Competition Review

[Marco Polo]

I'm not surprised that some find "Sprint", "Short" and to a lesser extent "Middle" more to their liking as it reduces the differential between those who chose not to train and the atheletes. Giving the illusion of being more competitve.

I think that there can be different perspectives on this. A comment heard at the last urban I did was that there was no hiding for those that hadn't trained enough to run solidly the whole 45 minutes or so.

Equally, I know that middle increases the differential between navigators of my ability and those that are any good.. (and I like middle distance).

I'd still do more long distance events in terrain if I could, but I don't think that the different tpyes of events are any less competitive than each other.

[Mrs H]

I agree with you Marco - it really doesn't matter if you are beaten by minutes or seconds - the best will still almost always come out on top. I'm not sure I can agree with Lostagain's defnition of sport either - surely it's the skill element coupled with competitive physical aspect that differentiates sport from just exercise - you have to practice both to do well but you don't have to be good at both or even either to enjoy it - thank heavens - is the competition review meant to reflect what most of us want - or what we ought to have?

I was wondering if there were any statistics t back up RJ claim that the club nights were boosting club membership yet. And as i know only too well from the MADO experience you have to look beyond the 1 year of free BOF membership to get a true picture. A lot of my 50+ new members didn't renew once they had to pay to be in BOF - although many of them said they would happily just stayed n the club and done the local events - which of course most of them still do - but as Inds!

[LostAgain]

I'd still do more long distance events in terrain if I could, but I don't think that the different tpyes of events are any less competitive than each other.

I certainly did not mean to infer that these events were less competitive. What I'm saying is that the less fit, less able appear to be less behind the leaders and therefore delude themselves that they personally are more competitive.

[Mrs H]

Is there actually a problem with that?

[awk]

I certainly did not mean to infer that these events were less competitive. What I'm saying is that the less fit, less able appear to be less behind the leaders and therefore delude themselves that they personally are more competitive.

As one of those less fit, I don't think anybody is under any illusions! I think you completely misunderstand the motives of those who are less fit - they (we) are certainly not interested in looking more competitive against the front runners (indeed, that's the last thing on people's minds!). It is true that sprint racing does enable a broader range to compete on the same course against a broader range of ability/fitness, but that doesn't make 'looking good' (or is that 'less bad'?!) a raison d'etre. Personally, my primary motive is simply that I find urban/sprint/middle races more exciting, interesting and challenging, especially in Britain which is so well suited to these styles. And the fitter I get, the more I enjoy them - it's nothing to do with my lack of fitness that I generally prefer them!

I think you also misunderstand Ranald and the implications of what he says. He states that competition should relate to ability and fitness, not just to age. Whilst he concentrates on this from the 'less fit' viewpoint, the effect for the fitter competitors is that they would be racing against others who are of similar fitness and ability - not just against people of the same age, fit, able or otherwise - thus creating more competition at the front end. Rather than dumbing down the competition, it's making it a whole lot tougher!

[LostAgain]

I think you also misunderstand Ranald and the implications of what he says. He states that competition should relate to ability and fitness, not just to age. Whilst he concentrates on this from the 'less fit' viewpoint, the effect for the fitter competitors is that they would be racing against others who are of similar fitness and ability - not just against people of the same age, fit, able or otherwise - thus creating more competition at the front end. Rather than dumbing down the competition, it's making it a whole lot tougher!

I do not think I have misunderstood, you have reiterated what I thought he meant. I am not in favour of dumbing down Orienteering as a sport to enable the less fit/able to be more competitive. The ultimate end for this is to make orienteering a game similar to Darts/Snooker where no fitness is required only map reading skill.

Orienteering, as it stands, is already inclusive allowing people of almost all levels of fitness to take part, they can even look competitive by running down against Older/junior competitors and those even less fit.

[Miner]

All this fitness one upmanship is getting a little tiresome. One of the great things about orienteering is that it offers all things to all people - as I explained to some of the locals who were interested in the O invasion of Cannock Chase. Come along and race or come along for a country walk with a purpose, bring the kids and granny - they will all be able to find something to challenge them.

