MICRO O in WOC 2006 for Middle

[housewife not signed in]

Can't add micro o to long courses as the time taken to decide which is the right control could be caught up too easily. The middle distance is the dullest event if you ask me (and the gb elite girls seem to agree, hence the empty place). The sprint is a real mental challenge (unless you are a chubber and can't run fast enough to make it a mental challenge) and the long is classic orienteering and can't be messed with.

[harry]

hmm i don't think that was the reason for the empty space.

agree you shouldn't mess with the classic. but the middle distance is also a quality race without gimmicks being added. maybe it wasn't so special this year but in the past woc middles and shorts have been fantastically technical, true orienteering and extremely technical, that balance of how fast can you go whilst spiking controls in technical stuff? it's great.

gimmicks remind me of adventure racing and then i start to get really mad...

[graeme]

What's the point of Micro-O?

Is it to put decoy controls to prevent you just running into the circle and looking for a flag?
Or is it to test whether you can tell the difference between "Knoll, east part" "Knoll, east side" "Knoll, east foot" and "between knolls"?
Or something else?

Doesn't appeal much to me, but I guess you shouldn't knock it (or enter a world championship in it) until you've tried it.

Graeme

[fish]

Doesn't appeal much to me, but I guess you shouldn't knock it (or enter a world championship in it) until you've tried it.

Graeme

You're right, about not knocking what you haven't tried, but .......


Aaaarrrrggghhhh!!!!!

The IOF are really really annoying (I would use stronger words!) me.

Most of the comments here have been very sensible,
why bring Micro O into WOC when it's hardly used anywhere else (cf The fiasco with the mass start ungaffled long race at Idre).
Why add another gimmick
Why pander to the perceived needs of media/olympic interest
why ignore athletes general opinions
The middle has been technically very very demanding - and has been a great challenge
the sprint has found a good niche - and serves a purpose
The classic (long) struggles a bit with the desires of being media friendly ...

however here's a thought - surely the classic (and in fact all disciplines) should be set up with the aim of producing highlights package of orienteering - like happens with every other time trial sport, rather than live footage where there is masses of dull moments. it doesn' t take Einstein to realise this has better selling potential.

On a slightly different, but related subject:
Some very good thoughts on the problems of following / getting the best people racing the woc final etc are given by the kalevan rasti trainer here
http://ocad.suunnistus.info/sf/browser/ ... =juttu#eng

It's a shame this guy isn't involved in the IOF.

I have some real concerns with the present direction (and that of the last 5 or so years) of the elite events stuff within IOF...

Fish

[Godders]

Micro-O is pretty bad publicity for orienteering. Rather than seeing world class athletes running hard across rough terrain and navigating at the same time you'll get to see people in pyjamas standing around scratching their heads. Could be great comedy but not sport

More seriously though what are the tactics? Navigate carefully and as a result run slowly or run flat out, punch the first control you see, hoping to get a few right and take the penalty loops?

[David May]

Fish wrote:

I have some real concerns with the present direction (and that of the last 5 or so years) of the elite events stuff within IOF...

There are always "real concerns" whenever innovations are brought in. There were concerns when the IOF added the Short (now Middle) discipline to WOC. There were also concerns when the Sprint race was added too ... but I wonder which WOC programme is more interesting - a Long race and a Relay only, or the current programme of three individual disciplines and the Relay?

I believe it's quite clear that the current formula is vastly better than the diet we once had.

What other changes have we had recently? Well, the WOC became annual and the World Cup will end next year to be replaced by a leaner, potentially more attractive model in 2007. I believe that both these changes (voted for by Federations and not by the IOF by the way, at the Congress General Assembly) will be seen as absolutely correct in due course.

And what of Micr-O? It's a glass half full/empty question as, to some, the soul of orienteering has been changed whilst to others it's a minor variation to a small part of one race. It puts a premium on accurate navigation (not a bad idea I guess!) and, to the runner who makes no mistakes, the race will be similar to a conventional Middle race.

I spoke to various coaches and runners in Japan about the Micr-O decision and I can't deny that there are mixed views. But so there were before Sprint was added at one year's notice to WOC2001 and this is now an established part of the competition. There are many who are looking forward to its introduction too and plans are already being made to set up Micr-O events in their home terrain.

