MICRO O in WOC 2006 for Middle

[BJ]

and here is another piss take on the topic....

http://www.yukonorienteering.ca/iof/WOIC2.jpg

[rob f]

and here is another piss take on the topic....

http://www.yukonorienteering.ca/iof/WOIC2.jpg

HA HA, great. And i thought dive o was mad!

Did you add the topless orienteerinng BJ?

[Lumpy Lycra]

Today's C5 at Bidulph Country Park marked the start of an invisible path with red ribbon similar to that used to hang the map sections (Nowegian map memory - great fun). I saw these ribbons and thought - look, micro o? - and ran past. several times.

[mharky]

We were driving through Kiev and we drove past some flowers and I thought - look, micro o? - and we drove past.

[Lumpy Lycra]

do they use flowers to mark control sites in Kiev?

[Kitch]

I have always been cynical about new forms of orienteering, when they introduced middle, when they introduced sprint.
This cynicism was founded not so much in the idea that these race distances were pointless but that the reason for introducing them was to popularise orienteering, to create a Media friendly format, bring in the money, get into the Olympics.

Both these disciplines have evolved and hold their own challenges and value, Their introduction has widened my enjoyment of the sport.

Neither of these disciplines has achieved the Media friendly format, bringing in the money or getting into the Olympics.
If they had then Micr O' wouldn't have been invented.

I question the assertion that orienteering needs media money, needs to be olympic.
Why ?
Orienteering is here, it is healthy, are you telling us the coffers are empty, the sport is dying, about to fold ?
Are clubs in financial straits?
Are events being cancelled for want of funds or participants ?
My cynicism remains:
firstly over the need to go Media friendy.
secondly over whether you can ever succeed in creating a media friendly format that is actually orienteering.
Does orienteering need the money, or is it just that some ego's need the recognition?

The problem for me begins when the rules of the sport begin to erode.
A serious concern arises with Micro O' in that it looks like eroding planning guidelines, which I believe say that it is unfair to have controls close together, on the same feature, on very similar features.

My concern over mediafication of orienteering is that to succeed it will require the sport to change in ways that would remove the essence of the sport, it will no longer be orienteering.

Thankfully Middle and Sprint failed.
They failed to make the sport media friendly becuse they failed to change the essence of the sport.
They survive as successful race formats because they retain the essence of the sport.

The thing is that, in theory, the sport is very simple. In practise it is very very complicated. We are all orienteers, have been for years and we have no idea anymore how difficult even the very basics are, how utterly baffling and bizarre and not worth the effort of watching our sport would be to your average TV viewer. To make it appealing is probably either impossibel, or not orienteering.

Maybe you'd get a little pick up in Scandinavia, because most of them have an idea and have had a go - and by the way, most of them also think its a weirdo sport - But will anyone outside Scandi ever be able to sell a programme ?

[awk]

Good points every one Kitch.

I have to say that for me the TV argument (i.e. we must get regularly on TV in order to develop/survive) has yet to be proven. Indeed, it strikes me that it's the TV focused sports who are amongst those that have the greatest problems.

Incidentally, we went to see the Sheffield Athletics Grand Prix yesterday. I don't know what the TV coverage was like, but the event itself struck me as being really naff, in spite of all the efforts at putting the trappings together. Poor stadium commentary; cringe making puffing of Kelly Holmes's appearance (with some embarrassed attempts to deal with her not winning the women's 800m - not unexpected given the problems she's had this year, but not on the agenda before the race); desperate attempts at trying to convince the spectators what a wonderful crowd we were; superlatives flying everywhere, even when they were seriously inappropriate (fantastic this, awesome that). There was some great competition (NOT the Women's 5000m, the most tedious 'World Record' attempt I could imagine), but it got rather swamped in a pile of second rate glitz (e.g. Kelly Holmes being paraded around in the 'Kelly-mobile@ amongst fireworks seriously disrupting a cracking and world class pole vault competition).

If that's what TV coverage does (papering over some serious problems in British athletics) then forget it! It wasn't sport, it was theatre, and not especially good theatre at that (with one or two very honourable and genuinely exciting exceptions).

[EriOL]

Good points every one Kitch.

I have to say that for me the TV argument (i.e. we must get regularly on TV in order to develop/survive) has yet to be proven. Indeed, it strikes me that it's the TV focused sports who are amongst those that have the greatest problems.

Incidentally, we went to see the Sheffield Athletics Grand Prix yesterday. I don't know what the TV coverage was like, but the event itself struck me as being really naff, in spite of all the efforts at putting the trappings together. Poor stadium commentary; cringe making puffing of Kelly Holmes's appearance (with some embarrassed attempts to deal with her not winning the women's 800m - not unexpected given the problems she's had this year, but not on the agenda before the race); desperate attempts at trying to convince the spectators what a wonderful crowd we were; superlatives flying everywhere, even when they were seriously inappropriate (fantastic this, awesome that). There was some great competition (NOT the Women's 5000m, the most tedious 'World Record' attempt I could imagine), but it got rather swamped in a pile of second rate glitz (e.g. Kelly Holmes being paraded around in the 'Kelly-mobile@ amongst fireworks seriously disrupting a cracking and world class pole vault competition).

