WOC then SPRINT WOC???

[madmike]

http://www.orientering.se/ImageVaultFiles/id_14931/cf_628/Proposal%20to%20the%20IOF%20General%20Assembly%2020120320.PDF

Interesting methinks

[Spookster]

The idea isn't new (it was proposed as a response to the IOF consultation on "WOC in the Future"), but the proposal provides more detail on how they think it will work.

I'm also not surprised they suggest 2016/2017 as the first implementation. When Sweden's bid for WOC 2016 was submitted it included a commitment to help China organise WOC 2017, and that sounded to me like a WOC in Swedish forests followed by a Sprint WOC in Chinese parks/cities.

Will be interesting to see how this proposal is received by other nations when it's discussed at the IOF conference this summer.

[Gross]

Not a BOF proposal then.... it's too sensible

Seriously it looks good.... the 'real WOC' will be back to every 2 years which is a great idea. Having the Urban / Sprint in the intervening years will allow many more nations & athletes to participate & organize a WOC...

I would hope BOF would support this in principle!

PS - the Chinese link is good.... there are plenty of big shopping centres to run round

[madmike]

I agree that it looks like a sound plan. Spookster I know it isn't a new concept but it is a formal proposal submitted to the IOF 2 days ago and puts some interesting detail into the debate.

However, the proposal to only give 3 starting places to the top 6 nations could affect the BritishTeam we might end up with 2 whilst say Sweden has 5. 3 for being in top 6 + world champ + JWOC champ. Ireland for example could end up with only one male and one female runner in each event. Of course with an Independent Scotland we could probably get 3 again: 2 English/Welsh/NI and 1 Scot

This allocation of starting slots makes the proposal more attractive to the likes of France, Switzerland and the NORDIC federations than to other perhaps?

[Big Jon]

This allocation of starting slots makes the proposal more attractive to the likes of France, Switzerland and the NORDIC federations than to other perhaps?

Orienteering going the way of other sports and trying to make the WOC just for a few elite runners - with all sorts of get-outs to allow the big countries more runners. Kind of self reinforcing - once a top ranked country you're allowed extra runners therefore a better chance to get good results, therefore more runners etc, etc. Meanwhile if you're a lowly ranked country you get 1 place and tough of your one runner has a mediocre run, you're stuck with 1 place again.

[madmike]

Bigjon - yes, that is my worry - I am quite seized by the idea of alternate WOCs and indeed think the suggested formats are worthy of consideration; however, I am not sure that the qualification proposal is compatible with some of the stated aims in the proposal re broadening the sport to other countries. Indeed, it could have exactly the opposite effect if implemented.

[mharky]

I think it could work, especially with the proposal of the Europeans doing the same thing, but running in opposite years. Giving people the opportunity to do what they consider real international orienteering every year.

[Scott]

Personally, I like the general thrust of the programme, but I would agree that the method of allocating the number of start places could cause some difficulties. This is what the formal BOF response said about the IOF's earlier proposal of allocating start places based on "seeding by nation":

We support in principle the reduction in qualification races during WOC, and we agree that reducing the burden on athletes during the week and increasing spectator and media interest would both be desirable outcomes. However, we have major concerns about the proposed method of “seeding by nation” for determining the allocation of start places in the Long Final. We believe that this proposal risks seriously hampering the growth and development of the sport worldwide, by reducing the possibility of “breakthrough” performances by promising young athletes from less established orienteering nations. We are also concerned that, given the increasing tendency towards athlete specialisation, it would be unfair for a nation’s performance in e.g. the Sprint event at a previous WOC to affect the number of places they were awarded in the Long Final. It is also unclear from the current proposal how the start order for the Long Final would be decided, and this needs to be addressed. We therefore believe that the proposed qualification method needs substantial revision, to ensure that deserving athletes have the opportunity to qualify for the WOC Final in their chosen discipline regardless of their nationality.

[Little Hoddy]

I agree totally with the BOF response.

The alternating WOC and Europeans sprint thing looks very interesting...can't make up my mind whether I like it or not - but it certainly would be exciting.

[greywolf]

I think it could work, especially with the proposal of the Europeans doing the same thing, but running in opposite years. Giving people the opportunity to do what they consider real international orienteering every year.

Wonder if it might encourage BOF to take EOC seriously - doesn't seem to be much of a priority this year (as it's on a "pay your own entry and everything else" basis)

[graeme]

Aye, better get some nationality discrimination in, we can't be letting any random Swede win individual WOC just because they are good enough.
Ooops, I seem to have strayed into the wrong thread.

[mharky]

That would be racist

[Guest88]

Well, the knockout sprint event would seem to offer the perfect opportunity to give those second-tier swedes a chance, as you can double the size of the field with each additional 7-8 minute qualifying round...and powers of 2 get large quickly...

Though it may not necessarily be the event of choice for your average second-tier swede.