Two things are clear to me after Japan:-

* Orienteering needs TV coverage
* Orienteering will get very little TV coverage if all we offer is our current "product".

Why? The first brings exposure and also sponsorship (hence income), both of which are essential for us to survive as a sport and to develop it further. The second is manifestly true in all countries except perhaps Norway, Sweden, Finland and Switzerland. The current WOC had no TV coverage for example, and our World Cup in Surrey this year will only have coverage because we paid for it. We must get to the position where TV pays us instead!

We now have a golden opportunity to get major (potentially long term) interest from national TV companies which relies on the introduction of Micr-O. The experiment at the Nordic Champs this year was successful - surveys tell us that many non-orienteers were interested by what they saw, and the overall ratings were good too - and so IOF Council decided that the opportunity should not be missed.

I'm frequently told that a similar situation accurred in biathlon, where penalty loops were added to make the sport more TV friendly. The essence of biathlon remains but its popularity has soared (in the snowy countries) as a result of regular TV coverage.

We should hope for a similar effect in orienteering!

David

[fish]

David
I was hoping you'd reply!!!

I agree that the sprint has been a success (and yes I was probably pessimistic at its outset).
WOC every year - I'm still un-decided - think it needs a few years and then a good look at the number of teams and entrants from each nation to see if it is beneficial or not. but as it was decided by a majority of nations - then fair enough ...
What is the leaner, attractive, program for 2007 - any previews around in any documents.

What has been a negative has been the dumbing down of races - purely to obtain very small media gains.

We do not need to drastically change the format of our sport to provide stimulating tv. Biathlon and penalty loops. biathlon is a sport where a large component is skiing on a pre-made track. Hence penalty loops fit (sort of) with this. Orienteering should be won on the technical and physical abilities applied in combination of the world class athletes who compete. Getting the balance of penalty and difficulty correct in micro-O must be close to impossible.
Why do we not understand that with well planned courses, good use of gps / maps / and cameras that a standard course can become interesting as a HIGHLIGHT package for tv, even with 10min time gaps between starters (I don't advocate this size time gaps .. just trying to make a point).
Please please please think about how we can present our present product rather than changing the product on (almost) a whim.

Some thoughts:
1 - IOF to work with PWT to promote this world series of park races - an orienteering spectacle in interesting places - every event to have a 20min tv production made afterwards.
2 - IOF to work with Big relay events to produce packages for tio-mila and jukola, etc that can be used on eurosport type tv.
3 - IOF not to tinker with event format, but to work on presenting orienteering as it should be - technical and physical challenge
4 - BOF to consider whether we can produce highlights packages for national champs along thse lines.
(these sort of things are probably not easy and may be in the pipeline, if so ... good!)

Anyway enough rants for now.
I look forward to seeing what the attractive package is for 2007.
And do realise most (all) people involved have the interests of the sport in their head - I just don't agree with the present tendencies!

Cheers
Fish

[Patrick]

Fish, I agree with you 100%. I was about to start a long post answering David when I read yours...thanks for saving me the effort!

Orienteering should be won on the technical and physical abilities applied in combination of the world class athletes who compete. Getting the balance of penalty and difficulty correct in micro-O must be close to impossible.

This is something I don't understand about the format. Do athletes know in advance exactly where they have to do the penalty loops? Do they get a chance to "test-run" the loops to see how long they take? How does a planner decide how long is appropriate given the perceived difficulty level of the control sites?

On a slightly more parochial tack, how will this affect UK athletes next year? Will selection priority in Middle distance be given to those Scandi-based runners who'll doubtless get loads of opportunities to compete at this format in the next 12 months? I guess there'll be Micr-O at every GB Squad training camp from now on, but race practice with the format will be paramount, and I can't see many planners in the UK being willing (or able) to put on Micr-O any time soon. These may seem like trivial concerns, but they exist because this is a fundamental change to what orienteering is about. It'll never be used in mainstream orienteering, so why should mainstream orienteers care about implementing it.

I remember in an O-Sport interview a couple of years ago, Jorgen Rostrup told the IOF to "stop f---ing around with our sport". It looks like they weren't listening.

