NE1 courses

[NeilC]

As has been pointed out BOC guidelines are based around M21L not M21E. For BOC2006 The best M21E course I could come up was 1.14xM21L not 1.2xM21L thus giving an expected winning time of 85 mins (assuming a linear relationship). My comment that M21E should have been won in this time was an event-specific comment. All other courses are relative to M21L. As we all know judging winning times is an imprecise science and I would also defend the concept of allowing some flexibility (5-10% either way) in order to plan the best course.

[Lizi Beee]

Sorry to barge into the middle of the M55L debate, but I thought that the w20L was also short - and containing some rather dull legs of long path treks as though to make up the distance. This was slightly disappointing for the first national of the year I thought and for such a long way to travel. I wasn't expecting to be at the top having not been able to do much training but even I managed the course in under an hour. I don't know what the official ratios are but I would expect the w20L to have a EWT of more than 50mins?? Though I have noticed over the last few years that events are getting shorter - is this a trend that has to stick? Personally I hope not. As has been said before the option is there to run short if you feel you can't hack the distance - why take away the choice for everyone?

[Knee Deep Mud!]

Looking back at an old version of the NE guidelines (2003), the official course length ratios have been changed since then. M21E:M21L is currently 1.2, yet in 2003 it was 1.14. Given the 90 minute M21E recommended winning time, this means that the recommended length of M21L has been reduced.

Does this explain some of the problem?

[Knee Deep Mud!]

containing some rather dull legs of long path treks as though to make up the distance

I too ran course 4 and probably only touched the paths for 10% of the total course distance. The forest was so runnable, & the tracks so muddy, that I believe that straight was definitely the best way to go on virtually every leg. I thought it was one of the better courses I've run recently, as there was so little path running. Just a pity that I can't run fast enough to do the area justice!

The course length ratio was spot on compared to M21L (0.56 height corrected).

From my own point of view the course length was comparable to virtually every event I've run recently.

[Lizi Beee]

Fine, maybe not on the paths, but to the side of them in the runnable forest as there were quite a few straight lines (3-4 and 12 -> Finish) that were over paths

[awk]

Well, I still thoroughly enjoyed our course.....

Interesting for me in this debate on course lengths is that when travelling abroad, I never find course distances as long as some on this thread want (perhaps reasonably so given the guidelines). Personally, I prefer a winning time in the 55-65 mins range for my age group, and would save longer events for specifically longer distance races.

So - should National Events all be long slogs, as advocated by some? If so, what about good quality competition for those who don't want that distance (and don't say 'run short', as that is effectively the B course presently whatever anybody says)?

I think this takes us back to NeilM35's comments on National Events: what's needed is a structure that provides national level competition at all distances, rather than the current apparent compromise (I certainly would NOT want the only National events available to be long distance). This, I think, is where the FRA have got it right - I would love BOF to take a leaf out of their book.

[Ant W]

I tend to agree with Lizi Beee's comments on path runs on course 4. As for length, my only comment would be that course 4 was also the short course for three men's classes. Whatever you think about our fitness levels, the fact is we haven't got the option to move down to a shorter course. Perhaps at a National, there should be less course sharing?

[awk]

Perhaps at a National, there should be less course sharing?

No, no, no!! The more course sharing, the better - there isn't enough competition anyway.

[Gnitworp]

Yes, perhaps, but conversely a larger number of courses does mitigate the beaten-trail / everyone-heading-for-the-same-control factor.

At one extreme you have the Swedish O Ringen, where there's little guidance to be gained from beaten trails because there are so many, most not going to your control. At the other extreme, an event with one course and several hundred competitors all going for the same controls greatly increases the advantages gained for later runners from 'tracking up' and from randomly following other competitors into a control, and of course from an inevitably smaller start interval.

[Axel]

Just by looking at my course timings for the 6 M55L courses I competed in this year (4 Regional, Brit Nights and NE1) I can see the planners and controllers have erred on the cautious side and have produced courses that are not meeting the guide lines in TD, physical challenge and winning times. Am I being short change well thats up to me to decide and of course as suggested if I'm not satified I can run up, however at this time of year I do like to see how I stand against my fellow orierteers in my age catergory. This way I can gauge my fitness levels against my peers and if below par do some extra work to improve my position.

Just another thought I pay my fees per event which are the same as the M/W21L class and in some cases twice as much if the runners in this class are student. So therefore should I not expect planners and controllers to get my course details wrong everytime. Infact I can't remember seeing for quite sometime that an event has had courses that have been over planned and the have produced winning times way over the recommended guide lines. Therefore my plea is that planners and controllers do not short change us and plan to the top edge of the physical and technical challenge and if you over plan once in a while so what most of us will be most grateful and accept the extra challenge.

