Harvester

[Guest]

>>> Interesting what stodgetta said about the decline coming when courses were merged......

>>> the reason they were merged was because numbers had crashed.

This is one of those old orienteering myths. The figures tell the real story.

1993 - 7 teams on the A course; 59 on B; 22 on C.
1994 - 15 teams on the A course; 61 on B; 38 on C.
1995 - 10 teams on the A course; 43 B; 41 C.

Hardly a case of numbers crashing, and the C course was increasing in popularity (and remember these were all seven person teams).

In 1996 the organisers of the Harvester unilaterally decided to do away with the C class in the mis-guided belief that it would increase the number of teams on the A course. The result was predictable, 20 teams on the A course (success), but only 28 teams left on the B course and none on the C.

So stodgetta is right, but unfortunately it is probably too late to reverse this mistake.

[seabird]

I know Pillar is fast and flat, but there just aren't sufficient people prepared to run 9k+ at night nowadays.

As a more positive note to finish on: what if the 9k legs on laps 1 and 4 had been split in half with a return to the changeover - with clubs being allowed to run either one runner on both halves, or other runners on the second half? Allows those who don't want to run longer distances to take part, but at the same time gives the bigger guns something to get their teeth into? Just a thought.[/quote]

As a team recruiter who had countless potential Harvester night runners who then dropped out, I can categorically say that not one person mentioned the distance of the night legs as a reason for not participating. Some day runners won't run at night whatever the distance, but are happy to do the Harvester if guaranteed day legs. For some people the Harvester is just not an event they are interested in. The absent night runners gave a variety of reasons for non-availability, and were variously involved in adventure racing, orienteering abroad, recovering from injury, family holidays, weddings and exams. None of these were absent because they did not want to do the Harvester. They simply had other things to do.

The A race this year had two superb races within it. In the main competition if my calculations are right Oli finally took and kept the lead around the 7th control of the final leg. In the handicap class, 2 hours later, there were 4 teams within 10 minutes of each other at the spectator control on leg 6. The lead changed hands for the last time in the last 1k of the race. Seems to me that the A course caters very well for 2 very distinct groups.

[awk]

Hardly a case of numbers crashing, and the C course was increasing in popularity (and remember these were all seven person teams). In 1996 the organisers of the Harvester unilaterally decided to do away with the C class in the mis-guided belief that it would increase the number of teams on the A course. The result was predictable, 20 teams on the A course (success), but only 28 teams left on the B course and none on the C. So stodgetta is right, but unfortunately it is probably too late to reverse this mistake.

Good point about the overall numbers: I suspect there were some pretty significant other variables involved there too, such as venue and time of year. I was recalling the low numbers on the A class - having been involved in that 7-team relay, which got rather boring by the time I ran.

I don't think that eliminate the rest of what I suggested, which is that numbers do appear to have dropped in parallel with the drop in younger adults. In fact, what you say may have backed that part up perhaps, with the shortest relays picking numbers up, whilst other relays stopped still or declined. But its only a suggestion as have no figures to back up.

At the end of the day, it all depends on what is wanted from the Harvester, so to call it a mistake is a bit unfair - simple numbers aren't what events like the Harvester are about (within reason!). At the time, my recollection is that the organisers were concerned about the way the original ethos was being affected by the extra C class.

With reference to your comments seabird, I don't doubt for one second that those who dropped out wouldn't mind the distance - they wouldn't have been interested in the first place if they had. However, as it stands the A relay will inevitably attract relatively few teams.

(And you obviously didn't ask all those who might be willing to run a Harvester why they weren't running ).

[bendover]

i think its about time that every major event in the UK was held in the west midlands. there is enough quality terrain. in fact, why not have the harvester and PPR every year in sutton park, the JK on cannock chase, the British Champs in Hawksmoor and Dimmingsdale, the British Sprint Champs in Telford Park, and all 9 National Events on the Wrekin?

[bendover]

has anybody designed that sarcasm emoticon yet?

[Becks]

I really really hope no one needed it for that!

[tokoloshe]

I really like the idea of permanent sites for events. In fact we could have permanent championship courses with posts in the ground. That way we could guarantee that the controls were all in the right place and we would not even need to bother with planners and controllers after year one (provided they got it right). To emulate other sports we could try to have fixed infrastructure, like toilets and corporate hospitality suites and perhaps roads built to ease the traffic congestion.

The mappers in OD and WCH would need to be on permanent contracts to map each small change in the brambles etc.

I've just woken up after a terrible nightmare.

[HOCOLITE]

i think its about time that every major event in the UK was held in the west midlands. there is enough quality terrain. in fact, why not have the harvester and PPR every year in sutton park, the JK on cannock chase, the British Champs in Hawksmoor and Dimmingsdale, the British Sprint Champs in Telford Park, and all 9 National Events on the Wrekin?

With Bendover Planning Organising and Controlling

[mharky]

The numbers aint declining because of the courses, its because there aint as many orienteers, and those who are still in the sport are more lazy and don't care as much

people attitudes in orienteering have followed that of the shitty british society we live in.

people don't like not being competative, or having too much of a challenge, which is why they all wimp out and run the B, or the short open.

