairs folks are saying anything, they are excited by the high percentage of LR posters who do "get it", who do understand the sport of XC. The Nike Upstairs folks also understand very well that there are a few inconsequential children who post negative here on nearly every thread. Nike "gets it", they get it that their event is still on everyone's lips and minds going into the week after the event. Just do it!
SHUX wrote:
agip wrote:via sources, I have learned that upstairs at Nike is not happy with the reaction against their big event. Especially here on lrc. So keep it up. Or not.
And I doubt CBA/SLC, Montoya/Leingang/Burcham/Ryan are happy with that excuse of a national championship either and conclusion to their seasons, and in some cases, careers. Only Leingang has a chance to redeem himself (next week at FL).
CBA and SLC were not the best teams last weekend. Ranking HS teams is not easy, maybe they were over ranked, maybe both teams simply ran out of gas late in the year. Arcadia has finished 1st, 4th, and 1st the past 3 NXNs, so we shouldn't be surprised by their performance. American Fork was ranked high all year by most (Bloom, Milesplit, XC Nation) and had an unreal performance at their regional meet 2 weeks ago. They were ready to roll and backed it up with an impressive 2nd place finish.
Wharton was the strongest runner on Saturday and he's certainly no slouch. XC should reward strength and not necessarily go to the "fastest" runner. As many others have posted, that's what track is for. Yes, conditions were over the top, but I'd rather see XC in those conditions than on a flat, fast course that doesn't require strength.
Interestingly, the girls' race went pretty much to form... Manlius dominated as expected and Baxter (from sunny California) won as most predicted with other top individuals such as Cain, Knight and Efraimson all running well.
My .02 on this:
Having NXNs on a perfectly manicured, dry grass golf course is just as lame of an idea. It's about place, not about time. Elements being involved makes it more interesting. Mud's not a bad thing. Everyone also deals with the same conditions. But the key is to not have it be artificial.
The Nike course is held on the infield of a horse racetrack, and it's totally flat. It's a 5k course that consists of 2 and a half loops. The only hills are those whoopdedoos that Nike throws in, which don't count in my book. The hay bales are a nice touch, anyone who criticizes that can go talk to European XC runners. Nike overall just makes the course a joke, everything is so artificial and fake and they rely on their marketing to make it sound good. If I was a national level runner, no doubt I'd be going to footlocker.
mud or no mud? wrote:
My .02 on this:
Having NXNs on a perfectly manicured, dry grass golf course is just as lame of an idea. It's about place, not about time. Elements being involved makes it more interesting. Mud's not a bad thing. Everyone also deals with the same conditions. But the key is to not have it be artificial.
The Nike course is held on the infield of a horse racetrack, and it's totally flat. It's a 5k course that consists of 2 and a half loops. The only hills are those whoopdedoos that Nike throws in, which don't count in my book. The hay bales are a nice touch, anyone who criticizes that can go talk to European XC runners. Nike overall just makes the course a joke, everything is so artificial and fake and they rely on their marketing to make it sound good. If I was a national level runner, no doubt I'd be going to footlocker.
What makes balboa so special? If you run xc back east you are not impressed with the course. And when have you ever seen an xc race with just 49 runners outside of a dual meet? Sorry, Footlocker is as far from real xc as you can get.
The course has been the same for past 10 years, only difference is some years it gets worse because weather. All the kids know this before and still chose to run.
Those Nike A-h073s should bring the NXN competition to ALTITUDE BABY!
This is all a ploy by Nike to steer the sport towards it's more marketable future: Warrior Dashes. By the time they have introduced the wall climbs, fire jumps and electrified wires, it will be too late to turn back. People will look back in amazement that anything like Footlocker/Balboa even existed.
