RE: RE: t-and-f: Short/Long course cross country

[malmo]

>Okay, Goucher, Drossin (U.S. Champs) and O'Sullivan (World Champs)
have won
>impressive doubles, but they've only been contesting both distances
for 3
>years.

My guess is that even Goucher wouldn't call his double against
lesser competition "impressive". More like a snooze.

malmo

RE: Re: t-and-f: Short/Long course cross country

[malmo]

There is more to cross country than a long race on bumpy ground!
John

UHH . . . NO THERE ISN'T!!!  THAT'S WHAT CROSS COUNTRY IS BY
DEFINITION, LONG RACES OVER CHALLENGING TERRAIN!!  I USUALLY
DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THIS BUT . . . YOU ARE FLAT WRONG!
 PERIOD!

Dan


World Cross Country is rarely run over challanging terrain. 

malmo

RE: Re: t-and-f: Short/Long course cross country

[alan tobin]

I often find it funny that a lot of XC races are run over flat, clipped 
grass courses. Even worse is the multi-loop courses such as Worlds. I think 
to qualify as an XC course you have to jump, scramble, or wade through 
something. I can think of only 3 XC races in my life that were "true" XC 
races. Once in high school with 3 inches of snow on the ground (any course 
with at least 1 inch of snow on the ground qualifies as a "true" XC course), 
another time in high school during a downpour with little foot deep pools to 
run across (again, any race in which it downpours or there is a lot of 
"sloshing" going on qualifies), and once in college at I believe it was 
Virginia Tech...the "jump over this little downed tree" obstacle...it's so 
cute..;)

Alan





>From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@darkwing.uoregon.edu
>Subject: RE: Re: t-and-f: Short/Long course cross country
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:49:27 -0800
>
>
>
>
>
>There is more to cross country than a long race on bumpy ground!
>John
>
>UHH . . . NO THERE ISN'T!!!  THAT'S WHAT CROSS COUNTRY IS BY
>DEFINITION, LONG RACES OVER CHALLENGING TERRAIN!!  I USUALLY
>DON'T MAKE STATEMENTS LIKE THIS BUT . . . YOU ARE FLAT WRONG!
>  PERIOD!
>
>Dan
>
>
>World Cross Country is rarely run over challanging terrain.
>
>malmo
>

_
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

RE: Re: t-and-f: Short/Long course cross country

[Subfour359]

why not run worlds at SUNY Cortland?  i hear they have a strem running through the 
course that the runners have to go through!

Re: Re: t-and-f: Short/Long course cross country

[Ed Prytherch]

My experience with HS kids is that everyone wants fast times, so flat, short
courses are preferred.
I directed the state championship meet for South Carolina independent
schools this season. The course was a full 5k, it was hilly and the surface
was uneven and had some loose sand. The main complaint that I received was
that the times were too slow.
Our state public schools championship races are on a course which is short
and has firm, even footing. It produces times which are about a minute too
fast. Needless to say, everyone loves it.
I think that road racing has a lot to do with the obsession with times.
Ed Prytherch.

Alan Tobin wrote:
> I often find it funny that a lot of XC races are run over flat, clipped
> grass courses. Even worse is the multi-loop courses such as Worlds. I
think
> to qualify as an XC course you have to jump, scramble, or wade through
> something. I can think of only 3 XC races in my life that were "true" XC
> races. Once in high school with 3 inches of snow on the ground (any course
> with at least 1 inch of snow on the ground qualifies as a "true" XC
course),
> another time in high school during a downpour with little foot deep pools
to
> run across (again, any race in which it downpours or there is a lot of
> "sloshing" going on qualifies), and once in college at I believe it was
> Virginia Tech...the "jump over this little downed tree" obstacle...it's so
> cute..;)
>