Why doesn’t America put on proper cross country races?

Cross country is a school sport in the US.

If you're going to give a bunch of kids expensive university scholarships based on their running ability, it's easier to do that if you're comparing like for like. A high school kid who wins everything in a non-competitive area is hard to judge against a kid who places top 10 in a super-competitive state. So they start looking at times, which means the high school coaches want their kids to run fast times, and the kids want to run fast times too, and before you know it, you're hosting cross country races over precisely measured, well drained, golf courses with minimal elevation changes.

There's no money in British cross country so we can afford to mess around in the mud. But look at our public education - it's the same thing. Kids end up striving for easily comparable exam grades that will get them a place at a good university, not a good well-rounded education.

My daughter has been in cross country several years, in a large American city, and hasn't had one race on a golf course.

SurreyCrossCountryRunner wrote:

Why are American cross country races always on golf courses? Pandering to middle distance runners is why you end up going nuts for winning a marathon on a downhill uncertified course in 2:39 and change.

Because there snowflakes

false premise wrote:

My daughter has been in cross country several years, in a large American city, and hasn't had one race on a golf course.

More like a billiards table then?

false premise wrote:

My daughter has been in cross country several years, in a large American city, and hasn't had one race on a golf course.

We have a local HS course on a golf course that's very hilly and they often go off the fairway into surrounding woods.

Great answer.

I'd also add that being a school sport doesn't just mean that coaches intentionally want fast courses. It also means that participation numbers are massive (most schools have teams) and that teams need courses that are accessible on a weeknight after school. So you have to work with what's available. The reality is that "real cross country courses" aren't just a couple of miles away for most people. I'm sure the same is true in the UK. You have to work with what's available. In a lot of cities and suburban areas, the only place you can conveniently run a race is on a golf course or on campus if the campus is large. Many parks are too wooded, with trails too narrow.

Also, for what it's worth, there are plenty of difficult XC courses in the US. The slow times don't matter for recruiting purposes if the course is famous, like Mt. SAC--a brutal course that has a definite CA flavor, nothing like what you'd find in most European races. I've run more XC races on legit courses than I have on race tracks. It's true that we don't use hay bales or hose the courses down, but again, that's not really feasible for a sport with such large participation numbers (need a huge amount of volunteer labor, plus you're further damaging land that someone else owns).

SurreyCrossCountryRunner wrote:

And before anyone mentions the Edinburgh cross country, well, throwing a log across a cricket pitch does not mean it’s proper country.

This might be the closest to a literal "no true Scottsman" argument I've heard in real life.

Never ran on a golf course in my 10 years of xc

SurreyCrossCountryRunner wrote:

false premise wrote:

My daughter has been in cross country several years, in a large American city, and hasn't had one race on a golf course.

More like a billiards table then?

Actually, no. More like, you don't know what the hel you are talking about.

I am 20+ years removed from my cross country days, but in somewhere close to 40 college cross country races, I can recall racing on a golf course twice, both times at Division III nationals.

When you think of the iconic courses in the northeastern United States, the first two course that come to mind for me are Franklin Park in Boston and Van Cortland Park in New York (the Boogie Down to be specific). While neither involves logs, streams or bogs, Van Cortland Park in the early 90s did have its own, Bronx variation on the theme with broken 40 bottles and used condoms providing logistical challenges on the back loop.

Saratoga State Springs Park in upstate New York is another course that many in the northeast have likely run. No stream crossings, but not a golf course by any stretch.

Finally, I will give this a 7/10. Went a bit heavy on the Briticisms, or I would have gone higher.

As an American who has been running for over a decade, the only two times I've raced in a golf course as when Boulder hosted the cross-country national championship in 2014 and 2015.

As someone who's run off-road for most of their life, I've been perplexed by this too. I think perhaps it might have changed slightly since the 70s and 80s(?). As a kid I remember watching my dad run cross country and it was exactly like what you described. Fast forward to running cross country in school and it was around a freaking perfectly manicured grass park, and I was like WTF is this?

My theory is that perhaps the label "cross country" has been softened because of potential lawsuits, etc, and the label of "trail running" has taken over. Trail running today is actually what cross country used to be.

I ran high school and collegiate cross country and yes we ran on a few golf courses. Some of those golf courses were really difficult! Not the footing, but the hills and turns.

Also, plenty of quality courses out there. Rim Rock Farm (KU), Terra Haute (Indiana), Louisville XC Course, Chili Pepper (Arkansas), and more.

When was the last time you guys beat the US in xc? Asking because I really do not know.

Why are there no hills on british xc courses? Or in britain, for that matter?

Parkrun.

I have been struck by the irony that a fairly low-key event for hobbyjoggers is more cross country-like than cross country is, for high schoolers at least. The pointless courses typically used for US Nationals is a different matter. Worlds CAN be a bit more difficult track, we should choose our best on something similar to what you might call proper cross country.

They have those here post college they are called trail races. Often they involve mountains not some lame field with a couple of logs and a token stream crossing.

"As an athlete, Nick has found much success on the track and in the mountains."

What exactly has his success in the mountains been outside of an interest in Everest and a few hikes?

I'd actually be interested in seeing him race someone like t-Makloufi or Kipchoge up Everest. 2 runners, frostbitten, near death, charging up the mountain. Just Symmonds would be another overhyped obnoxious Everest climb. We've all seen enough netflix documentaries on those.

I'm getting flashbacks to his ninja warrior obstacle experience (or whatever that show is called).

I'll drink to that mate.... Met League Trent Park's aka "mud central", London Champs & Southerns/Nationals at Parli, Ally Pally on a wet day and on and on... courses where even wearing 18mm spikes wont keep you up....