It's mainly here in the USA that people care about the distances for XC. For example, at the European XC Championships the focus is on the competition. The various distances: M & F U20- 4450m, M & F U23 - 5960m, Senior M & F- 7470m. It's racing at its purist, times are irrelevant.
Most cross country courses are not round number distances. In high school, my home course was 2.84 miles. The big local meets were at the famous Crystal Springs 2.95 mile course.
Hosts / managers ought to be fined by the governing bodies, or even suspended, if their courses produce skewed results
Lots of reasons. Some meets have quite a number of races and age categories, which try to have a common start and finish area. Some loops (in woods/trails) make it impossible to have the same distance structure for all races, even if one is the "correct" distance.
This is primarily an American thing, where some like to compare their 5km XC to track times. Elsewhere in the world, no one cares about this comparison - it is about place. Road races can be the same - a specific loop rather than conforming to a specific distance - like the Manchester RR yesterday. That is falling out of favor as accurate distance courses (especially with the advent of GPS) are now the norm. Not necessarily a good thing.
The distance doesn’t really matter. Each course is different. The people hung up on times are egotists, have low self worth, and are Strava slaves.
Tell us who the superior runner is: the kid that ran a 15:15 in a hilly grass course in the rain or the California kid that dropped a 14:35 on artificial turf and parking lot asphalt? You know what? It doesn’t matter because both will get their butt handed to them by a 26 year old African that doesn’t give two turds about the surface or the accuracy of the course.
While the distance of the race may not matter, it does matt what you label the race as.
If it isn't a 5k, don't say it's a 5k, say its a 3 mile or whatever.....it isn't that hard.
It's even easier to not get hung up on a tenth of a mile or two's difference.
You'd think that, but as someone the hosts an xc series, you'd be surprised at just how many people are outraged by these tiny differences.
Our courses that run the same distance for both genders are pretty exact. As mentioned, it gets complicated when trying to use similar start/finish areas for different distances. Compromises might have to be made, especially when the location isn't a purpose built XC park.
Because if your course is actually 5k, everyone's GPS watch shows 3.15 and they think it's long and they don't want to come to your race anymore because kids care too much about chasing PRs in XC.
The American cross country is allergic to actual cross cross because American are too sensitive to hills, mud, water, thick grass, gravel, and anything else.
They believe fast equal best so you have to have track on grass and call it cross country and talk about I did xx:xx in cross country, whereas the rest of the world pays them on their head and says bless your little cotton socks, inwardly smiling at who pathetic American cross country course are, do any in the Uk, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, etc to see real cross country
Hosts / managers ought to be fined by the governing bodies, or even suspended, if their courses produce skewed results
Lots of reasons. Some meets have quite a number of races and age categories, which try to have a common start and finish area. Some loops (in woods/trails) make it impossible to have the same distance structure for all races, even if one is the "correct" distance.
This is primarily an American thing, where some like to compare their 5km XC to track times. Elsewhere in the world, no one cares about this comparison - it is about place. Road races can be the same - a specific loop rather than conforming to a specific distance - like the Manchester RR yesterday. That is falling out of favor as accurate distance courses (especially with the advent of GPS) are now the norm. Not necessarily a good thing.
Part of this attitude stems from the “Milesplit-ranking” manner in which many people consume XC news. In many states, Milesplit literally ranks kids based on times, which is dumb because courses and conditions are different, and even more so because they’re not even the same distance. It’s absurd to take these rankings at face value but some do anyway. Speed ratings, however imperfect, at least attempt to adjust for this. To me, this issue is more about how people consume info about XC than the sport itself.
I think I would have preferred high school cross country more if it had been a range of various distances between 4 and 7k. I know some longer routes wouldn't be non-varsity friendly, but not all of them would have to be. I know Van Cortland has that 2.5 mile invite for kids which is cool. It might not be logistically feasible for school day meets or all-comers type fests, but at least for league, conference, or division racing it shouldn't make too much difference.
Lots of reasons. Some meets have quite a number of races and age categories, which try to have a common start and finish area. Some loops (in woods/trails) make it impossible to have the same distance structure for all races, even if one is the "correct" distance.
This is primarily an American thing, where some like to compare their 5km XC to track times. Elsewhere in the world, no one cares about this comparison - it is about place. Road races can be the same - a specific loop rather than conforming to a specific distance - like the Manchester RR yesterday. That is falling out of favor as accurate distance courses (especially with the advent of GPS) are now the norm. Not necessarily a good thing.
Part of this attitude stems from the “Milesplit-ranking” manner in which many people consume XC news. In many states, Milesplit literally ranks kids based on times, which is dumb because courses and conditions are different, and even more so because they’re not even the same distance. It’s absurd to take these rankings at face value but some do anyway. Speed ratings, however imperfect, at least attempt to adjust for this. To me, this issue is more about how people consume info about XC than the sport itself.
THIS is the answer.
And the best LR post in awhile.
Cross country rankings based on times are the dumbest and most meaningless things ever. People obsessed with cross country times meet the same description.