USA Cross Course... WTF

To even be able to set up a x-country course right in the middle of a major venue like that in a major city is no small undertaking. To be able to do it with the class and determination of the San Diego folks is no small undertaking. That course was outstanding for the fans. Mats on the sidewalks? Ok, your point is taken. Too hot??? LOL! I suppose some people will always find something to complain about with ingratitude. Whatever.

How about for the USA XC Championships, the race is run on a XC Course that is only for XC. It is not run on a venue that is designed for barbacue and playgrounds. To me, it is kind of like playing the US Open Golf Championship in a park. You know, just put out some flags and tees; and let the golfers knock the ball around... If XC wants to be a serious sport, the powers that be should take the sport seriously. A good starting point could be a venue that highlights the best aspects of the sport: natural surfaces and natural obstacles (creeks to hop over, logs to hurdle). Furthermore, the venue should be dedicated to XC only and should be spectator friendly. I am not even sure a venue like this exists, but if not; USATF should be creating them (or at least one). Think of the TPC golf course where PGA plays the Players Championship. USATF should do something like that, but for XC.

San Francisco had a great course in GG Park for club nationals a few years ago.

first off, x-c is NOT a serious sport. that's why pete magill was able to beat me yesterday. track is serious, hence sport-specific tracks, and the carlsbad 5k is serious, hence a whole city built around a 5k course.

second, golf is NOT a serious sport, it's a hobby, like collecting comics or stamps. that's why rich fat white guys can be good, and design and build their own courses for other white dudes to look and dress like idiots to play on.

x-c IS a good walk, just a little faster. playgrounds can be a fun diversion in this case, and barbecues are convenient if hungry.

golf IS a good walk spoiled.

so, as you can see, your comparison is flawed. thanks for playing...

in the 1980s and 1990s usatf xc was in places like nyc and golden gate park. sports illustrated would cover the race and it was the premier race in the fall for anyone not doing a marathon. to be in the top 100 was something notable. the top 10k, 5k, steeple and many 1500m guys were there.

Likewise the usatf indoor meet was the premier meet and was held at a premier venue (msg), that meet was the best indoor meet in the world.

now the xc champs are an afterthought and the indoor meet is in a convention in albuquerque.

having meets at msg and van cortlandt was no small undertaking either, but it was done yearly and it mattered to both the athletes and the fans. Right now I am not sure the sport has any real fans in the general public. there is only one indoor track meet in america in a venue larger than 10,000. Twenty five years ago there were at least 6 and thirty five years ago probably a dozen.

But i think we are comfortable with it, why else would we have our showcase on the same weekend as the superbowl?

Well here's another walk (jog) down memory lane...

40 years ago a guy named Frank Shorter won USA Cross that was held in some remote town, and the following year, Shorter went onto win Olympic Gold in the marathon.

40 years later a guy with a build similar to Shorter won USA Cross in that same remote town. It will be interesting to see if the 2012 Olympic Marathon is in Vaughn's future.

Retard.. it's called cross country for a reason (i.e. trees and stuff on the course). The object of racing is to get to the finish line as fast as you can and before everyone else. The conditions are the same for everyone.

One other thing retard, going to San Diego and running in awesome weather in February when the rest of the country is snowed in sucks too. Not to mention having to spend time in such a horrible boring city like San Diego. They should hold all National events in god awful cities like San Diego.

Personal opinion (I've raced it in 2008 and 2011) - I don't like the course. It is kind of stupid to put a major championship in a silly little road side rest (same complaint about the Indy course they used in 2004?) Even at 5'4, I bonked my head on a tree branch a few times cutting the turns or smacked my face with branches rounding the last part of the loop. It wasn't a challenging course or very xc like, either.

And it was a bit warm for me. But it's hard to be upset with being in a warm, sunny place to race in February and I love xc. Next year, it is in St. Louis.

donkedik wrote:

Retard.. it's called cross country for a reason (i.e. trees and stuff on the course). The object of racing is to get to the finish line as fast as you can and before everyone else. The conditions are the same for everyone.

One other thing retard, going to San Diego and running in awesome weather in February when the rest of the country is snowed in sucks too. Not to mention having to spend time in such a horrible boring city like San Diego. They should hold all National events in god awful cities like San Diego.

Your'e not really getting it are you? But nice of you to be calling someone "retard" when you are the one that doesn't really understand what the point of this thread is.

Well said. LDR people like Glen L. suck when it comes to helping the sport.

Having venues that reflect the sport and complement it would do it well.

Throw out the bids that don't reflect a pre- determined criteria . The process has become that of well presented bids that are easy to rubber stamp will little thought to what could be best for the athletes and the sport.

Yet, Shalane passed 8k in 25:26 (the course was 110 meters long so official times are for xk + 110 meters - this was disclosed before the race) so she must be a freaking super studette.

