Nordic Skiing/Biathlon Thread

[neineinei]

Oh no, Svendsen cheered after his last shooting, now you guys will hate him as well

His first 0-0-0-0 in 1401 days. He is allowed to cheer for beating himself. Or maybe he was yelling at himself for participating in that Head'n'Shoulders commercial.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Oh no, Svendsen cheered after his last shooting, now you guys will hate him as well

Naah, Svendsens totally exaggerated cheering actually made me laugh. It signals pure joy and happiness, in contrast to MFourcade, who is just arrogant when cheering. Also there's a big difference between cheering when you have actually WON and cheering when you think you are gonna win (which MFourcade only did because Lindstroem crashed that day)

 

[Libertine Seguros]

When cheering yourself mid-race, it's the "I'm the best and I know it" cheering that winds me up. Like in Östersund that time a couple of years ago when Fourcade arrived with Bergman to the final shoot, shot clear and looked around to the crowd gesturing them to bring it with a look of sheer smugness as he left ahead of the home favourite. There was a feature on Swedish TV where a bit was shown of Fourcade skiing around a Russian in a relay, think it was Malyshko or Ustyugov, and a the Russian is on the ragged edge, cheeks puffed out clearly giving it all, Fourcade is skiing up to him, talking to him casually like he's not trying at all, dropping back then going round and chatting to him again, before leaping away from him uphill. That's like Bjarne Riis on Hautacam level playing with the opposition. Fourcade admitted that he sometimes feels he needs to play games with the opposition in order to help himself focus. Which I find a crass excuse and a poor justification for belittling other elite athletes. You need to disrespect and mock the opposition so that you can perform at your best? I mean, really?

 

[maltiv]

Svendsen also said today that he wanted to find a French flag before passing the finish line, in order to "send a message" to Fourcade.

If that's not arrogant and disrespectful, I don't know what is.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Svendsen also said today that he wanted to find a French flag before passing the finish line, in order to "send a message" to Fourcade.

If that's not arrogant and disrespectful, I don't know what is.

I just think its funny lol. Obviously the guy has a nice sense of humor, even if he is a bit arrogant and reserved at times, in contrast to the other norwegians.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Svendsen also said today that he wanted to find a French flag before passing the finish line, in order to "send a message" to Fourcade.

If that's not arrogant and disrespectful, I don't know what is.

Yea, I didn't know about that. That's kind of a **** move. Personally I'd rather see neither of them win. Would be nice to see someone like Fak or Ustyugov or Lesser win a race.

 

[python]

this was a great weekend to watch skiing sports, even biathlons

a gorgeous girl Soukalova beautifully winning on home ground was exactly what the sport needed…only a crazed fan would hate svendson for waving spectators (ok, i just heard of the french flag joke, that's weird, if true)

..and for Fak’s sake () garanichev ran out of road impressively dropping eder and little fourcade while chasing…

but the most fun was watching xc sprints both days. lots of interesting tactics, experiments and pairs selections was on display.

the siberian prodigy that dominated skating yesterday didn’t even make the finals with his partner. not clear what happened there as it was not aired, (some figured by a 10 second delay, his partner fell in one heat). but it is also known that the wunderkind is not that strong in the classic style. it is plain scary to think of him if he ever matched polto’s fluidity and olsson's perfect stride.

curiously, since a classic team sprint race is on the menu in sochi, several teams experimented to combine a distance specialist for the 1st leg with a pure sprinter for the 2nd. It seemed to pay for the winning team. kriu was visibly sparing his effort in all heats never moving higher than 4th and handing the job of closing small gaps to vyleg, being the horse he is, vyleg obligingly chased and closed all gaps. this allowed kriu to surge just once on the last hill and, just like northug does, rely on his second to none double polling in the last 100 m.

it was also interesting to watch petu yesterday completely reversing his usual stampede from the gun to being a quiet last until the last hill nuclear eruption. a very risky tactic indeed in any sprint, but it clearly worked twice. it indicates he was sure in his ability to pass everyone even in a wide arc and that the effort was carefully calculated by his coaches.

great weekend.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

this was a great weekend to watch skiing sports, even biathlons

a gorgeous girl Soukalova beautifully winning on home ground was exactly what the sport needed…only a crazed fan would hate svendson for waving spectators (ok, i just heard of the french flag joke, that's weird, if true)

..and for Fak’s sake () garanichev ran out of road impressively dropping eder and little fourcade while chasing…

but the most fun was watching xc sprints both days. lots of interesting tactics, experiments and pairs selections was on display.

