No M/W20s in the YBT

[andypat]

Afraid our club doesn't either. We have around 30 adult members ~ it may take us a little while before we can raise a 9 strong YBT team.

Thats the spirit Clive - Nothing a little romance cant solve given time!

[MAPS]

Our family strongly agree with this change, even though my son will be a M20 next year, and has run in the YBT for last 4 years. As 1st year M16 he had one of his best runs, but was disappointed to find he had been beaten by 10 min, by an M20. At the same event on L. green a good M12 was also beaten by an M20. I see YBT as a junior event. M/W20 is a strange class, why do we have this, why not combine with M21. If runners not experienced, they can run short or novice. Is it historical when more runners took part?
M/W20s are students, workers, adults,- not juniors.

[SYO Member]

Yes, M/W20 is a strange class and only the second to have a one year difference from an adjacent class.

The age groups were originally:

10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 35, 43, 50

As age profiles rose, 56 was added and in the 1980's, with 10 to 35 unchanged, 35 to 65 became 5 year bands.

The final change occurred in 1997 giving what we have now:

10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 35-80 in 5 year bands.

So M/W20 was created instead of having a 3 year gap between M/W18 and M/W21 but I don't know why. It may have been because "more runners were taking part" than today although by 1997 the numbers of M/W21s and below had already started declining. Or it could have been an IOF ruling to apply to all federations.

[Spookster]

The age groups were originally:

10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 35, 43, 50

That's true for men's classes, but in the women's I think it used to be W19 that was the "women's open" category, up to W35.

[sketchweppers]

(And although it seems harsh I would also agree with the comment that says a logical parallel would be to drop the CS Trophy.

That would be a real shame. It really demeans small clubs. We may only be a very small club and we don't do particularly well in the CST, but it does tend to rally nearly all our members. We have some members who we rarely see all year, but they do come along to the CST qualifier. I believe we have a membership quota of about 30 something and we got 26 competitive runners out at our qualifying event in January, plus one non competitive runner. I'd call that a pretty good turn out for us.
Getting rid of the CST would mean that there is no point in joining small clubs - and that could start landslide of people switching from small friendly clubs like ours, to larger ones, and we would just get smaller and smaller, till we were completely unviable!
Surely we need competition for small clubs as an incentive for us to try to increase our numbers.

[geomorph]

So why can't we use a RED course for older junior novices.

[Neil M40]

Yes, M/W20 is a strange class and only the second to have a one year difference from an adjacent class.

The age groups were originally:

10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 35, 43, 50

As age profiles rose, 56 was added and in the 1980's, with 10 to 35 unchanged, 35 to 65 became 5 year bands.

The final change occurred in 1997 giving what we have now:

10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 35-80 in 5 year bands.

So M/W20 was created instead of having a 3 year gap between M/W18 and M/W21 but I don't know why. It may have been because "more runners were taking part" than today although by 1997 the numbers of M/W21s and below had already started declining. Or it could have been an IOF ruling to apply to all federations.

WHen I started orienteering on my own (some time in the 70s) the youngest class was M12. It can't have been very long afterwards that M10 and M11 were introduced because I went from being an M12 to an M10.

The changing of the junior age-bands in 1997 from odd years to even years was simply a renaming to bring them in line with classes used abroad. M20 now is exactly the same definition as M19 was in the 1980s - those aged 19 or 20 at the end of the calendar year.

[Clive Coles]

Hands off the CST ~ it's a valuable competition for the smaller clubs.

I had thought it was a shame that the eligibility rules were changed to balance numbers between CSC and CST as this allowed a regular regional heat winner to retain their eligibility for entering the CST.

But justice was done ~ they were just pipped at the post this year. So the Trophy is still providing a competitive stimulus for smaller clubs in our area.

Long may it continue.

[Tatty]

When I first started, mid seventies there were 43, 50, 56, 63+ classes. There was a M19/20, but no W19/20. I went from W19 to W35 in one swoop

[EddieH]

[quote]there were 43, 50, 56, 63+ classes[/quote]

With one correction - actually 60+ not 63+.

Interestingtonote that even at a time when there were very few older veterans the rules recognised that as you got older you slowed down more significantly each year (Note that the gap reduces by 1 year for each class change.)

