fewer hills disappointing? They took out a hill yes but it's still decently hilly. Much hillier than Terre Haute for sure
fewer hills disappointing? They took out a hill yes but it's still decently hilly. Much hillier than Terre Haute for sure
I like that it is a still a hilly course. That isn't disappointing. Them removing a big hill from the loop, as you say they did, is disappointing. Obviously it isn't a big deal, and I'm still happy that they are going to use a hilly course at nats, but as I expressed in an earlier post on this thread, I just generally wish more courses would lean into, rather than shy away from, the attributes that make them unique and interesting.
That hill is brutal, fun for a regular season meet not so much for a championship. Call me crazy but I prefer to let the best teams and individuals win because they are better not because of some sort of quirk of the course or extreme conditions.
This course will still be challenging but (barring anything crazy I haven't seen on that far section) it will be fair for everyone without catering to a specific type of runner as all championship courses should.
Also the loop with the big hill can be a bit of a choke point for spectators to get in and out of which could be a concern for a meet of this caliber
That's fair enough. You say that you want teams and individuals to win because they are "better." I guess I just wonder why "better," in the context of cross country, has to always mean the same thing: better at running fast on a mostly flat, wide, level course. Being that cross country is a different sport than track, I think it could be cool if "better" sometimes equaled: better at running fast over challenging and varied terrain.
But as I've said already, I'm not trying to be critical; the OK State course and the UVA course look great, and I'm excited to see some good racing on them. I'm just musing about how I think cross country, which to me is the best form of distance running, could be even better.