Urban race classes

[Big Jon]

GML wrote "we even had the Police stopping traffic for runners at what I assume was considered the most dangerous crossing"
And here was me thinking that plod was only ever involved in O events by banning them as a danger to the public and themselves.....

[awk]

I was surprised at the strength of her opinion that the new colour coded regional events made the whole thing pointless to her as she sees that as a W60 she's bound to come bottom of a large colour coded list and "who wants to enter a competition if you are inevitably going to be at the bottom". The fact that age classes are acknowledged within a course was irrelevant to her if the results are only published in course order. I wonder how many people feel like her.

I have been surprised at how many vet orienteers have felt so strongly about this. Go to a fell race or road race etc., and all the older runners are quite happy taking part in the same race as the rest, and having their results mixed in too. Doesn't bother me at all, although I'm glad to know how others around my age are doing. Why orienteers get so up tight about this is something I find difficult to understand.

[graeme]

I was surprised at the strength of her opinion that the new colour coded regional events made the whole thing pointless to her as she sees that as a W60 she's bound to come bottom of a large colour coded list and "who wants to enter a competition if you are inevitably going to be at the bottom". The fact that age classes are acknowledged within a course was irrelevant to her if the results are only published in course order. I wonder how many people feel like her.

Whatever else, it's nothing to do with " the new colour coded regional events ". The rules for Scottish O-league have required results by course for at least 15 years, long before I was involved in it.

... and the more classes you have, the more people have to come bottom . Age classes are just a way of fixing the results so that the more experienced finish higher while newcomers finish lower.

[mappingmum]

"who wants to enter a competition if you are inevitably going to be at the bottom".

I can understand this a little - no one likes being "last" and all the associated stigma. But I fail to see the issue finishing in last position when you're the oldest person in the field. What's really embarrassing is finishing last and people 20+ years your senior are minutes faster. But even then, if you're a novice, this is OK. You have to start somewhere.

One of my objectives for a few years used to be "don't come last". I've dropped it now so I must be improving!

What about not looking at the results? I've done that before when I have had truly awful runs.

[Sunlit Forres]

I find "Mrs" Eddie H's view hard to understand. As Eddie knows, Moravian hold regular events where there are just 2 courses - one for the kids and the other for everyone else (at a TD and distance that's suitable for all). So effectively there's just one race and you just get on with it. Everybody enjoys it, Mrs Eddie H is a regular and she's never ever last. Everyone just has their own little battles with their own cohort (ie ability/fitness group). Jon Hollingdale depresses everyone by winning all the time but that doesn't stop the rest of us trying.

It's the Forres 10K this afternoon, and there won't be a 7 Km class for over 60s. I think there's be an outcry if there was. More importantly, it's the Culbin Forest Trail Run on Wed 26th where it's 5 miles for everyone and no mention of ages yet we still attract 150 or so of all ages. If you're anywhere near Moray come on down.

Yes, we need more that 1 class in urban races to avoid following and congestion, but let's keep to the minimum and keep the fields big and interesting.

[roadrunner]

I was surprised at the strength of her opinion that the new colour coded regional events made the whole thing pointless to her as she sees that as a W60 she's bound to come bottom of a large colour coded list and "who wants to enter a competition if you are inevitably going to be at the bottom". The fact that age classes are acknowledged within a course was irrelevant to her if the results are only published in course order. I wonder how many people feel like her.

I have been surprised at how many vet orienteers have felt so strongly about this. Go to a fell race or road race etc., and all the older runners are quite happy taking part in the same race as the rest, and having their results mixed in too. Doesn't bother me at all, although I'm glad to know how others around my age are doing. Why orienteers get so up tight about this is something I find difficult to understand.

As someone who has competed in both orienteering and running events, I have to say that I share something of the views reported in EddieH's post - once I reached the age where I was going to be progressing to shorter rather than longer colour coded courses (and this was long before the change in event structure), I lost interest in doing them, preferring instead the age-class courses. And yet I'm quite happy to compete as a super-vet in road races where everyone does the same distance and the results are presented in a single list.

I can't offer any good explanation for this, but maybe it has something to do with the number of courses on offer. In a road race there's usually only one, if there are more (e.g. marathon and half) then they are seen as completely separate events rather than the shorter one being the soft option. When there's a similar event in orienteering - like the British Elite Sprints - then I, along with many vets, are happy to race alongside the elites on the same course. But when there are a lot of courses with not much to differentiate them - which is surely more true of the new event structure than the old - you're really just competing against those who felt like running that distance on the day, which is somehow less satisfying.

Perhaps someone with a knowledge of sports psychology can come up with a better explanation? I hope so, because if there was some way to improve people's perception of the competition it would surely help to increase competitor numbers.

[awk]

When there's a similar event in orienteering - like the British Elite Sprints - then I, along with many vets, am happy to race alongside the elites on the same course. But when there are a lot of courses with not much to differentiate them - which is surely more true of the new event structure than the old - you're really just competing against those who felt like running that distance on the day, which is somehow less satisfying.

I find it rather the opposite: previously the competition was split into a myriad of pretty meaningless classes. Now the choice is more closely related to the standard of competition (with some crossovers!), and the competition is more interesting. However, whilst there are fewer courses than before, I do agree that there are still too many at quite a few events.

Sadly, the British Elite Sprint format has been altered to fit in with all the other age class formats, making it far less interesting/attractive.

[graeme]

preferring instead the age-class courses. And yet I'm quite happy to compete as a super-vet in road races where everyone does the same distance and the results are presented in a single list.

So why are do we have all these different courses?
One reason is having course for juniors. But thats largely irrelevant - road and cross country races also have shorter junior races but all the grown-ups run together (or split men/women).
The difference with O is that we don't have a mass start. There's a limit to how many people can run a course with a sensible start interval. Many years ago, the sport was so attractive to young, fit people that we hit that limit, there was a need to split people between courses in a non-pejorative way.
Then it got frozen in with BOFocratic rules that a proper race was 69 minutes long. Now, since we stopped recruiting adults under 40, the original rationale for the split is gone. As we've all got older and been retained in the sport the multiple courses support our declining physical ability.
Now even that "problem" is going away with "middle" and "sprint". Most orienteers could cope with "elite" courses at those distances, and most events don't need more than a couple of courses. Maybe if we cut back on the courses, the cycle could begin again?

[mikey]

Now even that "problem" is going away with "middle" and "sprint". Most orienteers could cope with "elite" courses at those distances, and most events don't need more than a couple of courses. Maybe if we cut back on the courses, the cycle could begin again?

Let's start by all entering elite at next year's 'all age' sprint championships.

You know it makes sense.

[Gnitworp]

Why are you winking Mikey?

[mikey]

That's my 'naughty face'.

[EddieH]

Graeme there is another reason for multiple courses. When everyone's on the same course there is no need for some runners to navigate. Thoughtful planning can make everyone keep their wits about them - and this sport is not just about running.

[Gnitworp]

I thought there were multiple heats (and finals) in the (Open - and now lamented) Elite Sprints.

[DJM]

As there will be in the new combined Sprint Champs next year ...

[EddieH]

I don't know how it will work next year, but if there are multiple heats in which it is ensured that everyone from any age class is in the same heat, (I understand the older juniors who would mess it up at the elite end re being counted as elite for this event anyway,) it seems to me that that answers everybody's desires and is a thoroughly good move. We'll be racing against the top guys in the heats and end up in an appropriate final with no-one in our class that sneaked into a higher final in a different qualifier.

Thus AWK gets his way, as do I who believes that if you want more older members to take "sprint" seriously you need to have a championships on an equal footing with the conventional BOC.