Patrick

[FatBoy]

I can't see many planners in the UK being willing (or able) to put on Micr-O any time soon.

Even if they were, do we have the technology, and the experience of that technology to do it? I'm guessing that there's only one piece of software in the world that currently does this, and it's probably in Norwegian. You'll need specific hardware that connects to that software for displaying the number of penalty loops to be run to the competitor. Test race was run with Emit and with SI technology as it stands I can't think of a fast enough way of reading the card mid run so you couldn't have it at a JK as there's not enough Emit hire cards in the country, unless you get the elites using Emit and everyone else using SI which is a mess. If it becomes adopted at WOC for good these things will sort themselves out but for now it's way too short notice to get these things in place.

Technology aside do I want to run Micr-O? Not really - the challenge of getting the right control is maybe OK, but do I want to trog round a field 3 times because I got them wrong - no thanks. This is a major difference between sprint and Micr-O. I can never see Micr-O appealing to anybody but the elite.

[fish]

I can never see Micr-O appealing to anybody but the elite.

And I can't see it appealing to most of them either ...

[rocky]

Technology aside do I want to run Micr-O? Not really - the challenge of getting the right control is maybe OK, but do I want to trog round a field 3 times because I got them wrong - no thanks.

since the basic principle of micro is testing the fine navigation - the challenge of "getting the right control" - with a penalty for getting it wrong it isnt actually neccessary to have a penalty loop: a fixed time penalty (say 30secs) could be used instead. the extra loop just makes it more tv-friendly.

i believe this format could be used in major british races if desired.

totally agree with fish's comments about where effort could be put in to getting o on tv: tio jukola etc already have all the cameras there (jukola is live on finnish tv through the night, tio had gps tracking) all it would take would be good editing.

[David May]

Re previously televised major events: the TV productions at the Finnish, Swiss and Swedish WOCs were indeed excellent and made exciting viewing. However, research shows that the footage appeals only to orienteers as they are the only ones who know what's really happening!

The problem is that, whilst it's relatively easy to show runners coming into a control, punching it and then leaving it, it's difficult to show how they got there and what they're doing next ... the average viewer gets little or no sense of the navigational side of the sport at all.

This is exactly what Micr-O can do as it clearly demonstrates that reading the map is crucial to punching the right control. The plan for WOC 2006 is to have one of the cameras at the top of a crane to give an aerial view of the runners. I guess that complete legs could then be shown, with an arrow on the screen letting the viewers know which control is correct and this knowledge then heightens the drama of the competition.

Those who worry that all we will see is runners standing still and scratching their heads forget that earlier parts of the Middle race will be shown too, where runners presumably will be running. The good runners will also be going smoothly through the Micr-O controls, just as they would for conventional controls.

David

[graeme]

... but I wonder which WOC programme is more interesting - a Long race and a Relay only, or the current programme of three individual disciplines and the Relay?

I like the idea of having a race for which all the best orienteers prepare, and which decides the world champion. The current format, with its reduced entry per nation, and athletes split between the events, doesn't hold my interest.

There used to be a world orienteering champion, I knew who it was and I cared who it was. Now there are so many I neither know nor care who they are.

And its not just me. Over the last year, I've tried asking many of our top elite athletes who the world champion(s) are - and they don't know either.

Graeme

[MarkC]

Over the last year, I've tried asking many of our top elite athletes who the world champion(s) are - and they don't know either.

Not even the Women's?

[MarkC]

* Orienteering needs TV coverage
* Orienteering will get very little TV coverage if all we offer is our current "product".

Why? The first brings exposure and also sponsorship (hence income), both of which are essential for us to survive as a sport and to develop it further.

I don't understand this obsession with TV coverage. Even if there were to be some live coverage of major events on a minor sports channel, how many couch potatoes do you think would watch it rather than whatever football (or rugby, cricket, ten pin bowling, etc.) match is being played at the same time?

Why would sponsors be so interested without a guaranteed audience? I think that a more productive way of marketing the sport to potential sponsors would be to emphasise the competitor demographic that they could reach at events, which in my experience is skewed towards professional people with attractive disposable incomes.

Disclaimer: I haven't owned a TV for more than six years; there are so many better things to do with my spare time...