[Gnitworp]

Infact I can't remember seeing for quite sometime that an event has had courses that have been over planned and the have produced winning times way over the recommended guide lines. Therefore my plea is that planners and controllers do not short change us and plan to the top edge of the physical and technical challenge and if you over plan once in a while so what most of us will be most grateful and accept the extra challenge.

Lakes 5-Day 2006 Day 2: M55L winning time 72:50, best Brit 76:10

I did a Nope Poll shortly afterwards in which 59% said they enjoyed the extra length and 49% said they wanted more of the same. Personally, I relished every minute of it.

[Roger]

Just by looking at my course timings for the 6 M55L courses I competed in this year (4 Regional, Brit Nights and NE1) I can see the planners and controllers have erred on the cautious side and have produced courses that are not meeting the guide lines in TD, physical challenge and winning times.

I haven't checked which other races you've done this year Axel, so I'll talk only about the Concorde Chase at Hawley and Hornley (7.44km 115m climb), where you won M55L (by over 4 minutes) in 45:39.

M21L 13.32km 220m gives 15.52 height-adjusted. M55L, adjusted distance 8.59km, is 0.553 of M21L compared to the guideline figure of 0.56 (Guideline B). As others have pointed out, there are no longer any recommended times at regional events for anything other than M21L, where the gold badge time is supposed to be 85 minutes, which equates to a winning time of approximately 67 minutes for a 'top elite' competitor.

The specified length ratios replaced a set of target gold times: I remember as planner plotting the gold times acheived against the target ranges to evaluate how I'd done. I presume the current ratios were originally set to approximate those gold-time ranges.

At Hawley and Hornley the top three were Clive Hallett, Nick Barrable and Jez Edwards -- not 'top elite', but pretty good. They produced a gold time of 84:50. So the M21L course was very slightly short, and the M55L course was a very slightly lower fraction of M21L than is recommended. But it seems to me that the main problem is that you're too good!

There are two ways to argue this:

1. A four-minute margin is quite a lot. We should disregard anybody who wins by this sort of margin, and instead take heed of the masses. (The badge-time calculation uses the top three (in a class of over 20) so in the old days, a big winner would have some effect but would not dominate, and the badge time could still be within the recommended range.)

2. The old factors need adjusting, now that fit and experienced competitors with 20+ years' of training behind them know every square metre of their local woods, and therefore zoom round at fearsome speeds. (Or maybe medical science and training know-how keeps them fitter for longer.)

Alternatively, those people who think that 'value for money' is more important than age-group competition can just run up a course or two. Personally I 'mix and match': given a cross-country race the day before, a time constraint or a National Event then I'll act my age; otherwise I'll run M21L.

Roger (Concorde Chase Controller)

[Guest88]

It doesn't seem to me from some of the comments above that the problem is entirely the planning length of courses 3,4 etc as those disaffected actually would seem to want to be running something somewhat longer.

E.g.EddieH says that whilst speed decreases, stamina increases - that sounds as if he would be preferring to run 21L, or even 21E distance.

Maybe the answer is a Veterans Elite class, starting early in the day, all on M21L, seeded in reverse order from ranking list), listing age classes. This would in my opinion have a much higher status than all of those age classes which there are just too many of them to be able to follow for anyone apart from the completely obsessed. Plus, hardly anyone runs M21L relative to other classes, so it is an underused course, and would be a shame not to fill it up a bit if there is an undercurrent of people who would actually want to be running that course, and clear out some space for the fat youngsters on the bottleneck courses 3 and 4.

This would also establish exactly how many people are unhappy at the lengths of the veteran L classes.

[Ant W]

No, no, no!! The more course sharing, the better - there isn't enough competition anyway.

For Regional events, I agree completely - there should be more sharing and results should be always available by course - but should National events be subject to these sort of compromises?

[awk]

and 49% said they wanted more of the same.

Which meant that a (tiny) majority didn't. (Or, perhaps to be fairer, there is no evidence from this that a majority do want it).

Maybe the answer is a Veterans Elite class...

Seems to me that what you are suggesting is that people choose course depending on length rather than age.....races based on colour standards (including black) can already achieve that, without creating yet more divisions of classes. Equally, NeilM35's suggestion of events covering a range of distances. Alternatively, vets who want a long course could just run the open.