People are being silly. The course is obv stupid-its what people thought the first year and they should move it mud or no mud. They create some crappy little 5m long hills in the middle of a totally flat swamp. XC is obv about conditions but it seems like with the vast resources of Nike they could find something better than the infield of a horse track. I mean seriously- the infield of a horse track? Is this a joke? Theyre in an incredibly picturesque state with trees and hills and mountains and streams(why not have a stream crossing on a REAL course?) and this is what they come up with? Running in circles in the mud. Its just a track race in the mud.Ugh-pass.
Btw for all the European mud afficiandos what level of mud would be too much? If it was 12 inches deep throughout the course would that be a problem or not enough. I remember reading about a junior world xc race in france where they had 100+ meters of ankle deep cowshit on the course maybe thats a good idea.
The problem isnt the mud its that the course sucks and the mud is artifically known to be always be there. If it rains for a week before the race and its muddy ok fine but when they manipulate it so that its always going to be muddy then it just becomes dumb.
If you want to test toughness and strength have it finish at the top of a 600m long slope this is just a test of who can slip the least.
Btw why dont they just have it on the race track- throw some hay bales out there- that would be even muddier if thats what they were going for.
east meets west. wrote:
mud or no mud? wrote:My .02 on this:
Having NXNs on a perfectly manicured, dry grass golf course is just as lame of an idea. It's about place, not about time. Elements being involved makes it more interesting. Mud's not a bad thing. Everyone also deals with the same conditions. But the key is to not have it be artificial.
The Nike course is held on the infield of a horse racetrack, and it's totally flat. It's a 5k course that consists of 2 and a half loops. The only hills are those whoopdedoos that Nike throws in, which don't count in my book. The hay bales are a nice touch, anyone who criticizes that can go talk to European XC runners. Nike overall just makes the course a joke, everything is so artificial and fake and they rely on their marketing to make it sound good. If I was a national level runner, no doubt I'd be going to footlocker.
What makes balboa so special? If you run xc back east you are not impressed with the course. And when have you ever seen an xc race with just 49 runners outside of a dual meet? Sorry, Footlocker is as far from real xc as you can get.
I actually live on the east coast and have never been to footlocker. I raced Bowdoin (including in what was basically a hurricane my senior year of high school) and Sunken Meadow and Van Cortlandt throughout high school and college. I don't know enough about Balboa to judge it, but I'd be willing to bet it's a better course than what Nike puts together for NXNs. I just wrote that because it's the other national championship course.
hannsen wrote:
People are being silly. The course is obv stupid-its what people thought the first year and they should move it mud or no mud. They create some crappy little 5m long hills in the middle of a totally flat swamp. XC is obv about conditions but it seems like with the vast resources of Nike they could find something better than the infield of a horse track. I mean seriously- the infield of a horse track? Is this a joke? Theyre in an incredibly picturesque state with trees and hills and mountains and streams(why not have a stream crossing on a REAL course?) and this is what they come up with? Running in circles in the mud. Its just a track race in the mud.Ugh-pass.
Btw for all the European mud afficiandos what level of mud would be too much? If it was 12 inches deep throughout the course would that be a problem or not enough. I remember reading about a junior world xc race in france where they had 100+ meters of ankle deep cowshit on the course maybe thats a good idea.
The problem isnt the mud its that the course sucks and the mud is artifically known to be always be there. If it rains for a week before the race and its muddy ok fine but when they manipulate it so that its always going to be muddy then it just becomes dumb.
If you want to test toughness and strength have it finish at the top of a 600m long slope this is just a test of who can slip the least.
Btw why dont they just have it on the race track- throw some hay bales out there- that would be even muddier if thats what they were going for.
They ran world xc Champs at the meadowlands horse track in NJ in 1984, built artificial hills, hmm.
Let's follow your logic. Football is a tough sport for tough men. We should have the Super Bowl played in Green Bay or Chicago during a blizzard. Wouldn't it be fun to watch Peyton Manning or Tom Brady throw the football in that? When the team with the better running game wins, then we can all say they are the true champs. Right. Anyone that complains then would just be a bunch of whiners, right?