Agree or Disagree: IAAF wants Cross Country to become more extreme / edgier to attract audiences & "new breed of runner"

At this point, IAFF is basically trying to RIP OFF the SPARTAN GAMES.

Shame on them.

I agree that the IAAF wants Cross Country to become more extreme / edgier to attract audiences & "new breed of runner." It kind of says so right there in your own link. Why would anyone disagree?

Isn't Parkour already in the Olympic family somehow?

Ok. I started the thread but put that under LetsRun and this under my name as I want it to be clear this is my personal opinion and not that of the website. Personally, I'd like to see what the report from the IAAF XC committee actually says. Has anyone seen their recommendations? How far are they actually talking about? I don't get what they are talking about when the say they'll get a "new breed of cross country runner." What the heck does that mean? Anyone reading racial overtones in that? I think they are totally living in la-la land if they think turning it into a mountain / mud run will result in a non-African winner. Do we not really think Bekele would destroy the best mud / mountain guy in the world? I think he'd win but even if he wouldn't, I don't want that to happen. Then it's not running. It's something else. I do think young audiences enjoy tough mudders / Warrior dash type things but is that what they are talking about? I hope not. Don't get me wrong, I've always found xc to be more interesting than the track because of the hills and mud. And I'd love to see it in the Olympics again and with a big hill but don't know how we do it. Personally, I like the drama of a 10,000 (don't like the 5,000 as it seems like a longer 1500 at the championship level more times than not) but am not automatically opposed ini principal to xc replacing the 10,000 at the Olympics but then again many of the sports greatest champions were also 10,000 champs so I'm not so sure.

I agree wrote:

I agree that the IAAF wants Cross Country to become more extreme / edgier to attract audiences & "new breed of runner." It kind of says so right there in your own link. Why would anyone disagree?

Ok, but is that what we want?

If we add Spartan Games to the Olympics, then that's a Spartan Games gold medal not an xc medal in my book.

If we change the rules of xc so that it's the NFL, it also will be more popular. At some level, we need to keep the sport what it is - running.

In my mind, one of the biggest mistakes the Olympics has made is diluting their product. I prefer substance to popularity. Some of the absurd gold medals in the Winter Olympics don't mean anything.

Before we go too deep in this, I'd like to see what they are proposing as the press release wasn't very detailed. If you know details, please email me at

.

It will have a downhill ski run, a swim through an icy river, and a parkour segment. Bye bye East Africans!

Obstacle course racing is also making a push for the Olympics in 2024. But I'll say those Spartan races on ski resorts are a joke. It is more of a climbing/hiking sort of race with heavy lifting thrown in. You"ll probably see more of a warrior dash type obstacle race (a lot more favorable to athletic distance runners) if that sport made the Olympics. What cross country has going for it in the Olympic bid is diversity, that it attracts runners from a lot of different countries.

As long as it isn't too crazy. Don't all the old school purists complain about xc becoming "track on the grass" and all of the races on golf courses.

rojo wrote:

I agree wrote:

I agree that the IAAF wants Cross Country to become more extreme / edgier to attract audiences & "new breed of runner." It kind of says so right there in your own link. Why would anyone disagree?

Ok, but is that what we want?

Oh, well that's a different question entirely.

No, that isn't what I want. Making things flashy and edgy is almost never a good strategy. It might have some short-term side-show type appeal, but that kind of attention never lasts and isn't good in the long run.

People who think that all activities need to be "edgy" and cool are the marketing equivalent of kids who thrive on the attention they get for eating their own boogers. Yes, people are paying attention. No, they don't like you. They're watching briefly because you're a freak show. And that won't sustain you. I would suggest asking the XFL about this, but they don't seem to be around to take the question.

It's honestly a bit infantilizing for people to act like something has to be flashy to gain and hold my attention. I'm not a raccoon. I don't just go around pawing at anything that's shiny. Give me a great product and I'll watch. Give me flash and fluff and I won't.

YMMV wrote:

It will have a downhill ski run, a swim through an icy river, and a parkour segment. Bye bye East Africans!

Jumping through a ring of fire. Leap over a pit of crocodiles. (It better be a high leap) Force the runners through a funnel at the start and permit any kind of contact.

Anything else to attract the xfit/obstacle course eyeballs?