If that's what TV coverage does (papering over some serious problems in British athletics) then forget it! It wasn't sport, it was theatre, and not especially good theatre at that (with one or two very honourable and genuinely exciting exceptions).

TV coverage (Eurosport) was quite good. Maybe it was helped by the fact that it started with just the highlights from the early events (100 m men and women etc). Watching Craig Mottram, Kajsa Bergqvist and Kim Collins was definitely worth turning the TV on. Luckily I went to take care of my laundry just before the womens 800 m. I pretty much knew it was going to be an anticlimax anyway.

There might be som big problems in British athletics at the moment, (the need to celebrate a quite mediocre runner who got lucky and won a couple of olympic medals kind of proves it), but on an international level the sport is more alive and well than ever, despite all the doping scandals. And it's not because they introduced penalty loops for each fallen hurdle in the 400mh.

[David May]

Kitch wrote:

Orienteering is here, it is healthy, are you telling us the coffers are empty, the sport is dying, about to fold ?

Kitch, you must be competing in a different universe! Every year, we are told that numbers are down, participation is down (especially in the M/W21 group) - we now have one third the number of M21s at the JK that we did 18 years ago ... where have the other two thirds gone? The largest class at many events is M55 - it should be one of the smallest.

I see a sport that is in terminal decline, and it worries me greatly. The initiatives we've tried over the past ten years or so have had limited effect only and I now believe that one of the problems we face is that of a negative image amongst the general public - or no image at all in many cases.

I also believe that only the mass media can change image these days, in particular TV - hence the IOF emphasis on this medium and the drive to find a way of making orienteering not just interesting, but more importantly exciting.

David

[Godders]

So what exactly is exciting about watching people standing around scratching their heads?

[fish]

I'llspologise to start with ... bad work day .. so bad mood.

So the intiatives tried for the last 10 years have had limited effect to stop the decline of numbers - Most of those initiatives have been desinged around trying to get tv/media coverage. So after 10 yrs of trying it might be time to say - ok so it's rather difficult to get tv/media interest we need to look at a different approach.
TV coverage from Norwegian tv company - how many countries are going to show this footage - it's only a year away so the IOF must be able to give an idea of how many viewers in how many countries they think this will help?
Orienteering is exciting - to those who do it, and not that exciting to those who only ever want to sit in fron tof a tv/playstation - there is no point in focussing marketing on these people.
We are not main stream - and we will not be mainstream (in terms of tv viewing). it just won't happen.
But .. if mass media is the appeal... in the sensible strategic planning of the IOF .. how many years will it take. I presume this isn't fingers crossed and hope for the best.
How many more years do we stare at the (in my opinion) un-realistic goal, of being an olympic sport.... If we've been in decline for the last 10 years, and this has been the focus of the last 10 years, perhaps a change is required...

fish

[Guest]

If we've been in decline for the last 10 years, and this has been the focus of the last 10 years, perhaps a change is required...

Isnt that what their trying to do??? a change for the better? Yeah maybe the sprint and middle havent worked as successfully as we would have liked, but i think that is more to do with the IOF approach towards the media with these products. At least this time there is a few TV stations willing to put up the money to give this a go. And with the kind of monetary figures that it is rumoured to be costing them, i dont think they plan on this being a one off. They are putting in the money cos they think they will get something back.

There is too many people in orienteering that complain. I too dont think the IOF does the best job in many way (ie the fact that they seemed to have shunned the PWT all these year), but i think we should be happy that they are trying to make the sport become more mainstream. Maybe it will fail, but what IF it doesnt?? Will it hurt the sport that much?? Will it damage the small sport we already have?

Yes it has come into fast, and it shouldnt be first run in a woc, but the IOF has decided on it. So shouldnt we just all embrace the idea and try and help it work. All these negative attitudes are certainly going to help this new decision, if everyone is hoping that it fails!!! [/quote]

[BJesus]

that last message was from me, i cant seem to login, keep sending me back to nopesport.com

bj

[fish]

bj

it's just the justification seemed to be we need orienteering to be mainstream to get people along, but iof have tried tinkering with things continually for the last 5-10yrs with this in mind, with apparantly no success. So i just think a different approach is needed to the issue of marketing orienteering.
I guess that once it is a bit closer, I'll have my fingers crossed hoping nothing goes wrong. but at the moment seems like it is a typical rushed decision. Mind you I don't know how much money there really is going into this. Would be intriguing to know what it's costing, does it make a difference for sponsorship, etc.
It also seems to be a continuation of a series of odd decisions in terms of elite events,

And, yep, i'm in a complaining mood at the moment.

ps - are you doing any more filming of Orienteering yourself at the moment?

fish

[BJesus]

Ive got more on film than the IOF