Designing a Cross Country Course

Find the muddiest, crappiest sections of pond-scum that you can, and send the course straight through them.

I always thought that the ones that were really cross "country", you know like jambaree shootout.

were alot cooler than running on a golf course or in a park.

just dont try and make it flat and fast, those courses suck.

People remember the courses that are hard, no one remembers a golf course. It's those courses you run 2 minutes over what you normally do that you really see who is a good runner.

Aside from difficulty, you need to consider these factors:

1. Start/finish area - Make sure you create a good start where you're not funneling runners down instantly and creating a bottleneck and a finish that provides a good view for runners and spectators. Also make sure that your start/finish won't bog down in wet weather.

2. Turns - Make 'em big enough to handle a lot of runners or put them late in the race when the field has thinned.

3. Visibility - Coaches and whatever spectators happen to come watch need to be able to see what's going on.

4. Cheatability - Avoid creating areas where runners are tempted to or can inadvertently cut the course.

5. Navigability - Someone should be able to figure out where the course goes without having 50 officials pointing out the turns. It'll also mean you need less course monitors.

Ah ...man that takes all the fun out yeah...

hes right though a good course is a balance of those factors he mentioned, and as challengeing, visabley pleaseing(the more natural the better) as you can make it.

but ah....who cares about the spectators......make him run around a bit ...thats just part of XC.

Give them fences to jump. Ideally brick walls with drainage ditches filled with water on the other side. Grass halfway to the knees. Fallen trees across the course. Up and down as many times as possible, and vary the distance and steepness of hills. Another fence at the top of a hill would be quite nice as well.

I remember in Snell's biography there is a picture of him running in the New Zealand X-C champs, and he's in mid-air jumping a fence. Nice.

Aside from difficulty, you need to consider these factors:

1. Start/finish area - Make sure you create a good start where you're not funneling runners down instantly and creating a bottleneck and a finish that provides a good view for runners and spectators. Also make sure that your start/finish won't bog down in wet weather.

2. Turns - Make 'em big enough to handle a lot of runners or put them late in the race when the field has thinned.

3. Visibility - Coaches and whatever spectators happen to come watch need to be able to see what's going on.

4. Cheatability - Avoid creating areas where runners are tempted to or can inadvertently cut the course.

5. Navigability - Someone should be able to figure out where the course goes without having 50 officials pointing out the turns. It'll also mean you need less course monitors.

AMEN

theres one at my old high school we had to run one of our conference meets at that the top guys that usually ran low 16's high 15's would run 19's at. everybody hated that coarse because all the hills were high and steep with roots going everywhere. it sounds kind of cool but its the shittiest coarse ever. so dont do that

The list below holds good suggestions. I'd rate visibility very high. I also would add safe footing. Especially as it will be your home course and you'll probably be practicing and racing on it the most, you don't want too much of the footing that causes sprained ankles and such.

From a competitive standpoint, a tough start is good. If your runners get used to a tough start (meaning some hills and heavy footing) they'll be able to cope well with other courses when they travel.

1. Start/finish area - Make sure you create a good start where you're not funneling runners down instantly and creating a bottleneck and a finish that provides a good view for runners and spectators. Also make sure that your start/finish won't bog down in wet weather.

2. Turns - Make 'em big enough to handle a lot of runners or put them late in the race when the field has thinned.

3. Visibility - Coaches and whatever spectators happen to come watch need to be able to see what's going on.

4. Cheatability - Avoid creating areas where runners are tempted to or can inadvertently cut the course.

5. Navigability - Someone should be able to figure out where the course goes without having 50 officials pointing out the turns. It'll also mean you need less course

don't make it super hard. as someone else already said, your team will be on it the most, so if you have your guys racing on a super hard course very frequently it will take a toll on their legs and you will lose quality training time. some challenge is good, but don't go overboard.

man you guys are a bunch of pansies....

screw the spectators this they arent paying you any money, and if they can move arund make them go to a track race.

I agree. My point is that it is advantageous to have a challenging start (say opening 800 or 1k) as it teaches the runners to cope with early fatigue/slow pace. That makes it easier to move onto other courses. I don't think that it would be wise to make the entire course hard, because, as you say, it will wear people down with repeat races.

Screw the spectators ends up as screw the runners. Cross country is fun to watch but the course has to be somewhat visible.

VanCordlandt Park, for example, sucks from a spectator standpoint. You watch the start - you hustle to the 1/2 way point - now you chose whether to see them come past with a 1000 meters left or go to the finish area.

You've driven 100, 200, 400, 600 miles to see approximately 60 seconds out of your athlete's race.

Yep follow those rules to a T, dont make it tough.

and will be one of a million ungodly boreing unmemorable races, that you just get out of the van run. and dont even remmber what state you were in when you get home.

Forget all of those who said; to make sure that it isnt hard; to leave out the roots; and to make it a spectator friendly course. Obviously those are the "xc runners" who ran the 400m and under during the track saeson. a quick funnel at the beginning forces more emotion and tension into the race. Run it through the woods, the race becomes more personal between the runners, blast it through water, the mud looks good at the end of the race, and thrash it up hills, what doesnt kill you makes you stronger, leave flats too so that the race is equal to all tall ( flats specialists) and short( hill dominators) runners alike.

Thats right if you arent exchanging elbows here and there, or missing your footing now and again.

IT AINT XC

These are my ideas:

1.) Have one moderate hill. The rest should be fairly easy, except:

2.) The start should have a quick funnel, which is less than 70m long. This will get runners to sprint and struggle to complete the race.

LOL...i like the second idea.

cant say i care much for the first.

make the finish a semi-large hill

so when they start their finishing kick, they'll still get their asses handed to them from that deadly last hill