Lakes Course lengths

[Suzy R Sopham]

I'm not so sure: -

Alternative uses for crutches include
1) bog snorkel
2) A vessel to carry around extra fluids
3) A sturdy club!
4) A teliscope (or even a periscope!)

[Freefall]

On reflection you are probably right - they could be used for bashing through difficult terrain (brashings and nettles, bridging uncrossable marshes and gaining height to find hidden controls. Seems like you could have used all of these functions on Day 2.

Have you tried cooking the Wilf's plate yet? I have had water in mine for two days and it has softened nicely.

[frodo]

yes the courses were a little long but it was still enjoyable. looking at the lengths beforehand it did seem like they might be on the long side and this proved to be the case. did the planner get people to pre-run the courses to give estimated winning times? everyone knows graythwaite is a bit rough but its still a fantastic classic lake district area. people should expect a bit of a challenge when they come to the lakes. i'm sure people would be complaining about not getting their moneys worth if every day was on a lightning fast open fell which was won under the expected winning time.

[Freefall]

Souinds like variety is good then! Look forward to seeing the next set of results. Everyone should be refreshed from a rest day

[rascrutt]

Winning times are not be as important as the spread of running times at a multi-day, holiday event. Not surprisingly, running times were bunched on Day 1 but enormously spread out on Day 2 through a combination of the physical and technical demands of the area. I don't think the winners would mind too much if they took 10min longer than recommended, but to have to retire or be out in the forest for over 2hr ....

Actually, I felt fresher at the finish on Day 2 than I did on Day 1. It was eyeballs out all the way round on Day 1, which means 9-10mpk for me over the tussocks, and I collapsed over the line gasping. Having to slow down or stop to read the map detail at Graythwaite and with plenty of walking through the rough terrain I felt pretty good at the end. Despite a couple of largish errors I enjoyed Day 2 more, and that's what it's all about.

[King Penguin]

Standard Deviation's a wonderful thing. On M20L the spread of times first to last was greatest on Day 2 and least on Day 3, yet Joe Mercer got less points for winning on Day 2 than he did for second place on Day 1 and Day 3 !

[deebee]

Is it Standard Deviation that gave the winner of W55S between 150 and 200 points more for winning Day 2 than the winners of the other days? I thought it was meant to "give equal weight to all five events" (to quote from the Final Details)

[awk]

Bit confused about your post - day 2 winning times seem to be in line with the guidelines yours were short. Andy Kelly told you that long before the event!

That wasn't what I was trying to say!!

Interesting to read this thread after returning from a very enjoyable 5-day (thank you everybody involved). I say that, because I don't want this one area of discussion to obscure this fact - it is just one factor amongst a myriad of others contributing to an overall week.

However, the tenor of this thread doesn't seem to reflect what I found was the overwhelming opinion, that Day 2 generally was too long (which is what I was implying!) - 40-50% so in a lot of cases - and predictably so given the advertised course lengths. I found it hard to find people who appreciated the extra length - again the overwhelming feeling appeared to be that the courses should have been a lot shorter. (One exception was my wife who thoroughly enjoyed W45S - proving that even in one family you can't please all the people all the time!).

My thread focused on M45S. This was won by Steve Barrett in 52 mins. Steve is currently ranked 2nd on M45L - he ran the short because of an illness which currently prevents him running longer and every day (he only ran 3 days because of this), but he is as quick as ever over the shorter distance! The first 'genuine' M45S (finishing 3rd) took 65 mins. In all other days, the winning time was 35-40 mins (pretty much spot on being the feeling).

In the M45S case, it looks as if the planners were trying to extend the course into an interesting area in the NW corner, and in trying to do that unfortunately included a lot of dead, and very physical, running. The general feeling seemed to be that a much shorter course, keeping within the main block of the forest, would have been more greatly appreciated. Due to a cock-up on my part, I didn't get to run Day 2 - I can't say I'm greatly disappointed (and at least two of my rivals suggested the cock-up might have been deliberate!!).

So - Day 1 wasn't too short IMO Graeme - it was Day 2 that was over long.

Several issues arise:

The guidelines give a recommended winning time for M21L, and then go for distance ratios for the rest of the classes. What this means is that whilst they might work well in (say) open runnable areas, as soon as you get anything rougher, the times on the shorter courses will go to pot: rougher terrain slows the non-elite down more than the elite.

Whilst a lot of contributors here (Gross, Graeme?) may want to keep long hard courses at the forefront, many many orienteers don't want them, especially at multidays. The question then is, do you keep the L courses (e.g. M45L) long and 'ard for the classic purists, and ask everybody who doesn't to run S classes, or do you make the L classes shorter, and suggest to the purists that they run 'up', keeping the longest M21L very tough? (Or do you reduce the whole age class bit, and focus on the distances people want to race?).

