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

  • Brian
    replied
    Re: Time to boot meters out of XC

    Originally posted by gh
    (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)

    Bringing back imperial means one thing to the common viewer: They can easily realize when someone has averaged better than five minutes per mile. That does mean something to casual viewers.

    Let me give you an example.

    There's a 50+ year-old mega-meet here in Northern Minnesota called "The Swain" (after the late multi-state team champion coach John Swain). This year, a kid from the Czech Republic named Jakob Zivic (remember the name, he just destroyed the North Dakota large school state champ en route to winning the Nike Nationals qualifier, and he's reportedly doing Footlocker, too--if that's schedule possible) breaks the course record running 15:01 for 5,000m. Only thing is, he does it in the junior varsity race because the state high school league says he's ineligible for varsity because he moved here from the Czech republic for purely athletic reasons, or some such thing (I've been busy this Fall; those who know me know why :] ).

    Anyway, the guy scorches the course (slightly changed throughout the years, but still the basic multiple-hilly deal for which The Swain is famous [current route designed by yours truly and another coach about 20 years ago for the University of Minnesota-Duluth, btw, so I know of which I speak]) and the major newspaper doesn't even catch it (big surprise). Worse: the people watching have no idea, they just know he won by a lot. So I mention to some people I know that although times are irrelevent in CC, the guy ran 4:50-something per mile (off the top of my head at the time), pace per mile, good for a 14:30-something 3-mile. Within the hour (all day meet)--I kid you not!--a huge portion of the Woodstock-like event is buzzing about the JV guy who ran sub-5 per mile.

    Then I blew their minds and pointed out US Olympian Steve Plasencia--a Twin Cities native and now coach at the University of Minnesota--ran 14:47 or 14:49 while winning the race in 1974.

    Extreme buzz!


    A few weeks later, major newpaper decides to rank the kid #1 in the state HS rankings (though, in truth, I have no idea how you can be considered the best runner in the state when you aren't allowed to even toe the line in varsity--from an aesthetic point, that is; isn't it supposed to be about racing head-to-head? Whatever; I'm too tired from this Fall).


    This is just one example. But the lesson is that most people can divide 15:00 minutes by 3 and thereby appreciate a sub-5 minute per mile effort, accurate course or not. Few "persons on the street" can even tell you what constitutes 5-minute pace for 5,000 meters.

    Oh yeah, nobody in Hell even cares anymore about trying to make sense of the MN HS girls' 4,000m.


    We could use miles in domestic events and it would be good. For the purists, there is the World Cross 12 and 8km.--no casual viewers in the US care about the World Cross anyway.

    I agree with gh on this baby. From first-hand experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • lonewolf
    replied
    mojo makes a good point, x-c is not a spectator friendly sport. Unless you have a close relative or team with which you are emotionaly involved competing, it is about as unwatchable as soccer.

    Leave a comment:


  • mojo
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by mojo
    you get to watch hundreds (hopefully) take off and then later, much later ,after your butt is frozen or soaking wet, get to watch those same now mud splattered, puking red faced people stagger across a line.
    But televised cross country is very different, you get to see much more of the race. Even seeing it live, a good course allows you more than two glimpses of the athletes too.
    LOL.

    I guess because YOU guys love it you can't understand why others don't.
    Don't get me wrong x-country is a very important part of the sport for the athletes, coaches, schools and parents BUT it is never going to be a popular spectator sport. For most people x-country brings back bad memories of being forced on runs during P.E.

    Field hockey was my second sport and I loved playing it very much. I played at the highest university level and we never had anyone watching. I completely understand why- I can't stand watching it for very long; great to do, boring to watch.

    Plenty of athletes participate in x-country (though I am sure the numbers could be higher) but metric, imperial...makes no difference to watchabilty for the average person.
    Unless you put a tiger out on the course...

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by mojo
    you get to watch hundreds (hopefully) take off and then later, much later ,after your butt is frozen or soaking wet, get to watch those same now mud splattered, puking red faced people stagger across a line.
    But televised cross country is very different, you get to see much more of the race. Even seeing it live, a good course allows you more than two glimpses of the athletes too.

    Leave a comment:


  • mojo
    replied
    No one watches x-country because it is usually done in miserable weather and on courses where you get to watch hundreds (hopefully) take off and then later, much later ,after your butt is frozen or soaking wet, get to watch those same now mud splattered, puking red faced people stagger across a line. Sure if you had a few stars or human interest stories more would come out but not a whole lot more.

