Compass Sport Cup

[GML]

As many others pointed out, rough terrain slows older people disproportionately. But the guidelines dont allow that as a consideration: they should (IMO), but that's not the planners fault!

I'm not sure the guidelines are definitive one way or that other on this issue. What they do make clear is that the physicality of the area should be taken into account:

(d) The lengths shown are intended as a guide. For easy areas
the course lengths will be towards the top end of the range.
For difficult or more physical areas the course lengths will be
towards the bottom end of the range.

I think it would be hard to argue that the courses on Sunday were "towards the bottom end of the range".

[Arnold]

Rather than changing the competition rules / format, the easier answer is to use areas of relatively good runnability for the CSC finals rather than tough heathery ones.

In previous years the areas were mostly very fast (if grotty off paths at times) - Clowbridge, Sutton Park etc - so while the winning times may have been similar the spread of times was much smaller.

Given that clubs will want runners of all abilities to join the CSC Final, partly because of the scoring and partly because of the club atmosphere, it would only make sense to pick nicer areas. You can always leave the tougher areas for the British Champs which arguably should not necessarily appeal to people lower down the results.

Where is it next year anyway?

[Mrs H]

Where is it next year anyway?

ha ha ha

[NeilC]

Yes the grass did look greener

[EddieH]

[quote](d) The lengths shown are intended as a guide. For easy areas
the course lengths will be towards the top end of the range.
For difficult or more physical areas the course lengths will be
towards the bottom end of the range.
[/quote]

I do not see this in any way as suggesting that the ratios should be varied - this surely refers to the length range given in that column.

I confess that both as planner and controller I have loved these guidelines. Settle on one course and the rest is automatically generated requiring none of the lengthy personal judgements that used to be required.

(I happen to believe that the championship age group ratios are totally out of date and would like to see them take account of fitter faster older people than when they were written. However this does not apply to colour coded courses, and when I plan I use them religiously then the only valid complaint is that I got the base course wrong.)

There is undoubtedly a case to be made that rougher terrain should have bigger differentials and maybe they could be easily included with an enlargement factor based on a numerical assessment of general runnability.

In the end we have to get a balance between universal competitor satisfaction (impossible) and official work load. Otherwise there'll be no officials and no events to moan about.

[DJM]

EddieH wrote:

(d) The lengths shown are intended as a guide. For easy areas
the course lengths will be towards the top end of the range.
For difficult or more physical areas the course lengths will be
towards the bottom end of the range.

I do not see this in any way as suggesting that the ratios should be varied - this surely refers to the length range given in that column.

But Appendix B (Planning) says:

2.6.3 Applying the course length ratios – points to watch for:
• M21 probably uses the whole area. The shorter courses use only part of it, and this might be more or less runnable, or steeper/flatter, than the average
• rough terrain has a greater effect on the running speed of younger and older competitors than of M21s
• older competitors are significantly affected by steep terrain, particularly downhill
• older competitors find dense tree growth more of an obstacle – suppleness decreases with age
There is no magic formula for allowing for these variables.

...which does give the planner/controller sufficient discretion to vary course length ratios where the terrain requires it.

[EddieH]

I stand corrected.

Nevertheless when planning I follow the ratios. When controlling I allow variation if the planner makes a case for it.

[graeme]

Very sensible planning guideline that, but I'm surprised at...

There is no magic formula for allowing for these variables.

Not magic maybe, but "get out and test run the course" tends to work for me. And getting someone else out to do so works even better!

[NeilC]

For BOC 2006 most courses visited three quite different areas so as planner I set up some simple equations which took into account the relative "runnability" of each area and the length of each course section within each area. Gave up when the results all ended up so close to the published course length ratios as to make no significant difference.

[DJM]

And the Planning Appendix also says, in 2.6.2:

Test running – planning a course and then running it. This is often difficult to interpret, as
• navigating to a feature is generally much easier in an event, when there is a flag on it
• running solo tends to be slower than running competitively.

It's all there ...

[DeerTick]

(I happen to believe that the championship age group ratios are totally out of date and would like to see them take account of fitter faster older people than when they were written.

I love you Eddie (after two thirds of a nice bottle of Chardonnay Colombard). I finished Day 2 of Purple Thistle, Big Thistle, out on my feet, but was able to jog to download - to be met by by EH suggesting I hadn't tried hard enough if I was still running. That's my boy!

For me (M60), the greatest difficulties are eyesight and difficult terrain (eyesight related).

