British Sprint Championships

[graeme]

And tell me how can any M65+ compete with me in my first year M55?

Beat everyone in the younger age class? Trivial, just have a format where nobody wants to race in class. Like, for example, at Mulgrave Woods...

Class M35L Length 5.3km, 345m climb, 25 controls (course 1)
1 Jon Cross (M40) FVO 55:19 10.4 m/km
2 Eddie Harwood (M55) MOR 58:01 10.9
3 David Eades (M40) INT 59:04 11.1
4 Allan Williams WCH 63:27 12.0
5 Trevor Peacock CLOK 81:49 15.4
6 Chris Littler SYO 97:01 18.3

Is there an echo in here

Of course, I do agree with you and andy, you only need one race with heats, and there's no harm in giving awards to the first person in each age group. One can argue about minor details of seeding etc., but the sprint event format is already perfect for both age groups and elites. As we recognised in the Events Review when Charlie Adams showed us his proposals.

[EddieH]

I can't let Andy's comments go. How the heck is having a British Championship getting "bogged down in age classes"? I do NOT propose multiple couses.

Secondly Graeme's point about the Middle race are irrelevant. The event , it was made EXTREMELY clear, was an add-on spectator race to the main Elite event - it had no status whatsoever, no presentation, and any nominal age classes were exactly that. I haven't looked at the middle this year as I won't be there, but from what I think I have seen there are a number of courses with nominate age classes. With the exceptionn of those that can still hack it with the Elite, don't you think that if this wwere an age class British Champs people would in the vast majority of cases run their real class? - I do.

I often wish to run up in standard age class competition to get a longer course - with Middle that whole reason doesn't apply.

[Adventure Racer]

I often wish to run up in standard age class competition to get a longer
course - with Middle that whole reason doesn't apply.

So what is the reason for running up?

What I WOULD like to see is the rule that you can only win in your designated age range once and for all firmly consigned to the nonsense bin. If an M55 beats all the M50s and M45s, then he is M45, M50 and M55 champion, and good luck to him. What an incredibly stupid rule to say that a 43 year old beaten by a 53 year old is still the M40 "champion". How embarrassing for the designated "winner".

Unfortunately if we have sprint heats seeded according to age group, it would seem that rule is forced upon you, since if the best M50 doesn't run the same heat as the best M40, and they don't make the same final, how can you possibly tell which of them is better? Or do you only pass the trophy up if they do both make the same final?

[andy]

I can't let Andy's comments go. How the heck is having a British Championship getting "bogged down in age classes"? I do NOT propose multiple couses.

I said classes, not courses

'one' course: many competitors brings problems unless it's kept very simple with 1 'winner'. If an M55 beats all the M35s (and above) does he become 35/40/45/50/55 champion? similarly with an M18 winning M21 and so on.
In my view this can get too complicated and was the point I was making with my 'bogged down' comment.

[graeme]

With the exceptionn of those that can still hack it with the Elite, don't you think that if this were an age class British Champs people would in the vast majority of cases run their real class? - I do.

If it was FCC, probably not unless the class structure is compromised. Based on BOC M20/35/40, probably wouldn't run their age class. For those who get a bigger mapscale , probably you're right. And Spookster will probably shop around for the easiest course to win .

But my point is that, directly contrary to what JEP asserts, Mulgrave gives us NO evidence that it would work, and to overturn the recommendations of the Event Review on unfounded assertions is ridiculous.

A credible Championship must do its utmost to get potential winners to the start line, which for 20/35/40s means avoiding clashes with events such as BEOC, just as BEOC itself avoids clashes with big internationals like TioMila, Jukola and SpringCup.

[awk]

Unfortunately if we have sprint heats seeded according to age group, it would seem that rule is forced upon you,

My concern is when classes are running the same course: to me it's nonsense that an M45+ who has been beaten by an M50+ on the same course can be declared the champion. Others obviously don't, but I've never seen a sensible explanation for this.

There is never going to be a format that suits everybody. My own preference so far would be one along the lines of an 'open' weekend and an 'age class weekend', although I do like the alternative idea of competing for age class championships in the qualifiers, with the final deciding the elite.

Having said that, I'd hate to see us all running loads of mini-classes; one of the great joys of sprint has been the competitive racing. So there would in my mind still be a need to cluster age classes on courses, whilst still finding a way to ensure sufficient of each age group get through to a final to genuinely contest . I favour broader age bands, but I know others prefer sticking to the 5-year structure; I don't know why.

One possibility is to have broad age bands (say over-40, over-50, over-60 etc) seeded across the heats and then guarantee the best of each age band in each heat go through to, say, the highest final that someone from that age band gets to, running off the front end if necessary. Just a thought; I don't see it compromising the quality.

