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

Surely they are just talking about a return to what all of us would call "proper" Cross Country? A course with some sort of hills, some rougher, but still runable, going underfoot etc., etc. Mud is usually mentioned but that can't be guaranteed and if the sport is added to the summer Olympics almost certainly wouldn't be present unless artificially created.

The last few times I have watched a major race - World Champs or European Champs - the course has been very boring; flat and even underfoot. There are runners who thrive on "real" Cross Country courses who don't shine at any other branch of our sport and they should be given the opportunity to shine at the highest level. Track and road stars have multiple opportunities to shine - the mudlarks should have theirs!!

Honestly, it may seem like a wild attempt to add cross country to the Olympics but SERIOUSLY, WOULD THAT BE AN AWESOME ADDITION. I don’t think anything would compare to watching the elite or the elite running cross country on an open-area course, especially because we’re all so used to the monotonous track sequence of running in circles (other than the slightly better marathon through the streets of wherever).

All in all, this would be incredible to see happen...

This thread is a bunch of XC aficionados saying basically, "I like XC. Just make the course more old school." The thing is, the Olympic committee isn't trying to appeal to the XC aficionado, but rather the younger, female, edgier, (fill in the blank), current non-fan.

All they need is to choose courses with some f*ck off hills in them and get the hoses out to prepare the rest of the course.

No obstacles required.

The real way to attract a larger audience is body oil and or body paint, two free drinks with admission, and post race DJ and lazer show. Maybe get some cheerleaders with outfits from the old XFL.

The modest way of going about this is what we currently see at many races: log jumps and small hills. They could take this to more of an extreme.

What I personally wouldn't mind seeing is a point to point course that has not been cleared with a path. Just tell them to get from X to Y on foot and make sure the course is clear enough that you can video the whole thing. I would be looking for guys like Max King to have an edge.

Angry Willy wrote:

Ahh ... the good old days.

http://running.competitor.com/files/2012/07/251931_463399180346298_1856447147_n.jpg

Thanks for the memories. I always admired Pat's focus on cross-country. During a time when prize money and appearance fees in road-racing flowed freely to American athletes of his caliber, Pat would instead choose to go head-to-head against the top runners from around the world, often African runners unknown in the U.S., in some of the toughest and most competitive races on the planet, where the rewards consisted of little more than the opportunity to test oneself against the very best.

Which is why XC ought to be added to the Winter Olympics, not the summer Olympics. A February race wouldn't interfere with the track season or any of the major marathons. You could attract major talent from a range of track and road distances and see them go up against each other in the same race.

Make sure there's snow on the course and you get some of your "extreme" or "edgy" element. It would also help participation in the Winter Olympics from African and other warm countries that don't usually send athletes to the Winter Olympics.

Drop the track 10,000. It is absolutely watered down as anyone who can succeed at 10,000 is running half marathons and marathons on the road for much better incentives.

Go with a program of 100, 400, 800, 1500, 5000, XC 10-12k, marathon.

We would have a set of events with less redundancy (successful doubling being a strong indicator of redundancy, ahem Usain and Mo).

Few of the current top 3 in the 5000 would be competitive in a long XC race, which in term is a totally different ballgame from the marathon. Much better than the current waste-of-time 10,000, which every games is basically a rematch of the 5000 and doesn't include the true top talent anyway.

Hugh G Fan wrote:

Drop the track 10,000. It is absolutely watered down as anyone who can succeed at 10,000 is running half marathons and marathons on the road for much better incentives.

Go with a program of 100, 400, 800, 1500, 5000, XC 10-12k, marathon.

We would have a set of events with less redundancy (successful doubling being a strong indicator of redundancy, ahem Usain and Mo).

Few of the current top 3 in the 5000 would be competitive in a long XC race, which in term is a totally different ballgame from the marathon. Much better than the current waste-of-time 10,000, which every games is basically a rematch of the 5000 and doesn't include the true top talent anyway.

"Few of the current top 3 in the 5000 would be competitive in a long XC race, which in turn is a totally different ballgame from the marathon."

Looking forward for the Beer Mile as an Olympic Sport in 2024.

moto cross is in indoor stadiums with mud and hills. do that with xc. no standing outside in bad weather getting to see the runners for about 3 minutes out of a 30 minute race. inside, big hills, mud, sitting down with some gosh darn nachos and a beer watching the ENTIRE race from start to finish.

Hugh G Fan wrote:

Drop the track 10,000. It is absolutely watered down as anyone who can succeed at 10,000 is running half marathons and marathons on the road for much better incentives.

Go with a program of 100, 400, 800, 1500, 5000, XC 10-12k, marathon.

We would have a set of events with less redundancy (successful doubling being a strong indicator of redundancy, ahem Usain and Mo).

Few of the current top 3 in the 5000 would be competitive in a long XC race, which in term is a totally different ballgame from the marathon. Much better than the current waste-of-time 10,000, which every games is basically a rematch of the 5000 and doesn't include the true top talent anyway.

The last few 10000s at the Olympics and WC have been great races on both the men's and women's sides.

There's no need to eliminate the 10000. Just put cross country in the Winter Olympics.

Need more info wrote:

Hugh G Fan wrote:

Drop the track 10,000. It is absolutely watered down as anyone who can succeed at 10,000 is running half marathons and marathons on the road for much better incentives.

Go with a program of 100, 400, 800, 1500, 5000, XC 10-12k, marathon.

We would have a set of events with less redundancy (successful doubling being a strong indicator of redundancy, ahem Usain and Mo).

Few of the current top 3 in the 5000 would be competitive in a long XC race, which in term is a totally different ballgame from the marathon. Much better than the current waste-of-time 10,000, which every games is basically a rematch of the 5000 and doesn't include the true top talent anyway.

The last few 10000s at the Olympics and WC have been great races on both the men's and women's sides.

There's no need to eliminate the 10000. Just put cross country in the Winter Olympics.

They would have to change the Olympic charter to put it in the Winter Olympics. And why should they do it for an obscure sport like cross country when there is a full schedule of running events in the Summer Olympics.

Maybe partner with the NFL and stage a series of races at half times of games. Halftime is extended slightly in length. Out come some hurdles, some ramps (AKA hills) and a water pit. Run a combined men and womens race of 4K. The crowd is already in the stadium. Add some betting and you are good to go.

Mountain Running.

Am going to love it.

Hugh G Fan wrote:

Drop the track 10,000. It is absolutely watered down as anyone who can succeed at 10,000 is running half marathons and marathons on the road for much better incentives.

Go with a program of 100, 400, 800, 1500, 5000, XC 10-12k, marathon.

We would have a set of events with less redundancy (successful doubling being a strong indicator of redundancy, ahem Usain and Mo).

Few of the current top 3 in the 5000 would be competitive in a long XC race, which in term is a totally different ballgame from the marathon. Much better than the current waste-of-time 10,000, which every games is basically a rematch of the 5000 and doesn't include the true top talent anyway.

Why drop the 10,000? There are literally dozens of Olympic events that should be cut first.

long shot at best wrote:

Need more info wrote:

The last few 10000s at the Olympics and WC have been great races on both the men's and women's sides.

There's no need to eliminate the 10000. Just put cross country in the Winter Olympics.

They would have to change the Olympic charter to put it in the Winter Olympics. And why should they do it for an obscure sport like cross country when there is a full schedule of running events in the Summer Olympics.

XC is hardly obscure, it is literally the biggest individual sport not currently in the Olympics. In fact I would say it's bigger than all of the individual winter Olympic race events out there.

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?

Are you autistic?