Why are British people obsessed with mud and awful weather for XC?

Generally speaking, Australian women are about as unattractive as British women. Aussies just have better suntans.

I generally find Hutchings to be insufferable. But he's absolutely right here. Even if it's Australian summer, they could have found a swampy or floodplain area where this event could be staged. I'd rather risk pissing off the African countries and have more European inclusion. But WA isn't interested in getting this right, Coe would rather try appeal to the IOC to get XC into the Olympics. Just another predictable issue with letting this sport be run entirely by out-of-touch, greedy f*cks.

They didn't move it to a manicured course for the sake of the African runners. Those guys will turn up to any course and smash it. The famous 2019 World XC course had a mud pit and a sand pit as well as the museum hill. The Africans seemed happy enough on that. Bekele and Kipchoge used to boss it at Edinburgh Cross which was usually muddy. I'm not sure why Bathurst is set up to be a track on grass but I don't think it's at the request of many of the runners.

Fair, it's more likely their agents' and NGB officials' preference.

How is fighting extremely hot weather not "fighting the elements"? It is just not elements the Brits are used to this time of year, so they are against it.

30c is not "extremly hot", it's a morning run for most people in Texas.

It is for long distance racing. And it's irregular to true cross country conditions.

The point of XC is the change in the surface, which is what should make it unique. Extremely hot weather is already fairly common at summer championships on the track

You sound like another AC spoiled track baby. My condolences, but I assure you, not a single runner attending this event is worried about the temperatures.

For those complaining about cross country courses that are too manicured, etc, let's try to remember why that happened in America - standardization.

Most XC running in America falls under the umbrella of schools, and they largely decided that they wanted to have ways of comparing performances, so they wrote rules that standardized the distance for most XC races (like 5k in most states for HS). Then everyone wanted to start to compare times (as disingenuous as that may be, given how different courses and conditions can be), and to make themselves look good, coaches and meet directors would want to construct "fast" courses, because who doesn't want a fast time! This phenomenon has progressed to the point where people will try to use XC times from the fall to project track times in the spring.

Courses should be made by this sort of process - start here, finish there, run around/through/over this for the course. Maybe multiple loops. Now how far is it? Make the course first, then measure it to discover how long it is.

No idea what AC is but you sound like someone who would have frozen tears down your cheeks over a bit of precipitation and temperatures below 20C. I assure you that you've never been to this event and never will.

Temperature in my country varies from -27C in the winter to +33C in the summer so you'd be wrong there. And when did I say anything about being in that event? Are you arguing with voices in your head? Running endless laps on the track must have scrambled your brain a little. Come join the boys on the grass once in a while, just don't roll an ankle, ok?

And I quote, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks." I'll leave the homoerotic subtext in your final sentence aside, just don't bring it up again.

I'm in the coldest Australian state, and it was 36 degrees celcius today (97 fahrenheit).

It annoys the sh*t out of me that the Brits think they have a monopoly on tough conditions.

Give me icy temps and mud over scorching heat and sand any day.

Have you watched any Kenyan XCs? Kenyans love mud.

Image:cdn.standardmedia.co.ke/images/thursda...

After reading Gault's course review, I'm not sure what Hutchins is complaining about. The course in Bathurst sounds like it's rutted under foot, it has a mid pit, a sand trap, uneven ground, a big hill, the run through the vines, and the chicane. It sounds like a very different challenge to the track. I think there'll be a few big stars from Europe and US who will watch this and regret passing on the opportunity to compete

The English need it to be in the mud and cold rain and bogs and pastures full of sheep and cow turds because that's the only way they can win.

Go find that thread about the Surrey vs Kentwich XC rivalry and they will be glad to explain this.

Not even Joshua Cheptegai, who famously melted down due to high temperatures 10 years ago at World XC? I can guarantee every single runner attending is monitoring the temperature.

Not to mention, most of the people in the thread missed the entire point. The World XC course is not a track on grass. It has challenges - they are just not the challenges that British XC runners want.

If we just do a simple compare of "run across a largely flat golf course" type charicature US XC race vs "run through this swamp" type charicature of a UK XC race, I think if XC is going to offer something different to track or road races, then the UK version is more "XC". But that doesn't mean every XC race has to be a swamp.

Ever race over every terrain is "hard". It's as hard as you make it. A track 10000m is no more or less hard than a golf course XC or a swamp XC.

What XC is good at is generating changes in rhythm, stride length, maximal effort output n short bursts etc. So long as the course brings some of that different discipline to the party so that it accentuates some athletes strengths compared to how they perform on different surfaces, I'm happy with any course.