Should the sprint race be part of the overall JK?

[graeme]

There was a little discussion on the commentary about this. The JK Sprint race has been a massive success, and it is clearly here to stay.

So should we include the sprint results in the overalls?

I think not, because...

1/ Being so short, its unlikely to have a big effect on the results, except for DQs.
Which would soon lead to calls to introduce some complicated scoring system like the 6-day to make it "fair".

2/ Due to its frantic nature more people inadvertantly mispunch/go OOB/cross uncrossable features in the sprint. Of course they should be DQ'ed. But to take them out of the whole JK on day 1 is too harsh.

3/ It feels like a different discipline. Some people love it, some (think they) hate it. Different people come to the fore. Keeping it separate celebrates diversity, which is a good thing.



But what do you think?

[Gnitworp]

A lot of people need Friday to travel in from distant regions.

As it stands, you can compete in the main individual competition without taking extra leave.

[Blanka]

I agree with Graeme - the sprint in itself is too short to make much of a difference in the overall time so I'd say leave it apart.

I think it's great at the moment that people can choose to do it or not (use Friday to travel if you need to), and I agree that different people are likely to win the two things. So definitely up for leaving it separately...

[DJM]

Before anyone starts a poll on this, it is likely that there will be an online survey of all JK competitors very shortly about various aspects of the JK. The future role of the Sprint will be included in the survey.

[Mrs H]

It's only the travelling thing which makes me think no - I'd love to see all the doubting Thomases forced to do it I don't know anyone who's had a go who didn't like it - even the most sceptical,

[jondub]

Personally I am a huge fan of keeping the races separate. To my mind this encourages out and out racing, you know that you probably have to go all out to win. You might mess up a control or two in process (lose time or mispunch), but it doesn't matter because tomorrow everyone starts back at zero. Combining events results in a more conservative approach, where not messing up is more important that getting the fastest time possible. Also people are better at different disciplines and the races should be to the best competitor at each discipline, not some sort of overall champion.

Three separate Sprint, Middle and Long races over three days gets my vote.

[andy]

I'm divided, but for slightly different reasons than those above.

As a competition I think it should be included. It's a great test of your orienteering skill and if we're already testing middle and long then why not test all 3 individual disciplines?

From the organisational point of view it's a nightmare, try finding more than a handful of decent sprint locations that could cope with 3000+ runners...
1500 cars and 3000 people in the centre of newcastle next year anyone?

[Gnitworp]

The more controls you have to find across multiple races, the more the luck element diminishes.

[RJ]

The Sprint is for the elite and those who still think they are 'elite'..... let's not kid ourselves that it is a discipline for all ages. That doesn't mean that you can't have 'oldies' 'running' in the Sprint format, but as far as it being a test of something for 'oldies'..... forget it!! It is still a format and race that can be enjoyed, because it uses wonderful parks and streets, but it is very much the ethos of the London marathon.... participation for the masses, but real competition for the elite runners. Club runners are there to beat their PB's.... that's it!

The elite runner often runs faster than their brain, and make mistakes. But for the 'oldies' it is the other way round.

[Gnitworp]

That doesn't mean that you can't have 'oldies' 'running' in the Sprint format, but as far as it being a test of something for 'oldies'..... forget it!

Speak for yourself!

[awk]

I'd go for keeping it separate too - pretty much in line with all the arguments so far. To be honest, I'm more and more inclined to jondub's way of thinking, having three separate races rather than a 2-day multiday, but am more than happy with the new format.

What on earth are you on about RJ? You obviously haven't been to the same races as I've been at. Can't run faster than your brain? Either an amazingly fast brain, or very slow legs! I don't think the majority of competitors at Day 1 would agree with you one jot. Just take a look at the closeness of the times to see how competitive it was in the age class competitions.

[RJ]

I stand by what I said! It is a competitive format for the elite.... anyone else is kidding themselves.....

Far from not taking part in sprint races.... I thoroughly enjoy them. As a club we have been organising seven every year for the last five years. They are great fun, and because they are visible to the public they are great 'newbie pullers'. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have them.... just face up to the fact that as a competition they are for the elite.... end of story!

[IanD]

At 51, I still have no trouble in running faster than my brain in sprint race!

In fact, it happens more often in a sprint race than in a conventional forest (although I may outpace my eyes in the forest, but that's another issue).

It's a fair, competitive, format for all age classes. As for the 'London Marathon' ethos of elite competition at the sharp end, and mass competition further back, that also applies to all classes and all sorts of events. How many JK "main" day entrants had a realistic chance of winning their class?

But going back to the original question, while I am an enthusiastic supporter of the sprint, I'm not keen on multi-day all-to-count scoring systems. I think planners and mis-punchers should be allowed to drop one day.

[awk]

just face up to the fact that as a competition they are for the elite.... end of story!

This is the bit I really don't follow. How are they not competition for the non-elite? How are we kidding ourselves if we think they are? They are the most competitive races I've ever done, and Friday's was one of the most competitive of those - there wasn't an elite in sight on my course, but we had a phenomenal competition. In fact the competition is one of the main reasons I enjoy them so much. You'll have to justify your assertion better than just "end of story"!

[Barny of Blandford]

RJ - if the sprint is for the elite as you say - then surely all orienteering (and in fact all sport) is for the elite and then none of us would participate in anything.
One very big plus point for orienteering is that it is a sport that all ages and all abilities can participate in.
Sprint is no different from the other disciplines - those who can combine fitness and brain best (unfortunately often lacking in my case) will win no matter what the distance is - it is certainly not for the elite only.
Look at the photographs from Friday through the links on Nopesport - elite - young - old - sticks - artificial hips and knees - and probably many other problems I have missed out but all having a go and thoroughly enjoying themselves
It is about attitude and mind set - orienteering is not just about the classic race - it is about a variety of disciplines.
Myself I would ideally like to see it included in all JK's but appreciate that some years a suitable venue may be a problem
However my other thought is that universities are often ideal venues and as I know from teaching careers for many years there are a lot of them these days