In actuality I was there and talked with many of the top athletes, coaches and others connected in the sport and the vast majority loved the venue and course and want it to return there regularly in the future.

I saw all the races and none of the things you saw as negatives played any role in any of the races. The side walk crossing was 1 step only and I didn't even see any athlete notice it. The one driveway crossing had the curbs ramped and the whole thing was covered by a rubber mat - again a non-factor. The obstacle in the course was marked with a v-shaped cone configuration and it was smal and only a factor in the first lap not afterwards. Again I saw no one have trouble with any of these things. The course has many long straightaways and with only the inner loop being somewhat tighter, which some might say you have to have to make it true cross country.

The course was incredibly spectator and coach freindly. You could easily see the runners close up at 3 different points on the course with only having to move about 50 meters back and forth.

Personally, I think Thom Hunt did a masterful job setting up the course and would love to see the US Chammpionships there again soon.

MPR wrote:

Yet, Shalane passed 8k in 25:26 (the course was 110 meters long so official times are for xk + 110 meters - this was disclosed before the race) so she must be a freaking super studette.

One question though -- was this the same "long" course that was used in 2008? If so, I believe Shalane was still about 20 seconds slower this past weekend than she was three years ago on the same course. Obviously there are a lot of variables in a XC race, so it's tough to compare. But was there anything to make it slower this year? Too windy? Too warm?

pffftt.. wrote:

One question though -- was this the same "long" course that was used in 2008? If so, I believe Shalane was still about 20 seconds slower this past weekend than she was three years ago on the same course. Obviously there are a lot of variables in a XC race, so it's tough to compare. But was there anything to make it slower this year? Too windy? Too warm?

I was not there in 2008 so can't say if the course was the same or not but at least similar, not sure if they added the 110 meter finishing straight for this year or not. Good weather for the women's open race - about 68-70 degrees with a light breeze of about 4-5 MPH and low humidity at about 40%. The breeze was mainly a cross breeze as well.

Having a good XC course isn't that hard. A lot of schools have great XC courses. I remember racing at UNC one year and their XC course was amazing. Bridges, grass, dirt loops, creek crossing, etc. The start and finish were in a soccer field, but I think everything else was on soft surface trails.

I raced there is the early 00's, like 02 or 03, so I cannot remember exactly, but it was miles ahead of the course in SD. Granted, I was not there in SD racing, but I was there. The folks in SD did a great job with the event, though.

I agree that we could have more fun with the sport's venues.

Hey OLD XC Master,

When you first made fun of the OP for not being able to compete I thought that it was likely a low blow by an arrogant, but retired stud. (I interpreted your post name to mean that you were old but had mastered XC.)

Then when I found out you ran in the Master's race I had to think to myself, "Wow, I can't believe this guy thinks it is respectable to be running in the Master's race. Master's running is a joke. Any two-bit DIII runner could qualify for US Master's XC championship if they stuck with the sport because all of the people who are actually good runners quit when they grow up and realize that they dont want to embarass themselves in public. This guy must be a real self-important D-bag."

Yours truly,

Not some old ass "age-group" competer, who couldn't compete at a DI conference girls meet.

[quote]sdfdfs wrote:

could qualify for US Master's XC championship "

quote]

I bet he is smart enough to know that you don't have to qualify for the US XC Championship, just register and show-up. But I guess you aren't that knowledgable.

Sad, but keep making fun of others and showing your own ignorance of the sport.

Yes I agree. I ran on this course about 3 or 4 years ago whenthey had the last US cross championship there and it was really not great like most "US cross country courses" they look more designed for a "road race" and not challenging at all. Who designs and accepts these courses as "cross country" it is really a joke, I even include the course at the NCAA nationals, they might look nice and spectator friendly but they can not be called "True Cross country"

I ran it. The course was more challenging than it looks on a map or on a video. The grass was a bit soft and the little hills came in rapid succession in the inner loop. Still, it is fast compared to some CC courses, but definitely slower than a road race. It was ALL grass (tough to do in So. CA) and very spectator friendly. Obstacles were not an issue. If a 2k loop course is required, you can only cover so much terrain. This seemed like a decent choice given the constraints.

AnotherMastersGuy wrote: This seemed like a decent choice given the constraints.

They may have done a decent job of setting up the course given the constraints, but there are plenty of "cross country" courses around the country where there are no constraints. No garbage cans, no playground equipment, no low hanging branches to have to duck under or risk poking an eye out.

There are enough posts on this thread to show that although a few people thought the course was okay, overall it doesn't seem like it was a good choice for a national championship race. The funny thing is that probably the biggest complaint is the low hanging branches which could have been fixed. Any time I have designed a cross country course, we either went far enough around the branches so that it wasn't an issue, or we cut down the branches. Not so difficult to do. Notre Dame has the same issue on their course with low hanging branches and I always wondered how hard it would be to just cut them down.