Are spikes more important for xc or track?

You’d have higher advantage in cross compared to track. The ratio of running on the track is already higher compared to running on grass, so having spikes for xc races would give you better results.

More important for track. I am a US runner so our XC courses are nothing like Europe's where if you don't wear spikes you'll literally sink in the mud. I ran college XC in the Northeast, and many of our courses went over a lot of pavement and rocks, where it would almost better to just race in flats. You will see good runners racing XC in flats and not spikes all the time. You will never see a good runner racing anything on the track in anything but spikes (although some people do race in vaporflys but they're banned on the track now)

For here (England) it would have to be XC, as you would not manage without them. On the track you would get away with some lightweight flats/racers but with XC you would be falling.

It depends on a few factors.

Weather conditions in Cross Country make those with spikes much more effective than those without, especially with uneven footing (trails vs. golf course), wet or muddy conditions (including snow), or for shorter races. I would contend that a 10k or 12k race with flats versus spikes, conditions being ideal for fast races, you'd see limited benefit from racing spikes versus racing flats.

The other is the distance and speed being run. As noted above, the longer the cross race, given ideal conditions, the less benefit you'd get from spikes. Similarly on the track, you could run a very effective 10k on the track in racing flats, but it'd be hard to run a 3:40 1500m or 1:51 800m in anything but lightweight track spikes.

If you're a high school athlete looking to maximize investment in a pair of spikes that you could use for either XC or track, I recommend a middle-distance pair of shoes, and get removable spikes of various lengths. I personally have found mid-distance spikes, with more rigid sole, to be more comfortable for muddy conditions, up to 8k and 10k. If you can get 3/8" or 1/2" spikes for really messy conditions, you'll get the traction you need. Obviously you would swap out to 1/4" spikes for the track, but you'd have a versatile set of shoes that would be usable for most conditions.

If you don't think that Brazier could run 1:43/3:35 in lightweight trainers, you are crazy.

It really depends on where you'll be racing for each. In CA and other western states where few if any xc courses feature much grass, flats are probably better. In the midwest or northeast where there is usually grass and mud, they are a big help. On the track, you have to be pretty fast and efficient for there to be much difference between spikes and flats.

I think he would run around 2-3 seconds slower then his PR in light weight trainers. You really need that grip for the 800!

Smarter than a 5th grader wrote:

If you don't think that Brazier could run 1:43/3:35 in lightweight trainers, you are crazy.

Guaranteed Brazier would never hit 1:43 in just trainers. You obviously have no idea how much more power is generated through spikes on a track.

You can really tell that LRC forum is weighted towards the distance and road end of the spectrum with absurd posts like this.

Absolutely no 800 runner in the last 60 years has run sub 1:45 without spikes. Not one.

Please, if you never broke 60 seconds in the 400 in HS and are now claiming spikes don't matter in t&f, then kindly refrain from spewing such nonsense and go back to dispensing advise on how to break 3 hours in a marathon for a hobby jogger

To the OPs question..... California HS XC does not allow the use of spikes. Despite this, some of the best performances ever gave come from Cali with athletes only running in flats. Nico Young hit 14:28 at State for 5k and 13:39 for 3 miles at Woodbridge last year without spikes. Compare with John Lester's 1:48 low 800 which was most definitely run with spikes.

This X1000. As the distance goes up spikes start to matter less and less, but there is no way you will see someone ripping a world class 800 in trainers.

Fasterer wrote:

To the OPs question..... California HS XC does not allow the use of spikes. Despite this, some of the best performances ever gave come from Cali with athletes only running in flats. Nico Young hit 14:28 at State for 5k and 13:39 for 3 miles at Woodbridge last year without spikes. Compare with John Lester's 1:48 low 800 which was most definitely run with spikes.

Ok, woodbridge is a 3mile now?

I think you need to understand what an edge case is.

It really depends. If you’re talking a flat, fast 5k course with no real terrain vs a wet track 800m, then track. If it’s track 10k vs wet, muddy, hilly xc course then xc

lunk wrote:

Fasterer wrote:

To the OPs question..... California HS XC does not allow the use of spikes. Despite this, some of the best performances ever gave come from Cali with athletes only running in flats. Nico Young hit 14:28 at State for 5k and 13:39 for 3 miles at Woodbridge last year without spikes. Compare with John Lester's 1:48 low 800 which was most definitely run with spikes.

Ok, woodbridge is a 3mile now?

Now??

Did your coach tell you different to make you feel better?

'If you're going to run 60 seconds a damn quarter. You need some damn spikes on your feet. Light ones!" - Pre

I ran 1:47. One workout we did was 6x400 in 52-53, not wearing spikes. So yes, Brazier could run 1:43 without spikes.

Smarter than a 5th grader wrote:

I ran 1:47. One workout we did was 6x400 in 52-53, not wearing spikes. So yes, Brazier could run 1:43 without spikes.

LOLOL

Seeing that Donovan has hit 1:43 flat or faster exactly two times (out of 45 800s run since he left Texas A&M), I don't think so.

1:47 is a nice time though. .....If it's credible!

Name, school, and pics = credible.

Otherwise, me saying I ran a 3:35 in Chuck Taylor's is just as believable.

Also, you're analogy is flawed.

If you can run 1:47, you are very capable of running a 48 400, no??

6 x 400 @ 52-53 seconds (in flats) is approximately 10% slower than your fastest 400 (with spikes). It makes perfect sense that you can run 52s in trainers.

For us mortals who only hit 1:52 in HS, we too, ran 6 x 400s, but in 57-58 with trainers. So what? We never laced up flats to hit 51s and if we could we would have gone sub 50 with spikes.

It follows that for Donovan's 800 PR of 1:42, 10% slower =~ 1:54

I do think Donovan could bust out as many 1:54s as he wanted in trainers, all day long. But not 1:43.

Bolt could run 10.2s in trainers too, I bet.

But not 9.58

The point is mute though, because no one in T&F has done these things, ever.

Because it's never been done, it's dubious to claim otherwise

Meanwhile Olympic Marathon Gold has gone to barefoot runers and 1000s of HS kids run blazing fast times on wet grass courses with flats so, to the OPs post, Spike matter more in T&F than XC. ....But spikes matter in each and most wear them every opportunity unless there is pavement involved

Fasterer wrote:

Absolutely no 800 runner in the last 60 years has run sub 1:45 without spikes. Not one.

That's a red herring. No good 800 runner is nuts enough to race without spikes. Top guys could break 1:45 in flats if they tried.