Skip to main content

Reply to "Difference between cal and course surface"

I wholeheartedly agree, Mark. As I explained to an RD who recently advertised his XC race as 5K when I know for a fact - I measured a partially concurrent 5K on the same piece of park real estate - few people concerned, if any, seem to care. I view this fact as an artifact of the history of poorly measured XC courses being the accepted norm.

Jim, I for one am willing to bet your CT XC course would stand up to a steel tape check.

IMO, if we were to create a different category of certifications - say, a "conditional" category, with the condition being that full certification status would be granted only by a steel tape verification or by some newer, well-validated technology like lidar or something yet devised - we would then potentially create a new standard that would make XC race performances somewhat comparable to each other. These courses would then all become the expected standard over the coming years. Most if not all of these courses would be more accurate than the previously used courses.

Jim, to me, your method for the CT HS championship makes perfect sense. Given (1) the modest investment required by organizers to create a reproducible course with your methods, (2) the comparability with other courses your method affords, (3) the improved accuracy of XC courses across the U.S., and (4) the 10 year life span of the provisional certification, I see no a priori reason we shouldn't contemplate a new, "Cross Country Certification" category.

×
×
×
×