Now we have countless arguments that all newer formats should be 40+ and 55+, exactly the oppsite, and whilst nothing to do with this topic there is a brilliant symmetry. How the hell do you think that older members will be encouraged to take up these new formats when they have to compete against people that are infinitely lither and fitter than their age enables them to be?

[Mrs H]

Been away so I'm glad to see this thread has been getting some debate.

I'm not sure my initial use of the word "fragile" has been fully understood. I used it very particularly for two reasons.

The first is that when hitherto active juniors go to college they can easily drift away from the sport through a combination of other distractions and difficulty in transport, particularly if they go to a non-orienteering uni. I'm quite surprised at RJ assertion

The 20s that are competent and running the higher colours... they are well 'hooked' and need no enticement!

when I can think of a very promising junior from his own club who went to a leading orienteering university quite recently only to take up another hobby and drop the sport quite quickly. The inclusion of M/W20s in the YBT is a way of keeping non-elites in the loop - helping them understand about giving back something to the club by strengthening the junior team, and making them feel valued within the club system.

The other way they are fragile is in terms of confidence and esteem. The world is not what it was 33 years ago when I emerged from college debt free and cherry picked from a number of appealing jobs in my chosen profession. Young people face a lot of uncertainty in their lives and need support - which is why I have been particularly disturbed lately by some examples of a "put the youngsters in their place" attitude by some old gits in the sport. Perhaps it is an unfortunate bi-product of the ageless classes which has high lighted relative performances between certain people in certain age groups. Perhaps the people who do it never had or can't remember what it was like to be kids - but if it continues then who can blame the youngsters for thinking stuff this for a lark I'm off to play ultimate frisbee (whatever that might be)!

As I said before I have no particular feelings on the ruling and having gone to some considerable time, trouble and expense to get my own M/W 20s along to the YBT (running green) am relieved I won't have to in future, but I'm not sure it's a good thing. As others have said, the obvious solution was to ensure there was a suitable course for them to run.

[RJ]

......I'm quite surprised at RJ assertion

The 20s that are competent and running the higher colours... they are well 'hooked' and need no enticement!

when I can think of a very promising junior from his own club who went to a leading orienteering university quite recently only to take up another hobby and drop the sport quite quickly.....

What a load of 'drivel' you talk!! Said junior was the team captain of our 2007 YBT squad that took third place. Said junior regularly orienteers at our local events when he returns home! Said junior has tried another sport.... good on him!!

[Mrs H]

Oh Roger you are so funny - he didn't start university until 2008 since when he has

tried another sport

! that rather makes my point more than contradicts it doesn't it?
We are good friends of the family you know - we met on a ski-ing holiday and suggested they should try this great family sport we'd discovered it's called orienteering and it was just up their street - the rest, as they say, is history - but ask them yourself

local events when he returns home

its a bit of a long way from the start squad tho' isn't it.

...and of course I can think of another two off the top of my head in the same echelon who despite home and uni based advantages are not particularly active in the sport now for what ever reason - which somewhat contradicts the assertion you made that they were

hooked and need no enticement

. you can bluster and be as rude as you like but it doesn't make you right on that point I'm sad to say.

If it is down to you that M/W20s have been lost from the competition instead of made suitable and fair provision for then I think you have done the sport a great dis-service.

[Familytaxi driver]

On a personal and selfish note I'm glad that M/W 20 s aren't included. Our M20 went off to uni in Oct 2009 and he's a bit of a distance (over 3.5hours drive) away. He was in the regional squad but wasn't going to progress up from there. Never got on a BO tour. He chose his uni as was that was classed as a good one for his chosen subject and the fact it didn't have an orienteering club wasn't a factor.

However if he could run for the club in the YBT we'd be under pressure from our club to ship him back home for that particular weekend and it may not be convenient for us or him. Time and cost will come into it and it would be for around 1 hours running. Not great for those of us with more limited means. Let the M/W 20 s run as adults, not in a junior competition.

He's tried another sport since going away as well (why not?) but I presume still will orienteer at home if the opportunity is there (but hasn't as yet).
He's planned an event over Christmas hols and is also looking at getting a level 1 coaching qualification in orienteering. So he's not lost to orienteering just testing his wings and trying new things as well.

[Mrs H]

As I said above FTD I agree from a selfish point of view and it's good to hear your son is continuing his involvement but I fear a lot don't and in my opinion anything that keeps this fragile age group feeling in demand and valued in the sport is probably a good thing.