[SJC]

awk wrote:

What I WOULD like to see is the rule that you can only win in your designated age range once and for all firmly consigned to the nonsense bin.

I disagree that it is nonsense. Without this rule the winning of more than one trophy is based on entirely arbitrary decisions made by planners, who may decide to put the M45 class with M40 at one event and with M50 at another, or even not combine them at all.

With some of the suggestions for the Sprint championships, you could even end up in the position that someone 'wins' the M50 and M40 titles, but not the M45 as they are in a different heat.
Now that really would be incredibly stupid.

[Adventure Racer]

With some of the suggestions for the Sprint championships, you could even end up in the position that someone 'wins' the M50 and M40 titles, but not the M45 as they are in a different heat.

Indeed - just to fill out that scenario, imagine the M40s and M45s are heated together and the M50s and M55s are heated together. Top M40 makes the A final, as does the top M50, but not the top M45. M50 then beats M40 in the final. Who gets the M40 trophy? Who gets the M45 trophy?

[graeme]

There are arguments both ways for who gets the age group trophy. In the current sprint format the "result" is a big list where all the A finalists are ahead of all the Bs etc. There's no inconsistency in going down the list and awarding trophies each time you come to the "oldest person yet".

Unlike road races, we have to have multiple courses, onto which we combine classes is for administrative convenience. If we had 120 entrants in each age range we wouldn't combine them. The Champion in an age class shouldn't depend on how many slower people enter.

Using JK sprint classes, Andy's suggestion is that M35 should be a 15 year band, M40 a 10 year band, M45 a 5 year band and M50 a 15 year band again. Then next year if there's a big entry the bands might get smaller (or M45 might get bigger!). Not very sensible.

[Adventure Racer]

There are arguments both ways for who gets the age group trophy. In the current sprint format the "result" is a big list where all the A finalists are ahead of all the Bs etc. There's no inconsistency in going down the list and awarding trophies each time you come to the "oldest person yet".

The inconsistency is that the "oldest person yet" hasn't necessarily beaten everybody else eligible for the trophy they get in a head to head on the same course, or in a heat/final system which isn't compromised by people not eligible for that trophy distorting the final qualifications.

[DJM]

Just for the record, at the JK Sprint the decision is that you win the class you've entered and not a higher one as well (if you beat all on a higher class), e.g. the M45 class is treated as if it ran its own course, regardless of whether, as an accident of planning, it actually shares a course with other classes.

I know there are arguments for and against this ... sooner or later someone has to make a decision about how to play this issue, at least as far as Major Events are concerned. The new Major Events Group I guess .

[awk]

I accept that there are potential anomalies - that's the nature of a lot of competition - but whatever the vagaries of class combinations, if a competitor from an older class beats me, there's no way that I could justify myself as champion or winner or whatever if they were discounted. And in my eyes, anybody who does so is simply fooling themselves. I'm not ashamed to be beaten by older people than me (happens all the time!), but I would be ashamed to accept a trophy under such false pretences.

[roadrunner]

How about this as a suggestion to avoid some of the problems:

1. Age classes are combined if smaller than (say) 3 times the number of heats.

2. All age classes are split as equally as possible across the heats. Elites would be seeded of course, some other classes could be as well if necessary.

3. For the finals, modify the present situation so that the top person from each heat in a given age class runs in the same final - moving some of them up or down as necessary (with the aim to balance the numbers in each final).

The advantages are that the elites still get the fair competition they have now, and for the other age classes, there should be no dispute that the winner is truly the best on the day. Also, no-one should be able to get into the final on a "walk over", since they have to beat at least two others in the same class.

[Guest88]

There are arguments both ways for who gets the age group trophy. In the current sprint format the "result" is a big list where all the A finalists are ahead of all the Bs etc. There's no inconsistency in going down the list and awarding trophies each time you come to the "oldest person yet".

The inconsistency is that the "oldest person yet" hasn't necessarily beaten everybody else eligible for the trophy they get in a head to head on the same course, or in a heat/final system which isn't compromised by people not eligible for that trophy distorting the final qualifications.

It would be more like the "FA Cup" or a knockout tennis competition where not everyone has to beat the same teams to become eventual winner. If people can cope with this concept, and as long as the heats were reasonably balanced this might be the best way as at least avoids misbalanced heats which seems to me to be unfair for the main competition.

[Scott]

It would be more like the "FA Cup" or a knockout tennis competition

Or, perhaps more relevantly, track racing - it's possible to become Olympic 5km champion by beating the competitors in your heat and the final, rather than everyone else there - but, of course, the Olympics doesn't tend to throw up the situation where only one finalist is eligible for a (certain) title...