I'm all in favor of trying to make Cross Country more prominent and putting it back in the Olympics. Making it an Olympic sport is probably the critical thing in drawing more attention to it.

As far as being more extreme or edgier, they don't explain what they mean. If they mean things like hay bales, streams, hills or that race in Italy where they run through windmills, that's fine. Things like that have always been part of cross country even if every course isn't like that. Courses like that are probably more interesting than running big loops around a field. Although if you look at World Cross in Uganda that was a fairly tame course but an exciting race because the crowd was into it because of the Ugandan runners and able to follow what was happening so you probably can't overgeneralize.

If they mean turning cross into a mudrun/Spartan run/stunt/gimmick race, that's a bad idea because it's not rewarding running any more. To be a real cross country race, it needs to be a race where you are only running and not climbing, crawling, swimming, or swinging on ropes. That would wreck cross country without attracting a new audience because those kinds of obstacles races are already out there for people who want to watch them.

What might actually help the sport is to get more people from the general public running cross country so they take more of an interest in professional level cross country, like mass marathons increase interest in professional marathoning. When you have a cross country race, do the professional level race first and then make it an open race.

Because this website has such an umimpeachable reputation and you dont want to tarnish it?

Undertones of racism? I seriously doubt they meant they want white winners. I'm pretty confident they just meant personality, not skin color.

rojo you're probably reading too much into the tea leaves about race; best leave it alone.

IAAF and you are also kind of behind the curve by about 5 years. Max King designed USATF Club XC course in Bend some years back (2013) that was more extreme than typical championship courses. It had mixed reviews at best and they altered the course in subsequent US Championships at the same venue.

I ran in that race and at a championship event with many 100s of racers, a hazardous course is courting disaster. But if you're talking a field that's only in the dozens (e.g., a field like Edinburgh), then adding some challenge could add some excitement.

Challenging, yes. Hazardous, no.

I agree with all of these points. If IAAF is just talking about getting away from flat five-loop manicured-grass courses with a couple of built-up dirt mounds thrown in as speed bumps, that's great; I'd like to see some real hills, some muddy stretches, and perhaps a tree trunk or two to jump over. But not an obstacle course, nothing that forces the athletes to get on their hands and knees, no vaulting over walls, nothing that poses significant risks of injury (like sprained ankles) to world-class runners. Just more races where a real cross-country beast like John Ngugi can rip apart the field with a brutal mid-race surge or a hard push up a tough hill or two. (And, like you, I generally prefer the 10,000 over the 5,000, but less so as the 10,000 becomes just a more extended sit-and-kick race.)

The statement is too vague and says nothing.

They could do with returning the courses to a traditional xc testing xc course. It's supposed to be cross country not cross a putting green.

The current courses would not not even make a hard golf round and adding bales etc is pathetic.

Yeah, the statement's vague.

However, I think this is the right direction. I think this could help it gain traction and attention.

I don't think it should go all-out Tough Mudder but perhaps a bit harder than the NXN course. A cross-country course with a lot more organic obstacles thrown in, like Mt. SAC but maybe some mud and sand portions.

The distance should definitely not be the same as a track distance. Maybe 8k or maybe 12k. But not 10k.

The sport was dropped after 1924 Olympics, when most of the runners dropped out due to extreme heat and pollution from a nearby power station.

What about extreme heat and pollution from a power station? That sounds extreme and edgy to me.

The only American to win an Olympic cross country medal was a black steelworker from Pittsburgh, so he may have been used to extreme heat and pollution:

Here's a picture of the course from the 1924 Olympics - it's not a golf course:

I don't see how making the course 'edgy' will attract more runners. If you want to attract runners, add money.

Seems like a vast majority of HS kids prefer XC to track. Not sure if same could be said for college though. Regardless, after college, where is the money?

I would love to XC added to the Olympics but not some overly hyped Spartan race event.

joho wrote:

I don't see how making the course 'edgy' will attract more runners. If you want to attract runners, add money.

Most athletes pay to compete. The few athletes that get paid with sponsors benefit the IAAF more than the athlete.

So as far as the IAAF is concerned, it's a perfect system.

Don't we already have Fell Running?

How're the crowds for that?

What they are trying to do is Mudder stuff, or American Ninja Warrior.