So you like XC sprints and biathlon is a last resort wintersport? You are my opposite! XC sprints are for XC skiers who are not good enough to do real skiing.

Oh, and by the way, since when was Gabriela Soukalová German? They were in Ruhpolding. I assume you've mixed it up with the XC, as the XC was from Nové Město na Moravé.

 

[python]

So you like XC sprints and biathlon is a last resort wintersport?

this is inaccurate. i wrote several times that i prefer xc skiing to biathlons. watching biathlons in the winter is my second choice with luge/bobsleigh being the last resort. i dont care if you think i am your opposite for appreciating XC sprints. it is not my problem. btw, i still prefer a distance xc race to any sprint but when there are none to watch, sprints are very interesting due to tactics involved.

sprints are for XC skiers who are not good enough to do real skiing.

this is a misinformed opinion. just like if someone would say biathlons are for those who are not good enough xc skiers (which IS much closer to the true

.... Nové Město na Moravé.

you're right. believe me, i know the difference. i mentally mixed the 2 pictures because i rarely mix biathlons and xc skiing in one post.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

this is inaccurate. i wrote several times that i prefer xc skiing to biathlons. watching biathlons in the winter is my second choice with luge/bobsleigh being the last resort. i dont care if you think i am your opposite for appreciating XC sprints. it is not my problem. btw, i still prefer a distance xc race to any sprint but when there are none to watch, sprints are very interesting due to tactics involved. this is a misinformed opinion. just like if someone would say biathlons are for those who are not good enough xc skiers (which IS much closer to the true

you're right. believe me, i know the difference. i mentally mixed the 2 pictures because i rarely mix biathlons and xc skiing in one post.

I know you know the difference, I was just teasing (and it's understandable, since there aren't that many venues used for both, and I'd like to think both you and I could quite easily recognise Holmenkollen by this point in time, which just leaves Oberhof in the TdS, Val di Fiemme and NMNM!). And it isn't a problem if you are my opposite, except that there should be fewer sprints. As you acknowledge anyway, you're just far less bothered by their proliferation than I am. I see the rapid proliferation of sprints as a threat to real endurance events, which are rapidly being pushed aside since every single meet on the XC calendar from here on in has a sprint event, and every single meet for the last month has had a sprint event too. If they were fewer and further between, I wouldn't have any problem with them at all, but they are so numerous it's a real disappointment as the races that really give themselves time to develop and for you to get engrossed in them become fewer and further between. The sprints just seem to be getting started then, bang, there's the one big attack and the fight for the finish, then the next one starts. I suppose the idea is that in the same time frame as one long, absorbing race, you get eight fast, punchy races that give you several short bursts of fun and keep people tuned in rather than giving people time to tune out partway through and come back for the last few kilometres (especially problematic with mass starts ending in sprints, as we got for a few years before the tail end of last season when things went back the other way).

Biathlon being for people who are not good enough at XC, well, depends where you are. In Norway, sure (Lars Berger excepted of course, although they were talking about Svendsen for the relay in Holmenkollen in 2011 of course ). In Sweden, probably. Russia? Not sure. Certainly few of the biathletes would give the best XC skiers a run for their money since there are no elite skiers among the Russian biathletes, and cross-sport athletes are few and far between (Alexey Slepov?). North America, probably. France? Hard to tell. Germany and Austria? XC athletes change to biathlon left right and centre, and for the last decade or so their strongest female skiers have been biathletes (Uschi Disl is before my time, did she ever do XC?).

I suspect it may also be to do with techniques, because classic technique seems more popular in the countries where biathlon is secondary to XC. It's an eternal question. I guess the bigger question is, why did biathlon spring up to be more popular than XC anywhere, since in general other combination sports have not come anywhere near out-popularising their component sports. Triathlon is popular as a participation sport, but has nothing like the following as a spectator sport that biathlon has.