In this age of sedentary jobs, interspersed with training inside at the gym or on the Wii, anything that gets people active outside with other people has got to be a plus. For years BOF have worried about the low participation in the 20 - 35 years age group. Haven't they considered all the other claims on people's time at this stage in their lives? Try juggling career development, raising kids and repaying the mortgage with finding enough time to keep ultra fit. Orienteering offers the incentive to keep a healthy level of fitness, without too much demand on limited time, and opportunities for the whole family to share an activity.

[Marco Polo]

I'd still do more long distance events in terrain if I could, but I don't think that the different tpyes of events are any less competitive than each other.

I certainly did not mean to infer that these events were less competitive.

That's ok then isn't it?

What I'm saying is that the less fit, less able appear to be less behind the leaders and therefore delude themselves that they personally are more competitive.

This is getting a bit subjective. If the events actually are competitive I'm not so concerned about illusion.

[Mrs H]

This debate is founded solely on the dual meaning of the word competitive. Every one can have a competitive state of mind (i.e. want to beat other people) no matter how unfit they are or what kind of activity they are in (even darts players ) as witness the extreme state of competition which exists between myself, Wendles and Mrs Awk in the nopesport urban league. No one can take that away from us. (Thanks heavens)

Lostagain isn't talking about this he is referring to people who are competitive in terms of having a realistic chance of doing well (ie a contender). I actually don't understand why this is important to the majority of us as long as we are enjoying what we are doing - it may be delusional to take any kind of pleasure from how well we feel we have done in true terms - but I'm struggling to see the downside of it - the best are still going to win at the end of the day - the alternative is that we all go away totally dis-illusioned in a state of self-loathing and give it up as a lost cause - is that what Lostagain has in mind?

I actually don't think it's anyone else's business how I view my own personal performances

[Clive Coles]

I noticed the following comment in the Competition review

14) Do you have a 'plan' to improve your orienteering either in your head or on paper?
‘No’ – 55%, a surprisingly high figure suggesting that many orienteers are ‘recreational’ rather than competitors
26% have a plan to improve and 13% talk with a coach, a figure surprisingly different to that suggested from question 13 although 6% do suggest they would talk to a coach if one was available

Frankly didn't surprise me.

Lot's of us just want to go orienteering ~ we like to choose a course on the day to suit our mood.

The challenge of competitions is not necessarily a motivating factor. In fact I find being categorised by age has become a switch off ~ I have stopped bothering with events where I need to run a longer course than I wish to remain "competitive".

The folk who have responded to the review so far will tend to be those orienteers who are hooked on our sport and interested in the way the sport is going to develop.

We must take care however not to become too competion-centric. I suspect , if we could get every participant to comment on question 14, we would find a far higher percentage of participants were just recreational orienteers.

What we need are opportunities to orienteer within a reasonable distance from where we live.

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

Clive said: ' What we need are opportunities to orienteer within a reasonable distance from where we live.'

For 'opportunities' read 'events' - and that is part of the difficulty with the 'Competition review' - we have lots of 'events' but do we have the competition structure which we need? What sort of 'competitions' do we want / need?

For example: a regional league maybe one level of competition which is atrractive and motivating to some orienteers - which ones? If people are aiming at a higher level of 'competition' what do they want / need? Or do we all just regard every 'event' as a 'competition'. Certainly I don't - I regard local events as a local, fun and, hopefully , social way to get out and orienteer and to 'train' - so perhaps I would be more motivated by a 'national league' as I am certainly motivated to compete against the best in my age class (but not every week or even every month!).

Would an inter club / inter regional league be attractive for more people? At what area level? etc. I have seen lots of comment about 'events' but not about 'competitions'

[NeilC]

In case anyone is interested SEOA currently overseas the following competitions (I know because I've just rewritten all the guidelines):

SE League – an interclub competition based on the old regional type events
SE Galoppen – an individual league based on the same events as above
SE Sprint Championships
SE Middle Championships
SE Long Distance Championships (new for 2010)
SE Night Championships (new for 2010)
SE Score Championships
SE Relay Championships

The following regional competitions are run by clubs/individuals

Frolics
Kent Night Cup
SE Veterans Championships
SE Family Competition
The Peter Burt Trophy

Other clubs award particular trophies etc usually based on individual events eg

SN Trophy
SAXONS senior and junior shields
OK Nuts Trophies
OO Trophies

Then there is a large range of leagues / competitions put on by clubs primarily for their own members.

