southern champs

[Urban]

Just checking we're happy with 12 year olds (M14) running equivalent of 5 miles and 14 year olds (M16) running equivalent 7.5+ miles.
Not disputing they're planned to guidelines but there is a bigger picture.
It would seem Miner feels its too much.........
Will look forward to seeing the results on Sunday, good luck everyone!

[Homer]

I must admit Bart (14 and not 15 until the Autumn) was a bit taken aback on first seeing the length of M16A. However he realises this is a Championship event and he is running against the best 16 year olds in the country. The likes of Aidan Smith are well used to running 9km.
Furthermore, courses need to increase in length over the junior years so that there is not a massive jump for those moving up to M21E. This is the progression through the ages on Sunday:
M10 3.2km
M12 3.6km
M14 5.8km
M16 9.1km
M18 12.2km
M21 17.0km
To me this seems a reasonable progression.

I'm looking forward to seeing how Bart gets on on Sunday. Hopefully he will surprise me!

[Mrs H]

Compared to the Midlands champs, it is 2km longer with the same climb. It is definitely a faster area. So maybe equivalent of 1 mile more.

We were on holiday that week. We usually run short only tempted to the long by the masters - i've admitted this was my mistake and we were out of our depth.

Are our elites bumptious ?

[Miner]

I can see the need to increase distances but I have seen a lot of 12 to 14 year olds with knee problems due to too much running whilst there is a lot of growing still going on. Also, up to 12 coaching tends to focus on sport as physical activity which is fun and keeps you healthy, while improving agility and coordination. At 14 young athletes will begin to specialise and their bodies are better able to cope with greater physical demands. My son and I have taken this into consideration and feel at the moment the fun element is still paramount.

[Roger]

http://www.geograph.org.uk/gridref/SU7686

Four photos of the forest and one of the adjoining vineyard. Those who get round the former fastest (in their adult age-classes) will be able to enjoy the fruits of the latter.

[pigweed]

Funnily enough the same comments were heard back in 2005 when the area was previously used for a National. At that time I remember Colin Duckworth commenting before the event that the lengths were suitable for both a national event and the easy running of the terrain.

After the event this proved to be correct and the winning times were as expected, however my own time wasn't any faster, but reflected the longer distance, but I'm hardly an athlete!

[Roger]

I can see the need to increase distances but I have seen a lot of 12 to 14 year olds with knee problems due to too much running whilst there is a lot of growing still going on.

True, but all too often the cause is running too much on hard surfaces. One of my running-club pals was astonished when I took him off-path through a bit of forest: he had no idea how soft the forest floor was. Another group, on a warm-down after a cross-country race in a sandy pine forest, were similarly amazed that anyone could run confidently through dead bracken. And yet a third group, out in the New Forest, couldn't believe that I could run through the heather parallel to the path.

Orienteering is very different to road-running and trying to draw parallels can be misleading.

I planned a Chiltern Challenge at Hambleden in 2000, when we'd regained access after 20 years of trying, and the courses were too short. (I test-ran my own course, and familiarity failed to compensate for the lack of adrenalin. Clive Hallett annihilated a time that I had thought respectable.) Judging from the planner's photos the moderate patches of bracken have been well and truly flattened and the forest is looking extraordinarily fast.

[Steve]

I’m kind of reluctant to get involved in a discussion about course lengths before we have actual winning times, but what I will say is this:
I did take advice on the effect of pack running on the 2005 M21E winning time.
Event rules I for area champs require longer courses than the previous rules for this level of event, particularly for older age groups.

When it became clear the courses were working out long, I checked theoretical winning times using the winning speeds of 2005 (factored for climb), and almost all 2011 target winning times were supported by the 2005 winning speeds. The 2011 target winning times were actually beaten by the 2005 winning speeds in the majority of cases, using course lengths based on the new ratios.

I have actually caved in to some degree and reduced the lengths of older age group courses from the nominal. Mid range age groups are aimed at a winning time midway between nominal and shortest, older age groups are aimed at shortest winning times. Courses 1 and 2 are actually slightly over nominal, but less than maximum. This is all subject to the winning M21E speed being correct of course.

Because of the long lengths I also asked for the provisional course lengths to be placed on the TVOC website so that people could decide to enter Short if they wanted to. It seems not everybody noticed that…

[Mrs H]

Let me be perfectly clear - I recognise that the course lengths are exactly what they should be and have no doubt that the likes of Tim Tett and Jonathan Emberton will have no problem whipping round in 60-70 minutes - maybe less. I am conceding that these courses are not for the likes of us and that I made a mistake in entering being swept along by my enthusiasm for the Masters Cup. I hope everyone has a lovely day.

[greywolf]

Steve, I hope the discussion on this thread doesn't come across as criticism - it would certainly be unwarranted as you've clearly worked hard to ensure that you've followed the appropriate guidelines, and publicised course lengths from a relatively early stage (which IMHO, all major events should do ) It just illustrates the extent of underplanning and vanity sizing of courses if it comes as such a shock to folk when a full length course appears...

[Spookster]

I'm really looking forward to my 12.1km and 425m . I doubt I can still do the sort of speed I managed at JK 2003 though...

[RobL]

Expecting a 14 year old to compete over 9.1km with 280m climb is barking mad. I don't believe any other national athletics body would sanction this.

[Steve]

Expecting a 14 year old to compete over 9.1km with 280m climb is barking mad. I don't believe any other national athletics body would sanction this.

M14A is 5.8/175

[brooner]

Expecting a 14 year old to compete over 9.1km with 280m climb is barking mad. I don't believe any other national athletics body would sanction this.

M14A is 5.8/175

Yes, but as pointed out here 14 year olds are also running M16.

I must admit Bart (14 and not 15 until the Autumn) was a bit taken aback on first seeing the length of M16A. However he realises this is a Championship event and he is running against the best 16 year olds in the country. The likes of Aidan Smith are well used to running 9km.

[RobL]

Expecting a 14 year old to compete over 9.1km with 280m climb is barking mad. I don't believe any other national athletics body would sanction this.

M14A is 5.8/175

Given that we are in March, it's not just the odd 14 year old that will run M16, it's the vast majority. Effectively, M16 is the class for 14 year olds.