British Middle and Sprint Championships - who's it for?

[awk]

and giving up on running age-class classics at BOC and JK to collect UK cup points will be unappealing to many.

Not least because using long distance races as qualifiers for a middle distance championship seems very odd indeed: "Right Ms Holmes, for you to qualify for the 800m, you have to go out and gain enough UK Cup points in the 5000m. "

[mharky]

The problem here is that there is no Middle and Sprint Championships for anyone except the elite.

The solution to this problem is asking the appropriate people if you can have Middle and Sprint championships for everyone else.

The amount of guff on here about "it's not fair", "it's not open", "waa waa waa"... is just pointless

If the title is BEOC then that is what it is. If you can't qualify for it, then tough luck.

I would like there to be BOC Middle and Sprint, so would many of you, I guess.

Has anyone asked British Orienteering yet? (oh, and while I'm on it, get used to the fact that BOF is now British Orienteering, it was a good move for them to change the name, everyone who keeps writing BO or BOF is just a faggot)

[NeilC]

Time for some constructive suggestions. If middle and sprint championships were to be introduced in 2008:

1) How many classes? Full range or wider age band groupings?

2) If full range then how many courses?

3) Should each class in the sprint have a winning time of 12-14 minutes or should different classes sharing the same course have different winning times? When is a sprint not a sprint in terms of winning times?

4) If wider age band groupings then what groupings?

5) Taking Axel's previous suggestion would an average M40 be happy to travel to a British Championship to compete against the top M21s? Or W12s against W16s etc?

6) In the middle distance you would still need separate TD1, 2 and 3 courses. One could argue that no sprint race is harder than TD3.

7) If the nature of the event means that selection has to be applied for the elite race (in the merged age group model) then many people would not be able to compete in the championship. If an M21/M35/M40 isn't selected what would they run?

Answers on a post please

[EddieH]

Regarding Sprint, personally I really liked this year's format (but not the status).

I appreciate that the winning times will become progressively more "wrong" as we get older, but don't really see how that matters.

Maybe 3 lengths (say M21 - 50, W21 - 50 & M55 - M70, W55 - 70)
plus whatever is required for juniors on which subject I don't have any input.

EVERY age group should have its own champion regardless of course combinations.

The champion is the one that finishes highest in the highest final.


Regarding the middle, course combinations should be dictated largely by entry number logistics. Initially there will obviously be a low entry compared to classic BOC and therefore the number of courses will not need to be great. Just as with course combinations now compromises are always made. With the middle these can afford to be greater as noone should be utterly exhausted.


Finally, if this i taken on board, can the long be made into something a little more classic. As we get older we get slower, but stamina does not decrease - Wy oh why are our winning times shrtened so much?

[Marco Polo]

Time for some constructive suggestions. If middle and sprint championships were to be introduced in 2008:

Answers on a post please

1) How many classes? Full range or wider age band groupings?

Need to recognise all current age classes if only for ranking points. Championships for all age classes should be the aim as well, but some grouping might be needed in early years with low numbers. I would guess that there were only two or three entries in some age groups at last years British Sprints. Talking of ranking points, how would you deal with short course runners (M21S, M40S etc.)

5) Taking Axel's previous suggestion would an average M40 be happy to travel to a British Championship to compete against the top M21s? Or W12s against W16s etc?

I think that would be fine for most M40s. As has been noted elsewhere, we often get better competition week in week out at C4s when we can compete outside our immediate age group. Not sure about juniors, but at the end of the day it isn't head to head and age groups can be split out in results

7) If the nature of the event means that selection has to be applied for the elite race (in the merged age group model) then many people would not be able to compete in the championship. If an M21/M35/M40 isn't selected what would they run?

If you could fit the middle elite and open races on the same day and course, I would be for it, but it might make for a long day. However, the possibility of being able to run the same course and compare yourself against the elite is a selling point for sprint and middle distance, and worth holding onto.

[graeme]

Time for some constructive suggestions. If middle and sprint championships were to be introduced in 2008:
1) How many classes? Full range or wider age band groupings?

However many you have prizes for. Otherwise this question is irrelevant.

2) If full range then how many courses?

Sprint: at most two, men and women. If the London marathon can manage with one class, so can we. Otherwise you just get the best people running up and the whole thing is devalued (Yes, I have been UK M40 sprint champion, and no, I wasn't the fastest M40 on the day).

Medium: with half the distance you could probably manage with half the courses. Comparing standard badge event that's 20-year age bands (20-35, 40-55, 60+).

3) Should each class in the sprint have a winning time of 12-14 minutes or should different classes sharing the same course have different winning times? When is a sprint not a sprint in terms of winning times?

see 2. A sprint is not a sprint when it becomes a test of endurance.

4) If wider age band groupings then what groupings?

M10-M70. W10-W70

5) Taking Axel's previous suggestion would an average M40 be happy to travel to a British Championship to compete against the top M21s? Or W12s against W16s etc?

Yes. No shortage of average M40s in any road/XC/Hill race you care to consider. (they do like their vet prizes though)

6) In the middle distance you would still need separate TD1, 2 and 3 courses. One could argue that no sprint race is harder than TD3.

But one would be wrong - in some areas a perfectly good sprint race could be planned at TD5. However TD ratings aren't applicable to urban areas, and a TD5 sprint race isn't necessarily better than a TD3 one.

I don't think TD1-3 middle distance makes sense. The defining feature of middle is the intense mapreading compared to classic where macro route choice and endurance are an issue. Who wants a shortened white course?

