2) The course is different now than what it was before. They made some changes and the course itself has also changed over time.
Cole Hocker, Drew Hunter, Grant Fisher, Dylan Jacobs, Weini Kelati, Drew Griffith, Elizabeth Leachman - some of the winners in the last 10 years. No talent, right?
2) The course is different now than what it was before. They made some changes and the course itself has also changed over time.
Cole Hocker, Drew Hunter, Grant Fisher, Dylan Jacobs, Weini Kelati, Drew Griffith, Elizabeth Leachman - some of the winners in the last 10 years. No talent, right?
You’re supposed to look past that because it doesn’t fit the narrative.
My favorite responses are the ones that point out how slow everyone was on the track back then. All those slow pokes would beat the current super stars in xc. They don’t put it together. The current track times are the product of cheater shoes and enhanced tracks. Take those things away and they run the same times.
Another stupid response is “the courses were different back then.” Isn’t that an acknowledgement that conditions matter? Aren’t shoe/track conditions different now?
2) The course is different now than what it was before. They made some changes and the course itself has also changed over time.
Both of these seem like worthy points to consider. Even when courses are marked the same year after year, conditions can evolve over time. When I was in high school, the University of Iowa opened up a dedicated XC course. Based on my experience running there, the grass conditions and footing got a good bit faster by the time the course was 10 years old (all of this before super shoes, since it has been a little over 20 years since the course opened). Courses can obviously change to get slower, too - if the course gets shifted to avoid really worn down areas and/or erosion, that could get a lot slower if they go into longer grass.
Another possibility I think may be part of the equation is that runners in the 80s and 90s ran better mileage in the summer compared to during the school year - particularly track season. By the time spring rolled around, most of the really fast guys were a little stale compared to their XC fitness. I don't have any solid evidence of that, except for anecdotal evidence of guys I know who ran big miles in the summer in that era.
It is possible the new shoes work better on the track, too. I haven't tried super spikes on the grass, so I can't say from personal experience.
It is an interesting point. It could be that scholarships come from track times most of the time. Maybe there is just more focus on track.
So you are suggesting that all those kids that run super fast on the track just dog it in xc on purpose? Every one of them?
Or there’s a different more obvious reason. In order to benefit from the super shoes you need a harder surface. I bet you see improvement on some of the CA courses that are basically road races. Why? Because super shoes work in road races. I know a kid that ran 14:25 for 3 miles at Woodbridge. He couldn’t break 16:00 for 5k any time they ran on grass xc course.
Footlocker used to be THE big dance. Now it's one of multiple "national championship" meets, so the talent is going to be watered down. If anything, the times being consistent, despite this dilution of talent, is evidence that overall high school xc is getting deeper.
Would be interesting to test your hypothesis against some other data sets though.
2) The course is different now than what it was before. They made some changes and the course itself has also changed over time.
Both of these seem like worthy points to consider. Even when courses are marked the same year after year, conditions can evolve over time. When I was in high school, the University of Iowa opened up a dedicated XC course. Based on my experience running there, the grass conditions and footing got a good bit faster by the time the course was 10 years old (all of this before super shoes, since it has been a little over 20 years since the course opened). Courses can obviously change to get slower, too - if the course gets shifted to avoid really worn down areas and/or erosion, that could get a lot slower if they go into longer grass.
Another possibility I think may be part of the equation is that runners in the 80s and 90s ran better mileage in the summer compared to during the school year - particularly track season. By the time spring rolled around, most of the really fast guys were a little stale compared to their XC fitness. I don't have any solid evidence of that, except for anecdotal evidence of guys I know who ran big miles in the summer in that era.
It is possible the new shoes work better on the track, too. I haven't tried super spikes on the grass, so I can't say from personal experience.
Why are conditions the reason for current kids running slower in cross? But, conditions aren’t the reason they run faster in track?
The slower conditions you outlined speak to the current xc courses being less responsive, harder to run on, slower courses.
You mean responsiveness effects times? For instance if someone were to run on super responsive surfaces in super responsive shoes their times would be much faster due to the much more favorable conditions.
You can’t have it both ways. If conditions matter when you run slower times, conditions also matter when you run faster times.
Footlocker used to be THE big dance. Now it's one of multiple "national championship" meets, so the talent is going to be watered down. If anything, the times being consistent, despite this dilution of talent, is evidence that overall high school xc is getting deeper.
Would be interesting to test your hypothesis against some other data sets though.
Did you even look at the list of winners? The watered down talent argument is pretty laughable.