As to sprints for people not good enough for real XC skiing, that's obviously a facetious remark, but I do think that sprint specialists should not be given so much credence in the World Cup rankings. Obviously for the most part the absolute best skiers with only a handful of exceptions (Legkov, Johaug) are still capable of being at least competitive in the sprints. We now have the situation where you can develop skiers who are good over 2km and garbage at anything longer than 5km, and still get a reasonable World Cup overall ranking. Not a top one, obviously. But the bread and butter of the history of the sport has been the distance races, and I would like it to stay that way.

 

[roundabout]

Indeed. XC is an endurance sport. 11 sprints out of 25 races is too much even if 3 stage races mean that endurance skiers will win the WC easily

Sprints are for people with short attention spans. At least a a TV viewer. Maybe it's better for the fans in the stadium though.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Never given much thought to XC skiing except this year where I have actually watched a couple of races. Still biathlon is superior to XC skiing in regard to excitment and predictability IMO, and since I don't have the time to watch both sports all day long (I'd love to do that), I just watch whats better entertainment; biathlon.

To summarize this weekends biathlon, I think the 4 individual competitions were just perfect resultwise. It couldn't get any better, with Svendsen and Soukalova winning.
Womens 20k individual was probably the best race when it comes down to pure entertainment value.

Looking forward to seeing Bjørndalen next week in Antholz (I assume he participates there). He should be able to get a victory, if he keeps his shooting on the level of MFourcade, since they are equal skiwise. Fak also showing some promise, which is good to see. He seems like a very sympathetic guy.

 

[python]

I know you know the difference, I was just teasing (and it's understandable, since there aren't that many venues used for both, and I'd like to think both you and I could quite easily recognise Holmenkollen by this point in time, which just leaves Oberhof in the TdS, Val di Fiemme and NMNM!). And it isn't a problem if you are my opposite, except that there should be fewer sprints. As you acknowledge anyway, you're just far less bothered by their proliferation than I am. I see the rapid proliferation of sprints as a threat to real endurance events, which are rapidly being pushed aside since every single meet on the XC calendar from here on in has a sprint event, and every single meet for the last month has had a sprint event too. If they were fewer and further between, I wouldn't have any problem with them at all, but they are so numerous it's a real disappointment as the races that really give themselves time to develop and for you to get engrossed in them become fewer and further between. The sprints just seem to be getting started then, bang, there's the one big attack and the fight for the finish, then the next one starts. I suppose the idea is that in the same time frame as one long, absorbing race, you get eight fast, punchy races that give you several short bursts of fun and keep people tuned in rather than giving people time to tune out partway through and come back for the last few kilometres (especially problematic with mass starts ending in sprints, as we got for a few years before the tail end of last season when things went back the other way).

Biathlon being for people who are not good enough at XC, well, depends where you are. In Norway, sure (Lars Berger excepted of course, although they were talking about Svendsen for the relay in Holmenkollen in 2011 of course ). In Sweden, probably. Russia? Not sure. Certainly few of the biathletes would give the best XC skiers a run for their money since there are no elite skiers among the Russian biathletes, and cross-sport athletes are few and far between (Alexey Slepov?). North America, probably. France? Hard to tell. Germany and Austria? XC athletes change to biathlon left right and centre, and for the last decade or so their strongest female skiers have been biathletes (Uschi Disl is before my time, did she ever do XC?).

I suspect it may also be to do with techniques, because classic technique seems more popular in the countries where biathlon is secondary to XC. It's an eternal question. I guess the bigger question is, why did biathlon spring up to be more popular than XC anywhere, since in general other combination sports have not come anywhere near out-popularising their component sports. Triathlon is popular as a participation sport, but has nothing like the following as a spectator sport that biathlon has.