7) If the nature of the event means that selection has to be applied for the elite race (in the merged age group model) then many people would not be able to compete in the championship. If an M21/M35/M40 isn't selected what would they run?

There should never, ever, ever be selection for a national championships. If numbers are limited, there should be qualification races, and if you don't qualify, you're not good enough and you don't run the final. Qualification should be either on the same weekend (in which case "B" finals are probably in order) or region-based semi-finals far enough in advance that people can arrange transport across the country. Ideally, you shouldn't have to give up on running e.g. M20 classic BOC in order to qualify for M21 sprint.

Graeme

[Gnitworp]

- Why oh why are our winning times (for Veteran Classes) shortened so much?

Or at all?

[jab]

5) Taking Axel's previous suggestion would an average M40 be happy to travel to a British Championship to compete against the top M21s? Or W12s against W16s etc?

Well my M12 would definitely prefer to run against other M12s, probably could be persuaded to run against M14s but would feel that competing against the top M16s really was a fairly pointless exercise. So my vote is for more classes rather than combining lots together, but I don't believe that would mean loads of courses.

[tim sleepless]

1) How many classes? Full range or wider age band groupings?

Full range ideally


2) If full range then how many courses?

4 in sprint (6 if you need to have elite separate).
Maybe 8 in Middle

3) Should each class in the sprint have a winning time of 12-14 minutes or should different classes sharing the same course have different winning times? When is a sprint not a sprint in terms of winning times?

Of course you're going to have different winning times for classes sharing the same course.


4) If wider age band groupings then what groupings?


5) Taking Axel's previous suggestion would an average M40 be happy to travel to a British Championship to compete against the top M21s? Or W12s against W16s etc?


Not relevant if you still separate out classes


6) In the middle distance you would still need separate TD1, 2 and 3 courses. One could argue that no sprint race is harder than TD3.

7) If the nature of the event means that selection has to be applied for the elite race (in the merged age group model) then many people would not be able to compete in the championship. If an M21/M35/M40 isn't selected what would they run?

Have separate Elite courses (or run earlier) as above.

It's really not rocket science. There's enough countries running sprints and mediums across all classes who we can learn from not to have to spend too much time naval-gazing.

[roadrunner]

2) If full range then how many courses?

Sprint: at most two, men and women. If the London marathon can manage with one class, so can we. Otherwise you just get the best people running up and the whole thing is devalued (Yes, I have been UK M40 sprint champion, and no, I wasn't the fastest M40 on the day).

Medium: with half the distance you could probably manage with half the courses. Comparing standard badge event that's 20-year age bands (20-35, 40-55, 60+).

3) Should each class in the sprint have a winning time of 12-14 minutes or should different classes sharing the same course have different winning times? When is a sprint not a sprint in terms of winning times?

see 2. A sprint is not a sprint when it becomes a test of endurance.
Graeme

Aren't these answers a bit inconsistent? If veteran men have to run the (only) men's sprint course, they'll take a lot more than 14 minutes, and indeed for the oldest it will be a similar distance to what they'd run in a classic event! I would suggest perhaps three sprint courses:

Open men
Open women/veteran men
Veteran women

[graeme]

I dont think its inconsistent. Times are much more bunched in sprint races and few orienteers will regard 2-3km of easy terrain as a "test of endurance".

On sprint-like terrain, Oxford/OUOC chose 45 for the vet men. Tim Tett (M45) was about 10% down on Oli Johnson (a plausible M21E ). I dont see much case for having a second course 10% longer. First lady was only 20% down - still less than the length difference between adjacent courses at BOC.

[mharky]

Does everyone realise that Sprint Orienteering doesn't actually have to be urban

[bendover]

thats a good point... some of the best sprint 'o' is barely urban at all...

[awk]

I dont think its inconsistent. Times are much more bunched in sprint races and few orienteers will regard 2-3km of easy terrain as a "test of endurance".

Agree totally. At Milton Keynes I was running at just over 20 minutes, and I am (sadly) at the moment regularly beaten by the best M65s.

[Axel]

We are going round and round in circles here. OK, if as Neil has stipulated that BO can't get their act together until 2008, then lets trial format a in the 2007 races and if that format works then we can propose it is utilised for the Official British Sprint and Middle Distance Champs in 2008.

I have attended 3 Sprint Champs, Ham Hill, Sandhurst and Milton Keynes and they have all encompassed roughly the same format, which has been a qualifer in the morning followed by a final in the afternoon and a limited number of course. All we have to do is use the suggested age group classes as listed below to provide the Courses, which isn't far of whats been used for the 3 events mentioned above:
W/M 16 and under - Junior Class.
W/M 18 to 44 - Elite Class.
M/M 45 TO 54 - Senior class.
W/M 55 and above - Veteran class.

Then by using the normal age class system the fastest runner in the age group is the Brit Champ ie; M Faggot M60 3rd in the M55 and above class
final but 1st M60 then he is the Brit Champ for the M60 class.

If the Elites have a problem with us old and bold blocking up the courses then give them the early start block that way we can spectate their races, which I believe is what we want to do. At least this way we will get to see all our elites going head to head in a race. which we don't always see in the Brit Classic Champs or JK's.

I know we dont have a qualifer for the Middles but we could still use the same principle.

By the number of posts submitted on this subject their is certainly a large support for a full Brit Champs in both Sprint and middle distances. So Nopesport is it possible to do a quick survey on this matter, if so please keep it simple, to the point and short time scale.

The way forward from there on is to put a proposal to PMG for inclusion at the next committee meeting.