    I love most of the sport more than just aboot anything (besides my family and Obama of course :wink: ) but even I would do just aboot anything rather than watch a x-country race-whether it is 10K, 6miles or whatever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by rasb
    And relative to the last couple of posts, no-one knows or cares about the exact dimensions of a hockey rink or a soccer pitch
    I don't think there is even a standard size for soccer pitches.
    There is indeed. FIFA says so. It's a range minimum/maximum.

    The length of a pitch must be between 100 yards (90m) and 130 yards (120m) and the width not less than 50 yards (45m) and not more than 100 yards (90m).
    That's what I mean, the size varies depending on the stadium or the opposition. I remember Rangers reducing the width of their pitch to the minimum for one UEFA game. I forget who they were playing, it was a long time ago. I expect they lost anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by Daisy
    Originally posted by rasb
    And relative to the last couple of posts, no-one knows or cares about the exact dimensions of a hockey rink or a soccer pitch
    I don't think there is even a standard size for soccer pitches.
    There is indeed. FIFA says so. It's a range minimum/maximum.

    The length of a pitch must be between 100 yards (90m) and 130 yards (120m) and the width not less than 50 yards (45m) and not more than 100 yards (90m).

    Leave a comment:


  • Daisy
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    And relative to the last couple of posts, no-one knows or cares about the exact dimensions of a hockey rink or a soccer pitch
    I don't think there is even a standard size for soccer pitches.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Well, the point might be that while we are self-stimulating about metric vs. Imperial distances, as if that were the real issue, the fact is that most people understand competition, racing, personalities, and could give a s**t about the exact distance and time. Everyone understands foot-racing - it is a fundamental principle that everyone has experienced. That's what we should focus on, not whether it is an imperial or a metric race. And relative to the last couple of posts, no-one knows or cares about the exact dimensions of a hockey rink or a soccer pitch, which is my point. Those sports are growing, regardless of the dimensions of the competitive arena, and regardless of which Country you live in.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by kuha
    All the condecending attitudes in the world won't change that.
    In fact, it probably reinforces it. And if you do not live in this country, what do you care what distance we run in the NCAA XCs anyways?? Just like I couldn't care less about the dimensions of a soccer or hockey field.
    Egg-zactly!

    Leave a comment:


  • gm
    replied
    C'mon, everyone knows it is pronounced "kill-oh-meters"!

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by kuha
    All the condecending attitudes in the world won't change that.
    In fact, it probably reinforces it. And if you do not live in this country, what do you care what distance we run in the NCAA XCs anyways?? Just like I couldn't care less about the dimensions of a soccer or hockey field.

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    Canada's landscape, of course, has the same framework. But, at some point, we decided we could work with the rest of the Planet, rather than on some position of "above it all".
    So the (almost entirely rhetorical) proposition to run American cross-country in miles instead of meters means that "we" believe ourselves to be superior to the rest of the planet? That, to put it charitably, is quite a stretch.

    My point--and it is not a minor one--is that yards and miles are "real" here in very significant ways. Americans may not be the brightest bulbs on the planet, but they've made it clear by their actions that they are perfectly happy operating in feet, yards, and miles. All the condecending attitudes in the world won't change that.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Originally posted by kuha
    Originally posted by lonewolf
    Most of the US is surveyed in a system based on 5280' miles. Most of the mid-continent is surveyed in a Township and Range grid, 6 x 6 miles, Many/most towns are laid out in mile grids. I believe the average American has a very good concept of the mile.
    Exactly what I've been ranting about for years. The American landscape is build on a framework of imperial measure.
    Canada's landscape, of course, has the same framework. But, at some point, we decided we could work with the rest of the Planet, rather than on some position of "above it all". Watch me get booted for this ---- perhaps there is some resonance in the recent Election results --- and maybe that's why the rest of the World was voting 90-10.
    Summary position - if track/field is dying in the USA because of metrification, then let it die - not worth saving.

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    [quote=Pego]
    Originally posted by bad hammy
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by "bad hammy":3509h4wu
    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 . . .
    If that is a case, how do you explain global decline of interest? Correlation does not mean causation.
    Second paragraph: http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/disc...=508251#508251
    I don't get it.

    BTW, I have no quarrel with the concept of the American soul being attached to the imperial measurements. All I am saying that metrication is not the primary reason for the decline of interest. That is happening everywhere.[/quote:3509h4wu]
    I never claimed it was a primary reason for the decline in fan interest - it is one of a number of reasons.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X