As to sprints for people not good enough for real XC skiing, that's obviously a facetious remark, but I do think that sprint specialists should not be given so much credence in the World Cup rankings. Obviously for the most part the absolute best skiers with only a handful of exceptions (Legkov, Johaug) are still capable of being at least competitive in the sprints. We now have the situation where you can develop skiers who are good over 2km and garbage at anything longer than 5km, and still get a reasonable World Cup overall ranking. Not a top one, obviously. But the bread and butter of the history of the sport has been the distance races, and I would like it to stay that way.

a lot of good discussion points you raised.

surely, the answer, any answer will differ for an observer depending on how close to a personal position on the particular issue one feels. you, for instance prefer biathlon, i prefer xc skiing etc...thus we find different angles to focus on.

but the crux of the matter is rather basic, certainly devoid of any artificial tension. it is the infinite (and very natural !) verity of humans expressing themselves in all sorts of their own, specific circumstances at different random times they happened to...

think...track cycling vs. road racing. think...mtb racing vs the traditional euro velocross. (why on green earth would we need mtb when a very similar terrain bike racing - the velocross - was around long before ? think...the tdf climbers vs. flat stage sprinters or the all rounders. etc etc etc.

in all these variable instances the only constant is variety. there was a mode fitting a limited, specialized group, yet sometimes it became a separate sport, and more often it did not. the reasons for the different outcomes are also much varied, but often it was simply the will of the most energetic individual or the organization in charge (and the depth of its resources ) based on, sporting, or more frequently, commercial reasons.

the xc sprints were born relatively recently to stimulate city fans in nordic towns and to encourage the relatively poor (compared to other sports) industries serving the small sport of xc skiing. iow, it was an attempt by fis to both increase its own reach and respond to some natural demand.

this gave impetus to xc sprints to evolve into its own discipline with its own
training routines within the same federation. thus the pressure to share the spotlite and the revenue. nothing to do with 'inadequacy', but everything to do with human physiology responding differently to different duration sub-maximal efforts and the intention to exploit it commercially.

simply put, a sub maximal effort of 2.5 to 4 minutes in xc racing became its own discipline separate from the traditional endurance menu.

it is unimaginable that anyone in modern athletics would brand the similar duration events (800 to 1000 m) excessive or unfitting.

the small nordic sport of xc skiing is simply is too conservative and traditional in comparison. it is also at a differnt (lower?) stage of evolution.

as to the popularity of biathlon vs. xc skiing, i think it's in the commercial realm, mostly the biathlon uncertainty/unpredictabilty/dramatics factor being exploded, nothing to do with any intrinsic popularity or merits of one sport vs. another.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I understand the city aspect of the development of the sprint. In that respect it's a pretty good and creative way to increase fanbase, producing a short but exciting event that is accessible to a larger crowd than would normally be able to go to the races. See also the Munich H2H slalom, City-Biathlon Püttlingen, or the stadium events. After all, not every city in countries where the Nordic sports are popular have a venue as conveniently located as Oslo has (i.e. there would never be any need for sprints to have developed there, as Holmenkollen is on the T-bane so is immediately accessible within a matter of minutes for anybody within the Oslo metropolitan area).

But while I can accept it as a new discipline, I simply cannot accept that it, as a discipline, merits 11/25 races on the calendar (and the less said about the abomination that is a "team sprint" the better). That's just too much. I similarly think it is ridiculous that there is a pursuit at every Biathlon World Cup meet. Partly because the pursuit is somewhat artificial when the sprint (or Individual) has already paid World Cup points, and partly because there are not enough Individuals anymore. The Individual was the original biathlon format, now we're down to two a year, yet there are ten (10!) pursuits. Why? The IBU has surmised - probably correctly as FIS appear to have come to similar conclusions with XC - that head to head races, whether mass start or handicap start, are seen as more exciting than time trial formats. And as only 30 can start the mass start and 60 can start the pursuit, it's considered more inclusive, gives more athletes a shot at World Cup points, so better than endless Mass Starts. I get that, but I still dislike the marginalisation of the longer skiing form, and the Individual also is the event that most favours the strong marksmen, seeing as misses are punished more than double what they are in the other disciplines.