Naturally different people are motivated by different competitions. For some the local club leagues are the most important whereas others just treat these as training/social opportunities for other goals. One year someone might target a top ten place in the Kent Night Cup the next year it might be a top three in the Galoppen etc.

The competition will usually dictate some aspects of the event - eg to qualify to host a round of the SE League a set of prescribed courses will need to be planned. In the SE few events are stand alone and not part of one or more competitions. And since the competition places some constraints on the event it is actually very difficult to consider the event in isolation of the competition. I suspect then that any attempt to completely divorce events and competitions will be fraught with confusion.

[Clive Coles]

I guess I am agreeing with Mrs H

I actually don't think it's anyone else's business how I view my own personal performances

The competition for me is not my lowly ranking/league positions but how I performed against a group of orienteering colleagues. The formal BOF Age groupings are full of folk I don't know. I find it more relevent to measure my success against my chosen list of associates.

Orienteering is for me a more personal challenge. The good Planner sets the course to fairly test the skills (and experience) of the competitor. I assess my performance on how I navigate from start to finish. I know where I have orienteered well and where I have made a bo bo. That's where you can be motivated by experience.

If folk want to motivated by competitions and statistics..... that's their choice. We must provide opportunities for all shades of opinion.

[SeanC]

And as i know only too well from the MADO experience you have to look beyond the 1 year of free BOF membership to get a true picture. A lot of my 50+ new members didn't renew once they had to pay to be in BOF - although many of them said they would happily just stayed n the club and done the local events - which of course most of them still do - but as Inds!

changing the subject a bit...

I'm wondering if club, association and national membership fees should be dropped permanently to 0, and that all membership should be for life. BOF and association income should be raised solely by indirect taxation - levies, by making all events leviable and increasing the levies in general.

You might think I'm barmy, but here's the thinking.

The big expansion in orienteering that we could have is in the want to stay local/only want to go a few times a year/have other things to do with my life type of person. I think we could easily double our numbers with this group.

The MADO project and many others show that it's quite possible to get these people to try orienteering, and come back a few times as an IND, but getting them to join, and especially re-join when the price goes up, is a battle. We tell them it's for their own good, but we also mean

"please join as in order to expand, or even survive, our club needs more helpers/planners/a treasurer/mapper etc etc, and if you don't join we definately can't ask you to help".

From the occasional orienteers viewpoint, why join? Even if the BOF discount was applied to all local events it would still be cheaper to stay IND for many, certainly easier. If we had no memberhip fees, us the addicted would pay a bit more in the short term - but arguably it's fairer as the heavy users get most benefit. There would also be some administration savings if there is only one form of tax.

I think maybe we could learn a thing or two from Park Runs (http://parkrun.com/home.aspx). You don't join, but you do have to register (for free). Then the organisation can keep you motivated through its email alerts and note that the persuasion to volunteer help starts immediately - helping to fuel expansion. The language used to persuade people to volunteer is an object lesson in how to do this in a positive way, though not sure if being labelled a "Hero" is to everyone's taste.

[LostAgain]

Orienteering is for me a more personal challenge. The good Planner sets the course to fairly test the skills (and experience) of the competitor. I assess my performance on how I navigate from start to finish. I know where I have orienteered well and where I have made a bo bo. That's where you can be motivated by experience.quote]

I think this is probably the case for most of us, it is certainly the case for me.
What I was responding to was RanaldMacdonalds posting

My point is that competition should relate to the ability and current fitness of the individual and not just to their age. I want to enjoy my orienteering and create my own level of competition by comparing splits with those of similar ability. Orienteering is uniquely inclusive in allowing me to do this ... and long may it remain so.

At the local level there is plenty of opportunity to orienteer at the appropriate technical standard, although some regions will struggle to provide truly TD5, but we have to accept geographical limitations. What I'm concerned about is that we dumb down the structure to make Jo Average more competitive and for what purpose?

As has been said, most people just want to orienteer and will find their own subset of "competitors" against which to compare themselves.

The old 4 tier structure seemed to meet this. Local, Colour Coded, Badge and Championship. With the move for Badge/Regional events to be shown by course and Age it appeared that most peoples needs were met?