AP

[ianandmonika]

CSC Final Burbage – Planner’s Response to Nopesport Comments

There have been some negative (and anonymous) comments about the Burbage event so it’s only fair for me to respond rather than let them lie. No apologies for the lengthy reply.

Initially, let me just dispel some thoughts you may have that I don’t understand veterans’ needs. I am a W65 with dodgy knees that struggle on downhills, but I do have a few years experience behind me. I looked at my course (Short Green) and it was a course I would have expected to run. Similarly, several times I checked the crossing of Burbage Brook, finally when hanging controls, and it was no problem, even with my knees.

The CSC Final is now a Level 1 event, so that brings with it certain requirements, including for good terrain, so some areas used in the past may no longer be eligible.

Regarding course lengths, I used Event Rules M CompassSport Cup and Event Guideline B for Colour Coded courses. These are not totally consistent in terms of the overlap of course colours and age classes, so I used a compromise between the 2, also talking account of veterans’ general comments that they did not want short courses. There is also the issue of competitors running in higher or lower classes than normal (ie W40 running in Women’s Open). Additionally, there are significant restrictions at Burbage on land access and parking, which dictate where starts and finishes can be located, plus the CSC Final now demands an ‘arena finish’. I looked at a long walk to a remote start but did not think that would be appreciated. But I thought courses, if possible, should visit the valley woods for some variety in terrain. The shorter courses in particular spent a greater proportion in the woods rather than the moorland. Taking the climb adjusted Brown course at 12.5k and its recommended 57 minute winning time (which might have been met had SYO’s missing M21s been competing), then all the climb adjusted course lengths fall into place, with the Blue Men distances being on the long side in an effort to get them into Surprise View woods. So Short Green should be 33/85 x 12.5k = 4.8k; it was a climb adjusted 4.9k. Guideline B only gives a recommended winning time for Black and Brown, not for other courses.

On control placement, if you navigate to the feature, and the control description location, you should find the flag – not see the flag, then the feature.

There were some comments about the map, which Ian takes full responsibility for. The use of 15000 scale for Men and Women’s Open and 10000 for other courses does not seem unreasonable. He decided to show a bracken screen, which was correct but would have appreciated the specified green colour being a little lighter. The windblown in the wood, which by its very nature had to be generalised, was mapped as dark green, which is not ‘fight’ but ‘very difficult to run’ or ‘difficult to walk’. Ian was in the woods during the event watching competitors trying to get through these green areas and I understand they were certainly difficult to walk. To map them as medium green would have been wrong. Finally, CSC maps were litho printed on non-waterproof paper and bagged to improve legibility.

Against all the negatives, there were many positives and I really enjoyed my many visits to Burbage. It’s a magnificent area and competitors saw it at a lovely time of the year. I hope to see you in the forest but especially over the road at Longshaw in a year’s time.

Monika Cooper
W65, SYO 19 October 2010

[Familytaxi driver]

As a fairly unfit runner who would normally run a short course I ran green at Burbage. Bit further than I usually run but I knew it would be I did try and do some extra training for it! Still ended up in the bottom 1/4 of the results but there's room for improvement there.

Yes it was fairly physical but I enjoyed the course and the scenery and the added challenge.
Thanks SYO for a great day out.

[70plus]

Sorry, Monika, we are going to disagree on this one. Control 1 on Green Men wasted me several minutes as I must have passed it twice on the east side within a few metres - if I had been 10 metres to the west it would have been obvious. I don't think this should happen with 'Re-entrant, upper part'. Control 2 was in a large unmistakeable re-entrant, but hidden behind a clump of marsh grass and by a rock - why? I accept that you had several control setters who may have had their own ideas, but I found it an unsettling start to a course.

When controlling, I try to prevent this sort of randomness, and I felt your controller might have done the same. Still, everything was in the right place, wasn't it?

[graeme]

Dear Ian and Monika,

Thanks for taking the time to put the planners perspective - nopesport is full of speculation and it's always appreciated to hear the full story from the horse's mouth. As should be obvious, I thoroughly enjoyed my course, day out, and just being in a beautiful location. Well worth 10 hours drive. Many thanks for all of that.

Regarding control hanging though, I must admit that after the low-hung first couple I was looking primarily at other competitors around where I thought the flag might be, rather than map details or for the feature. Since there were typically people milling around in the circle, this proved the best strategy. If your logic is that the better orienteers will mill around closer to the right place, and therefore save time, then you're right. But if you thought the low hanging would force people to mapread, then I'm afraid you're wrong.

Looking forward to next year!