Levels redux

[Adrian]

Have I missed the deadline for BO AGM resolutions? I'd like to propose a motion to go back to 5 levels. Who would like to second the motion?

I think it's fair to say I'm quite heavily involved in orienteering, and yet I can't say I've ever "got" the change in the number of categories/levels. In fact, I seem to find regular examples of problems that the changes cause.

It still seems as clear to me today as it did back in the 1990s that there are 5 types of event: international, national, regional, district and local. The last three broadly correspond to the number of courses: regional 13, district 7-8, local 1-4. And yet we have to register events as Level D, which is a mixture of district events and local events, and level C, which is a mixture of regional events and district events. This means we have to try and work out whether our district events are Level D or Level C, and whether our regional events are Level C or Level B. If we register a district event at Level D, it makes it look like a one-person-and-their-dog operation. If we register it at Level C it suddenly becomes a gold-plated ranking event.

Three levels was crazy. 4 levels seemed to make some sense, since the lower two levels would logically be regional and club events. But local orienteering really doesn't work on just two levels, and I don't believe that describing events as Level C/D rather than category 3/4/5 has helped our punters in any way. Perhaps people could give examples of how the change has helped orienteers and/or novices?

[paul]

My personal view is lets give it another couple of years before we reopen this debate again. The 3, 4 and 5 level systems all have their pros and cons... and the 5 level system was certainly not perfect.

[greywolf]

"District" events are Level C, "Regional" events are Level B. What's your problem?

[frostbite]

Under the old system for Regional and District events the rules specified which classes/courses should be offered and what format the event should take. Anything that didn’t fit into those specifications had to be registered as Local, regardless of the profile of the event. The JOK sprint, the London City race, the Tim Watkins Blodslitet would all have to be registered as Local. Anything that was not basically the same thing we have been doing since the 1970s had to be local.

So it made sense to get rid of the rules specifying that an event at a particular level had to have a particular format. Once you have done that there is no difference between levels other than the perceived quality of the event. Since it is very difficult to write rules to dictate quality (it really doesn’t come down to the number of toilets) and no two people would agree anyway, it was better not to try, and to let people make their own minds up – so Regional and District became one level (Except BOF made such a hash of implementing this it buggered the whole thing up, forcing what should have been level 2 events onto level 3, but we’ve been through that). If you want to know what courses are on offer at an event, you don’t need level to tell you that – just look at the event details.

Then we had the nonsense that split level2 up again into B and C. Crucially the difference was supposed to be quality, but it seems lots of orienteers would rather the level still told you how many courses an event offers.

Actually, looking at the fixture list, level B events are mostly either regional league events with 13 courses or compass sport cup matches with 9 courses, so maybe it does sort of work. But there are still the odd standalone level B events on dubious areas with no reason to suppose they have much to offer.

Benefits of the system as it is now compared to what we had in the 90s include
- High profile events no longer have to be local events if they don’t fit the prescribed formats
- You can enter any course you like at “regional” events, and there is a continuity between courses at “regional” and “district” that wasn’t there before (eg an adult beginner on light green would have had to run M14/W14 to get an equivalent course – although they wouldn’t know that. Now they just enter light green whatever the event is)
- Results by course as well as age group – much better when you are M40 and may have only 2 or 3 competitors if it was M40L

These last two could have been implemented without a change of event levels I suppose but if you accept these changes then that is halfway to saying Regional and District are the same.

Anything that is not a "one man and his dog" operation should be level C. There was a problem when BOF first introduced the 3 levels that they set the bar too high and forced "district" events to be registered as local but that no longer applies.

[Clive Coles]

No classification system is perfect but surely it's time to move on. As Greywolf said ( if you must keep calling events district and regional events) you can just say level 3 = District and level 2 = Regional

Better though to drop these labels and align levels appropriate to where you set out to attract your punters

level 4 is for low key events which are aimed at local club orienteers.

level 3 is for your regular bread and butter events which draw participants mainly from clubs within a 50 mile radiius

level 2 is for your main Championships and other high profile events which will attract club orienteers from within your region plus orienteers from outside your region. i.e the highest quality "worth travelling for" events.

It's really up to your club to balance your programme between level 3 and level 4 events ~ will depend on your club strength and local circumstances.