[PMG]

Just a few of points:

1. For AWK - when do you think the Harvester should be allowing for fact that suitable terrain without too much summer growth is required? Or if we move it elsewhere what do you think we should ditch?

2. Whilst the C might have detracted from the ethos of the event the format of the C course allowed Juniors and those who did not want to run a long course the opportunity to take part. Taking away the C course reduced the number of opportunities for participation.

3. Keeping events in the midle of the country denies many clubs the development opportunity to stage larger events. I think HALO staged a really good Harvester as they did with the Compass Sport Cup Final last year.

Peter Guillaume

[graeme]

As a more positive note to finish on: what if the 9k legs on laps 1 and 4 had been split in half with a return to the changeover - with clubs being allowed to run either one runner on both halves, or other runners on the second half? Allows those who don't want to run longer distances to take part, but at the same time gives the bigger guns something to get their teeth into? Just a thought.

I've seen this done in relays in the US. It is an unambiguous success, and I cant see any reason not to do it. It is never used by the top teams - simply not worthwhile bringing in a weaker runner - so it serves exactly the purpose you suggest. Getting exactly seven people to travel to the Harvester is close to impossible without having someone willing to drop in at the last moment.

Oh, and there should be ad hoc teams as well, so Ed doesn't have to run alone.

For 2006, please...

Graeme

[HOCOLITE]

Oh, and there should be ad hoc teams as well, so Ed doesn't have to run alone.

For 2006, please...

Graeme

These would have to be true AD Hoc teams to be competitive. I.e. runners without a team submit a request to organiser with preferred leg and organiser puts team together, (this happened at last Peter Palmer)if not you get groups who run in AD Hoc rather than for their club and this causes upset all round.

[awk]

Just a few of points:
1. For AWK - when do you think the Harvester should be allowing for fact that suitable terrain without too much summer growth is required? Or if we move it elsewhere what do you think we should ditch?

I haven't any particular problems with it where it is now as I do understand the problems of fixtures scheduling congestion. Any date is going to force compromises, and one of those here is that many 16-18s won't be able to make it. As I said, that's a bit of a problem, but as I also said, it's one of the lesser ones, especially given the availability (we hope) of the PPR later on in the year. Sorry if that came over as being a 'moan' - using the words "effectively excluded" was probably too strong, and wasn't meant to be a complaint, merely a statement of the situation.

2. Whilst the C might have detracted from the ethos of the event the format of the C course allowed Juniors and those who did not want to run a long course the opportunity to take part. Taking away the C course reduced the number of opportunities for participation.

True - again it's one of balance - and comes down (as I said) to what one wants for the Harvester. Given Graeme's comments about the use of split legs in the States, maybe that's something to explore to increase the opportunities again, without adding more classes.

Personally, I'd totally agree with your third point for many events. There are some, though, where the mid-country venue is important. The years the YBT final has been outside the centre (e.g. Bradford and East Anglia) has led to significant problems - partly because of the time of year (compromises again!). However, occasionally one has to stretch the point just to get an event put on!

[RJ]

Anyone remember the first(?) Harvester, back in 1976/77(?) at Eccleshall. Huge marquee with every team given 7x 6'6" by 2' for sleeping. Wonderful. There must have been over 100 teams. Fantastic night. I really enjoy the Harvester whenever I can make it; or convince another six folk to form a team.... not easy!

Now in 2005 there were 274 runners! I would really like to see the event survive, but have my doubts when it moves about so much. We need to ask other people besides those 274 what they think. If we make it more accessible for the majority of club members, by having it in the central part of the country, we can rebuild its appeal. Those 274 may be prepared to travel all over the country, but we need to start by attracting another 274. I have offered a solution... any others?

[Jon X]

Possible ways to improve, in no particular order

Advertise the event as well as possible, make it sound like an event that individuals will read about and want to go along to - this year's event (for various reasons) was quite hard to find out about! For instance then making sure info is available at all the big relays and all the main night events and night leagues is important.

Make UKRL more high profile and make the overall results matter more, so that the Harvester is more important to clubs. Easily said I know, but if we can get it to a stage where UKRL is how (for example) SLOW compete with SN for which is the top of the two clubs for the year then the affected clubs are more likely to field a team. (but maybe improvements to UKRL profile is a different thread?)

Recognise that it is a full weekend commitment for most people and make that as attractive as possible by highlighting events on the Saturday which are en route from various different directions.

Also recognise that is is a full weekend and so publicise the event early, giving maximum time for clubs to persuade people to commit the weekend - it is a lot easier to get it in people's diaries than to ask them to change plans nearer the time.

It is the same clubs (to a large extent) that support the event every year - proactively encourage other large clubs to attend - in many cases then if one person in a club is pushing hard enough to get a team then it will happen.

Experiment - why not have a badge or national event on the Saturday afternoon, have Wilfs etc on site to cater in the evening and keep people there, and then have the Harvester from the same race site that night. This would surely be a massive help in helping clubs persuade people to stay on and fill teams, as well as making the whole event very sociable.