Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time to boot meters out of XC

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Time to boot meters out of XC

    (in the U.S.)

    Nobody's running for a qualifying time at a specific distance that's required to run on any international team, so why run at a length that means nothing to the man in the street?

    Why not be more friendly to your potential viewer base and run good old miles?

    And no, 20 years of running 10,000s instead of 6M has not created any sense of awareness as to how long 10K is in the minds of anyone except those who run them.

    And even if you believe the 10K has some currency, don't try to tell me that the women's 6K distance is anything that anybody has a real-distance fix on.

    (of course, the fact that men and women aren't running the same distance is another crime, but I'll leave that rant for another time)

  • #2
    Amen, brother.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Time to boot meters out of XC

      Originally posted by gh
      Nobody's running for a qualifying time at a specific distance that's required to run on any international team, so why run at a length that means nothing to the man in the street?
      Because they really don't care?
      Because everyone that does care does know what the distances mean?
      Because we would like to part of the international community?
      Because we DO like to compare times across time (last 20 years, as you point out) and across continents?
      Because, as you point out, the distance is not a big deal in XC?

      My 'appreciation' of XC is below the norm on this site, but waaaay above the norm for our culture, so, as the man in middle, those are my guesses.

      Comment


      • #4
        Certainly glad you're not in charge of any plans to pump life into the sport. By all means, let's keep it as arcane as possible.

        Comment


        • #5
          Although I share gh's concern to pump life into our sport, I can't believe that anyone thinks making a 10K into a 6 mile would move the charts.
          The number of Americans who have run or jogged or walked or watched or had a relative take part in a 10K in a year, must be enormous. And often these are huge City events, with accompanying charity and media hype, so I can's see the 10K being considered an arcane event. What am I missing here?

          Comment


          • #6
            What I see locally is an odd mix: 10K and 3.1M races.

            Of course the first is road racing and the second is high school cross country. But that's the way the distances are generally reported. Go figure.

            Comment


            • #7
              The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by bad hammy
                The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
                The metrification of the world has caused the US to become an island. As goes T&F in the U.S. goes the U.S. in the eyes of the World? :twisted:

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gh
                  Certainly glad you're not in charge of any plans to pump life into the sport. By all means, let's keep it as arcane as possible.
                  ??!!
                  So who IS in charge of it and why is s/he doing such a shabby job?
                  How is 5K or 10K (or 6 & 12K) any less arcane than 3 or 6 (or 4 or 8 miles)? Are you under the impression that Joe(anna) SixPack (or Plumber) has an innate understanding of what those distances entail in XC running?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by bad hammy
                    The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
                    :lol: :lol: :lol: Made me laugh out LOUD! That is sooooo far from the truth that I can't believe you typed that with a straight finger!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yeah, Marlow's right... all XC courses should be 1600m.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by bad hammy
                        The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
                        :lol: :lol: :lol: Made me laugh out LOUD! That is sooooo far from the truth that I can't believe you typed that with a straight finger!!!
                        For a TOE your reading comprehension level is apparently quite low . . .

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gh
                          Yeah, Marlow's right... all XC courses should be 1600m.
                          Wouldn't that be too short? Let's try 5000m. Oh wait, that's what it is now!!

                          [quote=bad hammy]
                          Originally posted by Marlow
                          Originally posted by "bad hammy":17unh1yr
                          The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
                          :lol: :lol: :lol: Made me laugh out LOUD! That is sooooo far from the truth that I can't believe you typed that with a straight finger!!!
                          For a TOE your reading comprehension level is apparently quite low . . .[/quote:17unh1yr]
                          Marlow: Reading Comprehension - A+
                          Bad hammy: Evaluation of Problem - F (the only reason I give you an F is that they won't let me give you anything lower - said it might bruise your tender self-esteem!)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Strange, I thought that the new F was a C?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              [quote=Marlow]
                              Originally posted by bad hammy
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              Originally posted by "bad hammy":zqk12j7g
                              The metrification of T&F (and XC) has helped kill interest in our sport here in the US. Those who cannot see this are blind . . .
                              :lol: :lol: :lol: Made me laugh out LOUD! That is sooooo far from the truth that I can't believe you typed that with a straight finger!!!
                              For a TOE your reading comprehension level is apparently quite low . . .
                              Marlow: Reading Comprehension - A+
                              Bad hammy: Evaluation of Problem - F (the only reason I give you an F is that they won't let me give you anything lower - said it might bruise your tender self-esteem!)[/quote:zqk12j7g]
                              Go back, read post, explain which part you have issues with.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X