I would also suggest that the style of planning S classes should be different to L - just as middle distance planning differs from long distance. That's not always the case either.

However, having said all of that, as I said, I don't want this one area of debate to colour the whole feedback to and from the event. Overall, the 5-day was a really enjoyable holiday event: the areas were great, so was the weather, organisation overall too (except for the shortage of toilets!), and NWOA are to be congratulated in getting it all together. Everybody involved (and I mean everybody) should be congratulated and thanked for making it such an enjoyable holiday week. Having something to debate makes it even more so!!!

[Roger]

Everybody involved (and I mean everybody) should be congratulated and thanked for making it (Lakes 5) such an enjoyable holiday week.

Hear hear:
1. flexibility with start times that allowed us to get away early on the final day
2. sensible decision to permit shorts on the days when they were clearly appropriate (although perhaps this needed a notice at the event, especially on day 1)
3. sensible attitude to providing drinks: much better to focus effort on what's really important. (And yes I'd have said this even if the weather had been much hotter: carrying a drink isn't that onerous.) It's refreshing to see people thinking, rather than just slavishly following tradition.
4. nice bike-O on Thursday -- which surprisingly even tempted my wife to have a go
5. recognition that a designated event campsite, even if unofficial, adds to the event
6. course lengths (with the exception of day 2) that were just fine for a multi-day event. After an injury-hit summer I would really have struggled with five full-length badge courses, so M40L winning times of 50-55 minutes were gratefully received. I expect the people who were out for 2 hours or so most days were similarly grateful.

Oh yes, day 2. I struggled (sore soft feet), but I knew beforehand that lots of people would. When did Clive Hallett last take >75 minutes to win M40L? With two rest days it was just about acceptable to have one day like this in the schedule, and Graythwaite certainly provided a technical challenge. But [memo to other organisers] one such 'rough and tough' day was enough.

[Roger]

Standard Deviation's a wonderful thing. On M20L the spread of times first to last was greatest on Day 2 and least on Day 3, yet Joe Mercer got less points for winning on Day 2 than he did for second place on Day 1 and Day 3 !

Yes, exactly: when times are closely bunched, a run that's even modestly clear of the bunch is worth lots of points. (1000 points for the mean performance, plus or minus 200 for every standard deviation faster or slower than that.)

In my view, the principal flaw in the system is that you're not appropriately rewarded by persevering and finishing on a day when lots of the weaker competitors give up. But this is still the best of the various systems I've seen used for multi-day events.

[Freefall]

I have just written my Controller's Report for Day 1 and subject to the censors hope it will be published soon. I was personally delighted about how the day went and all credit to the planners, organising team and my assistant controller (Dick Towler) who stood in for me checking controls. My focus was on the courses (length, technical standard, fairness of control sites etc) and I felt everything else would happen OK. Lots of really positive feedback. One hard decision was disqualifying a leading senior lady who said she had punched but it didn't register. I felt I had to go along with current rules in this case even if it was a holiday event - too much at stake to check boxes (even if possible) and possible disruption for the rest of the week for others. Rules do say "should" and not "must" I note when it comes to punch checking and disqualification!

[Mrs H.]

But this is still the best of the various systems I've seen used for multi-day events.

The best system has got to be the O-ringen - every day counts - just add up all the days' times and preferably turn it into a chasing start on day 5 - none of this namby-pamby drop yer worse day nonsense

ps - very enjoyable week - definitely multi-day lite - loved Day 2 - shame about the T shirts.........

[Roger]

The best system has got to be the O-ringen - every day counts - just add up all the days' times and preferably turn it into a chasing start on day 5 - none of this namby-pamby drop yer worse day nonsense

Yes, I thought that someone might say that, but it spoils the week if you mispunch on day 1... or if you have to babysit one day because you can't leave a suddenly chicken-poxed child in the barnpassering...

[Mrs H.]

but it spoils the week if you mispunch on day 1...

Precisely - you have to be careful and consistent

. or if you have to babysit one day because you can't leave a suddenly chicken-poxed child in the barnpassering..

that is indeed unfortunate - but so is a sprained ankle etc - this ain't social services

As things stand, people get a tough day like Day 2 and think - oh well it doesn't matter I'll retire and save myself for tomorrow - the relative inequities of the scoring system have already been mentioned - scoring less for winning than coming second etc.

It isn't supposed to be easy - it's supposed to be hard and the winner should be the person who most consistently withstood all the variables of terrain, mapping, weather, early/late starts, physical frailities etc

[Tatty]

Not having all days to count means that those who give up their run to plan/control/organise a day are still able to compete along with the rest of us. This was one reason the Scottish 6 day system was started in the first place. People might not be prepared to be a major official if they were never ever going to count in the final results. gives the rest of us a chance too!!