I guess my hatred for the XC sprint is born less out of a genuine dislike of the discipline (I'm not a fan of it but I recognise it has its value), but a dislike of what I perceive to be its overuse at the expense of many events I consider superior, producing longer and more interesting races, as I like my action to unfold over time rather than seeking what I perceive as being aimed at providing instant and/or continual gratification on a lesser scale, with the tournament format. If it were an occasional change of pace within the World Cup, with its own specialists and especially if it were still primarily with the city courses, providing its own unique atmosphere, I'd probably be a big fan of the discipline. Seeing it overrunning much of the calendar to the point where nearly half of every race the FIS has organised within the Cross Country calendar is a sprint, turns cautious favour into ambivalence, ambivalence into dislike and dislike into hatred.

 

[python]

i did my honest best to provide my view of the sporting, philosophical and commercial reasons as to why the xc sprints are around and likely to stay.

i even drew (an admittedly limited) parallel to the athletics/track and field disciplines of similar duration and intensity (800 to1000 m) to illustrate the conflict and show how NO ONE is concerned because it is an accepted norm to consider 800 m races part of the menu.

despite all that you continue to Bytch and bytch and bytch...thus i have 3 constructive suggestions that may save your energy:

1. quit watching (and *bytching about it) what caused you so much irritation
2. if you feel strong enough, as i mentioned in a previous post, by all means, join the sports governance and try to change it from inside. it is not a flame, i did, and i accomplished the limited goals i had.
3. if none of the options above are reasonable to your worldview, you are likely fixated excessively upon yourself and your own views. this can not be normal and may require therapy.

 

[TomasC]

Svendsen also said today that he wanted to find a French flag before passing the finish line, in order to "send a message" to Fourcade.

If that's not arrogant and disrespectful, I don't know what is.

Yeah. At least MF does not call himself "SuperFourcade".
Of those two, I prefer Martin winning.

 

[roundabout]

Yeah, let's use a race that has been part of Olympic program since 1896 and is based on a very traditional racing distance as comparison to an event plucked out of thin air about 16 years ago

 

[Libertine Seguros]

i did my honest best to provide my view of the sporting, philosophical and commercial reasons as to why the xc sprints are around and likely to stay.

i even drew (an admittedly limited) parallel to the athletics/track and field disciplines of similar duration and intensity (800 to1000 m) to illustrate the conflict and show how NO ONE is concerned because it is an accepted norm to consider 800 m races part of the menu.

If you want me to be honest, I don't event want the XC sprints to be eradicated. It's not my favourite skiing discipline by a long way, but better than no skiing. They ARE a whole different form of legitimate competition as you say, it's just that I overreact to what I see as an excessive amount of them. I would like to see the World Cup calendar be a fairly good balance between classic and freestyle, between individual and mass starts, between short, middle and long distances, relays, and sprints. It's just, at present, there are 11/25 individual races in the season that are sprints. That's almost half. So that's 11 sprints, and 14 races divided between several distances, between classic, skate and "skiathlon", between individual and mass start...several different types of racing, (almost) all more traditional than the sprint, and yet all of them combined only just outnumber the sprints. I feel that my complaints about the proliferation of sprint events to the detriment of more traditional events are being mischaracterized as an attack on the integrity of the sprints as a competition (which admittedly I have not helped in the past by way of facetious remarks about sprinters not being real skiers, or calling them carnival races). My problem with the sprints in the World Cup is one of balance. You know, just as with cycling, the shared interest that brought us both to this site in the first place - I love races full of climbing, but I will still complain about the lack of balance in recent Vuelta parcours. Because when 50% of the race is one-climb, super-steep MTFs, what reason is there for diesel, TT-biased GC candidates to even show up? And then when you add to that when considering the skiing side of things, that the sprints are my second least-favourite format (the team sprint is my least favourite), and a lot of the skiers I like aren't very good at it usually (hello Legkov, hello Steira), this is part of why I rail against them. Others in this thread have echoed the sentiment that there are too many of them. Including even yourself. See, we're not so different after all. I'm just more vitriolic.

Essentially, sprints have a position and a justified role within a balanced World Cup calendar, I just personally consider the current World Cup calendar to be heavily imbalanced in favour of the sprinter.