[awk]

Have I missed the deadline for BO AGM resolutions? I'd like to propose a motion to go back to 5 levels. ....

Three levels was crazy.

Personally, I think the way things have turned out has simply confirmed in my mind that the move from 3 to 4 levels was completely unnecessary. The difference between levels B and C are so trivial as to be meaningless. Indeed, we're back to a situation where level C events are often more attractive than the level Bs. Doesn't bother me though as I have enough experience to tell the difference, and we've moved on. But going to 5 levels would be an even greater waste of time.

BTW Clive, main Championships are not level 2/B - they're level A.

[SJC]

The difference between levels B and C are so trivial as to be meaningless.

I disagree. There is a significant difference between the regular East Midlands League events (level C) and bigger events such as the Twin Peaks, Springtime in Shropshire and the London City Race (level B).

[Marco Polo]

Adrian,

you have too much time on your hands..

[awk]

I disagree. There is a significant difference between the regular East Midlands League events (level C) and bigger events such as the Twin Peaks, Springtime in Shropshire and the London City Race (level B).

There is....but it's the label and the interest that generates that makes the difference, not the level. I don't go to the Twin Peaks or the London City Race because they're level B - most people don't. They go because they are the races they are. There's little if any difference between the 'bog standard' level B and level Cs. Last year the Edinburgh race was level B, this year level C. Difference between the two races - zilch; importance to the competitors - zilch.

[Clive Coles]

Sloppy use of the word " main" AWK

Clive, main Championships are not level 2/B - they're level A.

In our region the main event of our season is the East Anglian Championship = this is a level B. This atttracts the most East Anglian competitors.

A far smaller sub-set attend the Area Championship when it is held outside of out Region put off I guess by travelling and entry costs, More tend to go to the British and the JK.

Our regional league is normally scored on level C events though if a club wishes to organise their League event to level B guidelines the scoring system is adaptable.

Agree the major Championships ~ the British and Area Champs should be staged to level A guidelines

[paul]

Our regional league is normally scored on level C events though if a club wishes to organise their League event to level B guidelines the scoring system is adaptable.

The SEOA regional league however is predominately level B with the odd level C, which shows the different ways that different regions have implemented the 4 level system (alternatively it shows the flexibility it gives).

[andy]

No classification system is perfect but surely it's time to move on.

Clive hit the nail on the head.

[mappingmum]

scrap levels and just put on events.

[pete.owens]

Definately, time to move on - and also time to end the obsession with the number of courses - as a competitor you only run one after all.

We have too many level B events where the organisers feel the need to put on the full range of courses suggested in the event guidelines - irrespective of the likely demand. This seems particularly severe in the NW where we are regularly seeing courses attracting fewer 10 competitors - insufficient to get ranked.

[madmike]

Our regional league is normally scored on level C events though if a club wishes to organise their League event to level B guidelines the scoring system is adaptable.

The SEOA regional league however is predominately level B with the odd level C, which shows the different ways that different regions have implemented the 4 level system (alternatively it shows the flexibility it gives).

Hmm not quite Paul - Level C was added to SEOA Lge at my request (request bit of classic english understatement) because I did not feel that the area we had for this year met the level B guidelines and I therefore asked the SEOA fixtures committee whether we could have it as a League event at Level C or should we reregister at Level B despite not meeting the guidelines like some other clubs had done across the country. Fixtures said yes if SEOA Main Committee would sanction it as level C which they did about 2 days later (i would have reregistered it by the way was not bluffing). We considered our event had to be a league event to get the numbers regardless of whether it was C or B i.e. 3 level structure, 4 levels or 5 who cares it is an SEOA league event!

Point is that there will be level B events this year that met less of the criteria than ours did, thereby showing that essentially there is no real difference in the SE between the 2 levels. Whilst I have heard that 4 levels makes more sense in the Lakes and others it doesn't seem to make a difference in the SE.

I personally don't understand the beef with 3 levels, which seemed logical to me and had not had time to settle down before it was changed. Let's not confuse everybody by changing again becaause you can construct convincing arguments to justify 3, 4 and 5 levels.

Let's let things settle down for 10 or 20 years and not force people who have better things to do for the sport have to rewrite guidelines for another structure - as Becks once said let's just go orienteering!

Edit: Paul is right of course that the SEOA league rules have been revised to include Level C now.