So what makes a good course?

[Armchair Cyclist]

I watch races, and almost immediately forget where they took place, so I'm going to struggle to picture a lot of what people are referring to here, I suspect. There are a number of short bits of courses that I always recognise when I see them (eg, the one where they go round a running track then up a steep hill halfway down the back straight), but with the exception of the sand bowl of Zonhoven and the cobbles of Kapelmuur, I couldn't associate a feature reliably to a place.

So I am not thinking so much of specific examples of landforms or barriers, but the concepts of them.

Planks I can do without; off camber traverses and the hills that are only just rideable are probably my favoured features.

But what of sand: sandpits, sandy climbs and descents, tidewashed and compacted sand?
Are short sharp climbs with dead turns at the top and bottom the essence of the sport or tedium incarnate?
Do you long for, or dread,the twisty woodland paths?
Do whoops make you whoop, or do pump tracks make you puke?
Are stairs and ramps a great part of the overall challenge, or unwelcome man-made intrusions in what should be man vs nature?
Has racing been purer this year for the lack of extreme mud, or has the discipline been lacking its defining feature?
Long tarmacked straights, or as little road as possible, or more roads that are cobbled or gravel?
How much of the route should be suited to the high-power riders, and how much to the technocrats?
Plenty of passing places, or make them rare opportunities so there is a real battle for them?

Obviously, the impact a feature has will depend on weather, and what is marginally rideable in the race for men/women might be a different matter in the other event.

And I guess the most important element is probably some sort of a balance, but I think it would be interesting to see what is appreciated and what is not considered an asset to a route?

I think there are probably too many options to make a poll...

 

[CXXC]

Short answer, variety or a memorable feature.

Recent course in Sicily was the worst televised cross I have seen in a long time, no variety , little challenge.

Yesterday Maasmechelen was good , twists and turns, varied features. As was
Hoogerheide today , more flowing with climbs and the memorable feature of descent to all those stairs.

CX season is better for a variety of courses, fast ,heavy mud. sand, technical and climbing focussed.

Planks are present on most courses but could easily be left out without great influence on results.

Whoops are there for viewers but also add little to racing.

 

[Wyndbrook]

Riders and a big crowd help make a good course.
Personally Namur and Zonhoven are my favourite ones.

 

[CXXC]

I'm excited to see the upcoming WC's at Hulst this is one of my favourite courses and perhaps many others favourite too.
Interesting features one after another provide entertainment for viewers and
challenges for riders.

 

[Barkintheeye]

Courses that really challenges the riders' technical abilities appeal to me. Typically that translates into tricky off-cambers, massive drops, longer sand stretches where the sand does not pack up and some muddy corners. When all of the top riders are riding the whole race clean, making no mistakes whatsoever, then in my mind the course is too easy..

Namur is a standout course which has over the years produced very good races and intense battles. Gavere is another course that generally gets interesting with wet conditions.

Zonhoven, Antwerpen, Koksijde are also great with lots of sand. Personally Mol lies warm to me after having raced there myself. The World Championship in Ostende 2021 was great in my opinion and the sand was really decisive.

Bogense in Denmark 2019 didn't look that much but it proved to be a really decisive course. Tricky off-cambers and dicey corners. Tabor and Valkenburg are also nice.

Least favorite courses have to be such as Biel, Dendermonde, Dubendorf, and some flat, dry courses in USA, Italy and France that I cannot remember the names of.