Personally, I see where you're coming from with your comparisons to cycling and to athletics, but I think both aren't quite right as comparisons. Yes, the XC sprint is a different discipline, and you compare to track cycling, CX etc... - but those are not part of the road calendar, they are something entirely separate. Yes, the specialists do sometimes participate in the road races, and sometimes the road specialists participate on the track, in the field etc. - but it is not as part of the same competition as it is in XC skiing. Each discipline has its own calendar, its own World Championships, and the crossover is fairly small. XC sprints are an integral part of the World Cup, whereas track events and CX events are not part of the UCI WorldTour. And regarding the athletics, nobody complains about the existence of the 800m, but then the 800m never displaced anything. When you go to an athletics meet, there will be a 100m, a 200m, a 400m, an 800m and so forth and so on. I see a purely hypothetical comparison with athletics (in stupendously oversimplified terms) to illustrate the problem I fear (and again, maybe it's an overly pessimistic view) thus:
- traditionally there have been 200m and 400m sprints at a particular league. They decide they want to introduce the 100m. This is fast, exciting and fun. It is decided to rotate the three distances. However, after a while, it becomes decided, every other race will be a 100m. Therefore, the 100m is at every event, whereas the 200m and 400m alternate between other meets.
- 100m specialists therefore have twice as many opportunities to win as 200m and 400m specialists. Adaptable athletes can compete over 100m and 200m, as with, say, Bolt, or over 200m and 400m, as with, say, Johnson. However athletes who are competitive over all three are very rare. Athletes who specialise in the 200m may then look to become dual distance athletes, 100m and 200m. This means they have a chance to win in 75% of the races entered, while the 200m/400m athletes can win 50%. The 400m specialist can only win 25% of the races they enter, so what is the motivation to be a 400m specialist when you can plan for 100m or 200m and have far more chances to win?

All that is some way into the future and, as I say, perhaps an overly pessimistic world view. The sprints as equally weighted with short distances (5-10k), middle distances and long distance races, I wouldn't see a problem. 50% of the calendar? That's a bit too much.* There is also my own personal issue of being a bit too much of an old traditionalist. I want the 50k to be individual start at least once in a while, and I rail against the marginalisation of the Individual in biathlon, even though the reasoning for this is likely the increased excitement factor in the head to head racing (which probably plays into the reason for the XC sprints multiplying as well of course).

*I do acknowledge that with weather concerns this season at times there has been little choice due to lack of snow meaning very short courses are the only thing available.

Finally, the post that started this semi-antagonistic tone off, where I called you my opposite, was intended in jest, similar to the post where I advised a poster they were my enemy for saying that they found sprint stages more exciting than mountain stages and were sad that there was no longer HTC-Columbia controlling the péloton. I can see, reading it back, why it may not have been seen that way, especially with the attempt at playful teasing about the confusion of the biathlon and XC venues for the weekend clearly falling flat as it seems you felt I was being patronising, from the tone of your response.

As a token of peace from me to you, please see below a basket full of cute puppies.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

For those of you who read a Scandinavian language (or bother to run the text through a translator): I found Vegard Ulvang’s 22 page article from three years ago very, very interesting. In this article he explains his view on the transformation from traditional XC to today’s program, the difference in skiing culture between the Nordic countries and continental Europe, why the sprint courses are designed the way they are, the impact of (commercial) TV etc. etc. etc. Whether you agree with him or not, the article describes quite well how and why he has changed his views on XC racing.

“From XC racer to FIS boss”:
http://www.idunn.no/file/ci/49117153/samtiden_2011_01_art04.pdf

 

[meat puppet]

Ulvang...explains his view on the transformation from traditional XC to today’s program...

wrong subforum.

i mean thanks, the article looks interesting

 

[Bavarianrider]

For those of you who read a Scandinavian language (or bother to run the text through a translator): I found Vegard Ulvang’s 22 page article from three years ago very, very interesting. In this article he explains his view on the transformation from traditional XC to today’s program, the difference in skiing culture between the Nordic countries and continental Europe, why the sprint courses are designed the way they are, the impact of (commercial) TV etc. etc. etc. Whether you agree with him or not, the article describes quite well how and why he has changed his views on XC racing.

