Orienteering: The Four Dimensional Sport

[Paul Frost]

I came across this in an Attackpoint thread and thought it might be a good discussion piece here.

From their newsletter of November 1968
The Canadian Orienteering Federation and its member associations are concerned with the development of a COMPETITIVE sport, Orienteering, and not with other forms of non-competitive map and compass exercises occupying the vast numbers of hunters, scouts, girl guides etc. We will try to interest them in our sport, but we will not be the vehicle to train and teach them compass and map skills solely to enable them to pass some proficiency test... We want orienteers who participate, who run or walk against a clock, who compete in meets regularly, who come as individuals, and are not brought in groups only to gain experience for their next award, etc., and we want instructors and coaches also to compete so that they will be able to continue setting interesting and demanding courses.
If any one of these dimensions is lacking, it becomes something else, not orienteering.
If time is lacking, it becomes a non-competitive exercise of simply "getting somewhere".
If the need for climbing or avoidance of obstacles such as hills, marshes etc. - is lacking, it becomes cross-country running, not orienteering.
The essential ingredients of the sport are that each of these dimensions has to be present, has to be a variable to some degree determined by the individual, and it has to be competitive, THEN it is orienteering. Other than that, it is exercise only.
Orienteering is a complete and separate type of sport experience and to maintain the excellence of this experience, course setters should ensure that each of their courses is not just a cross country run for their harriers (they can do that in their own races) not a "240 north for 80 steps and 127 East for 200 steps" (parking Lot problem) nor just exercise competitive or not.
Each and every one of the courses should include the four dimensions of the sport related to the skill of the competitors. When properly balanced, the problems presented by the composition of those four dimensions make the sport a truly exhilarating and immensely rewarding experience for all its participants.

I thought this was a very good description of our sport and the requirements that qualify it as orienteering. What do you think?

[andypat]

I think the description of orienteering works pretty well.

I'd be interested to know how well their slightly defensive and non-inclusive approach worked in terms of the overall development of the sport in Canada. Did they succeed in their apparent aim of putting everyone else off?

[Paul Frost]

I don't know how "successful" they are but have a look at the Canadian Long Term Athlete Development Guide, it's the best presentation of the subject I have seen and I think many athletes/orienteers could learn something from reading it. The professional quality of the content and presentation should be an inspiration to anyone that produces this kind of document.

That link, along with many others can be found on the Scottish Orienteering "Information and resources for coaches" page.

[AndyO]

Did they succeed in their apparent aim of putting everyone else off?

Cracking idea andypat, make newcomers prove that they deserve a map, don't just give 'em away. Registration questions could be
"you sure you're up to it, mate?"
"'aven't I seen you with a woggle?"
"them trainers look pretty clean to me, been running on tracks?"

let's make the sport exclusive

[Paul Frost]

I should point out that the quoted text is one persons submission to the associations newsletter (in 1968), not official policy of Canadian Orienteering.

When I read it I thought of it more as reminder of what "real", "original", "proper" (insert your own choice) orienteering was and how to differentiate it from other sports.

Sometimes changing the essential ingredients of a recipe alters its taste/appeal.

Chocolate and banana muffins might not be as appealing to some if you left out the chocolate.

Or a more exaggerated example:

What if football changed its rules to allow picking up the ball and running with it because a lot of people find controlling the ball with their feet too hard?
Would they get more rugby players playing football?
Would football become more popular/successful, as you now have all those rugby players added to all the existing football players?
Or would the existing football players stop playing football because they don't like getting their hands dirty (or because they thought carrying the ball made the game too easy)?

As an aside, what happened to rugby after this change?

Whilst writing this I wondered if 5-a-side football was a bit like urban orienteering as a more accessible version of it's parent sport. As it retains the key ingredients of competitively kicking a ball within a confined space for a specified time and a goal at each end.

So orienteering doesn't have to be in a forest, as long as it has the four dimensions it can be called "orienteering", if it doesn't...

[Glucosamine]

"them trainers look pretty clean to me, been running on tracks?"

Sounds like a comment at a hash, immediately before a downy penalty. We have getting filthy in common with HHH