NE1 courses

[NeilC]

Anyway, I really enjoyed the shape of the 45L course. Thanks.

Except that control 11 was too close to the line between 3 and 4 otherwise a very nice course - 10-11 an especially nice leg.

Incidently what do people do when they realise that they have done something very stupid (like go 3-11-12)?
a) Curse loudly to get it out of your system and then move on.
b) Run like hell to try and recover the lost time
c) Calmly carry on as if nothing had happened

[Gnitworp]

Eddie, wasn't M55L won in 46 min rather than 53 min?
What's your adjective for that?

I thought it was a good course otherwise, but agree with everything you say about veteran long course lengths in general.

[Homer]

So, the courses were deliberately short.
If this is the case, why wasn't it advertised in advance?

However, what is the point of having Guidelines if individual Planners and Controllers make unilateral decisions to ignore then? There is nothing in the Guidelines suggesting that courses should be 12% shorter if the event is in December, January or February.

If competitors want a shorter run then they have the option of entering the Short course.

I am of the opinion (and I think the general concensus is the same) that the Guidelines are about right. We just need Planners to stick to them.

My criticsm is not aimed specifically at the Planner/Controller of NE1, but at Planners generally. The same problem crops up time and time again. Apart from the lengths I thought the courses at NE1 were very well planned and I personally very much enjoyed the event. Thanks to all involved.

[graeme]

Controllers cannot interperate rules & guidelines as they wish without consultation.

Rubbish.

Interpreting rules and guidelines is exactly what controllers are meant to do. If they don't interpret them properly, then its bad controlling and "people further up the line" (in Scotland, that would be Competitions Convenor & Controller of Controllers) should take notice and advise not just the controller, but others who might take the error as a precedent.

M55 won in 53 minutes - TRAGIC. I am in a real quandary this year...

No problem, just run up and hope the BOC/JK get M55 right - which they usually do.

[mikey]

Incidently what do people do when they realise that they have done something very stupid (like go 3-11-12)?

Or in may case on that course, head straight for 10 from 7.

Personally I just hurl abuse at whatever is around.

[EddieH]

Graeme running up is not that simple. I stopped running Elite in general because it is useless training for my main focus each year - WMOC where the courses are very far from "CLASSIC" distance. Running up, unless you are really competitive at that class is a cop out from pushing yourself too hard - there is always the excuse for any result. Competing seriously improves speed through the terrain and concentration and it is important to do this reasonably often.

Anyway I dont think the major events usually get it right - last year's British was nice but woefully short.

The SOL I plan in May will no doubt have some of the longer times of the year, but will be planned to the current guidelines. Most planners either have no idea how good our Elite are, or simply ignore the rules.

I happen to think the rules are too short for middle aged men (I won't comment for others) but I will plan by the book.

[NeilC]

Anyway I dont think the major events usually get it right - last year's British was nice but woefully short.

Not according to the guidelines. M21E should have been won in 85 - Jamie took 82. Short but not woefully so. M50L should have had an adjusted length ratio of 0.66 - it had 0.69. There may be an argument for M50L to be won in 70 minutes - perhaps something for the long awaited senior competitions group to get their teeth into?

[EddieH]

NeilC your reading of the rules is clearly different from mine.

M21L is to be planned so that Britain's tp runners do 75 minutes. The Elite is 1.2 times the distance making 90 minutes.

M50 is 0.66 of M21 L , NOT the ELITE.

I rest my case.

[EddieH]

And yes NeilC, you are quite right, it is something for them to get their teeth into. Surely the British Long SHOULD be a bit more than in a regional event. As the rules stand it is identical. for all except the elite.

[NeilC]

M21L is to be planned so that Britain's tp runners do 75 minutes. The Elite is 1.2 times the distance making 90 minutes.
M50 is 0.66 of M21 L , NOT the ELITE.
I rest my case.

Eddie, I'm afraid that your case isn't watertight yet. M50 was 0.69 of M21L (and 0.6 of M21E). On a mins per k basis Jamie would have done M21L in 72 mins - not woefully short of the target time of 75 mins. In fact for a couple of reasons M21E was about 1km short - hence the 85 rather than 90 estimated winning time.

[EddieH]

Fair enough although I calculate Jamie's time on L as 70.53, not "woefully" short. I neve calculated it precisely before - I saw the short Elite time, my course felt short and I assumed it was related to the Elite.

Were the Elite told to expect a short winning time?

[NeilC]

No because the 1km shortfall was not entirely intentional. M21L was planned for a 75 mins winning time - I just underestimated the speed a bit. M21E was a bit shy of 1.2xM21L (1.14) simply because I could not see a way of adding an extra couple of hundred of metres without significantly changing a course I was happy with.

[distracted]

Eddie >

which would you prefer?

- a course planned slightly off guideline but of high quality, that would keep you thinking all of the way round

Or

- a course where the quality had been compromised by adding in no-brainer "route-choice" legs or send someone up and down a hill for example, simply to put some extra length/climb in so that the guidelines are met exactly.

I think I know what the majority would prefer. Think yourself lucky to be living in Scotland, where the area is almost guaranteed to support a quality course of the correct length and technical difficulty. You also have to be able to estimate the speed on the courses quite accurately as well, difficult if it is a new area, or hasn't been used for a number of years.

Back on topic - I was happy with M21L on White Downs, looked at the course length in the details and thought it might be on the short side, but for someone who was going to take a lot longer than 70mins anyway it, kept the interest up - good route choice legs, some fine navigation, good compass work essential and so you couldn't really switch off even on the "simpler" legs. Just a shame I couldn't go fast enough to fully appreciate it!

[graeme]

Not according to the guidelines. M21E should have been won in 85 - Jamie took 82.

Nope. Should be won in 90. The guidelines used to say 85-95 to give a bit of room for errors - nobody is perfect (even Eddie and I were 13 seconds out when we planned/controlled it ). Guideline still talks about an area for a 90 minute classic, and timings are referred to M21L elite time of 75 (=90 for 20% extra M21E distance, ignoring the fact that you go slower when races are 20% longer). Look it up here

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/D ... Jan_07.pdf

...which would you prefer?

Prolonging the longest course through repetition or mindless grot may be pointless, but are you suggesting that Eddie's M55 course should be shortened just because the area doesn't support a good M21 course.

in Scotland, where the area is almost guaranteed to support a quality course of the correct length and technical difficulty

Aye, right

[distracted]

Prolonging the longest course through repetition or mindless grot may be pointless, but are you suggesting that Eddie's M55 course should be shortened just because the area doesn't support a good M21 course.

No. If a course of the "correct" length can be accommodated then do so - why does everything have to be scaled to the exact length of M21L if the area can't support it?

I've not been in the sport long enough to know, but was there a point where winning times were specified for each course/class? What should a W21, M45, M60 etc winning time be? If these aren't specified, how can such a course therefore be deemed "too short"?