“From XC racer to FIS boss”:
http://www.idunn.no/file/ci/49117153/samtiden_2011_01_art04.pdf

Would be cool if someone would translate the most important things.
However, i dón't see how Ulvang is complaining. isn't he part of Fis himself

I don't have a problem with sprints. i don't think they hurt traditional XC skiing as it is a new discipline. What hurts cross country skiing is that traditional races like the 50km got totally ****ed up with the mass start.

If you really wan't a mass start, do it on the 15km! Make it short and intense!

So my programm for the big events.

15km mass start: Free or classic technique
30km Individual start (Change of technique after 15km)
50km individual start: Classic or Free technique
sprint
team sprint (only in world championchips, not olympics)
relay

I think this would be a good programm that mixes traditional racing with modern forms very well. Everybody should be pleased with this.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

However, i dón't see how Ulvang is complaining. isn't he part of Fis himself

Sorry if I was unclear. Vegard Ulvang (chairman of the executive board of FIS's XC committee since 2006) is not complaining. He's explaining. Very interestingly so.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Would be cool if someone would translate the most important things.

Here's a taste, giving you the gist of it. It's my poor translation, don't blame Ulvang.

“During my first FIS congress in Prague 1998 one of the key issues was how long the sprint races should be. The central European countries and Finland argued for a separate discipline with distances between 800 and 1000 meters, while Norway feared that a short sprint would lead to two completely separate disciplines. The compromise was something in between (1.2-1.6 km).
…
Elite sport at this level is entertainment. The entertainment value is probably just as big if we race 500 m or 2.5 km, but the physiological requirements are very different. While athletics has traditions and is large enough to market heroes on all events from 100 m to the marathon, I think we will benefit from keeping the family together. Therefore, numerous decisions in recent years have tried to make sprint more of an endurance discipline. Six and six in the finals and the system of "lucky losers" have led to greater speed in the quarter and semifinals and the maximum length for sprint races is increased from 1.6 to 1.8 km. The result is that a few runners with exceptional characteristics such as Petter Northug, Dario Cologna, Markus Hellner and Axel Teichmann can fight for victory in all disciplines from sprint to the 50K. …. Without these racers who collect World Cup points in all disciplines, the World Cup would have been reduced to a political tug of war over how many races to count in each single discipline, rather than being a competition for who’s the season's best all-around runner.”

 

[Vino attacks everyone]

Here's a taste, giving you the gist of it. It's my poor translation, don't blame Ulvang.

“During my first FIS congress in Prague 1998 one of the key issues was how long the sprint races should be. The central European countries and Finland argued for a separate discipline with distances between 800 and 1000 meters, while Norway feared that a short sprint would lead to two completely separate disciplines. The compromise was something in between (1.2-1.6 km).
…
Elite sport at this level is entertainment. The entertainment value is probably just as big if we race 500 m or 2.5 km, but the physiological requirements are very different. While athletics has traditions and is large enough to market heroes on all events from 100 m to the marathon, I think we will benefit from keeping the family together. Therefore, numerous decisions in recent years have tried to make sprint more of an endurance discipline. Six and six in the finals and the system of "lucky losers" have led to greater speed in the quarter and semifinals and the maximum length for sprint races is increased from 1.6 to 1.8 km. The result is that a few runners with exceptional characteristics such as Petter Northug, Dario Cologna, Markus Hellner and Axel Teichmann can fight for victory in all disciplines from sprint to the 50K. …. Without these racers who collect World Cup points in all disciplines, the World Cup would have been reduced to a political tug of war over how many races to count in each single discipline, rather than being a competition for who’s the season's best all-around runner.”

Think it would be cool with a 800m sprint. Everyone got their own line straight forward to see who is fastest (perhpas hard to find a 800m stretch, but you get my point)

 

[TomasC]

Think it would be cool with a 800m sprint. Everyone got their own line straight forward to see who is fastest (perhpas hard to find a 800m stretch, but you get my point)

Hard to find, but I think 100m is doable, Libertine S. would love it!

Edit: There is of course the 110m hurdles possibility as well.