Age Group Sprints

[EddieH]

AWK wrote:

"Whatever - no way should Elite/Open be merged with Age class!"

I totally disagree (my opinion).

However I totally fail to understand how that argument applies so strongly to sprint, but not to middle. Unless I've missed the point no-one has hinted at any reason for that.

[graeme]

Of course, the argument applies equally well to middle and long. If you really cared about finding out who the best M35 is next year, you wouldn't schedule the race at the same time as JD, Jamie, Dan Marston et al are required to run for BEOC and international selection.

But there are also differences between sprint and middle/classic.

Firstly, the elites got there first. It's the elite committee's baby, and they have proved totally resistant to even the small tweaks needed to incorporate age groups.

Second, the format which works so well for the elite (qualifier + final) makes absolutely no sense if the field is so small that everyone makes the final, as in all age-groups. So if you combine the events, they would still have different formats. (unlike middle)

Third, it is both physically and logistically possible to do two sprint races in a day without compromise. I certainly ran both sprints at (what nowadays passes for) full speed; but presented with two 45minute races in a day, I'd run a lot steadier, changing the nature of the competition.

[Kitch]

Second, the format which works so well for the elite (qualifier + final) makes absolutely no sense if the field is so small that everyone makes the final, as in all age-groups. So if you combine the events, they would still have different formats. (unlike middle)
.

Qualifier is not purely an elimination round - it also defines the start order for the final,
so there is a point / sense , even if everyone makes the final. In fact at elite level qualifying with a good start in the final is the point (as opposed to merely qualifying)

[awk]

AWK wrote:

"Whatever - no way should Elite/Open be merged with Age class!"

I totally disagree (my opinion).

However I totally fail to understand how that argument applies so strongly to sprint, but not to middle. Unless I've missed the point no-one has hinted at any reason for that.

I don't think you have missed the point: I have long held the belief that we should have separate Age and Elite/Open Middle and Long/Classic distance championships as well. I completely disagree with them being held at the same event. My argument is that it's only the sprint format that has got this right at present!

I have yet to see any remotely convincing argument for putting Elite/Open and Age class champs together. By merging together, one simply compromises the quality of both competitions, and they should both be about having the best possible fields in the respective categories. I know the Elite/Open will normally be dominated by 21-34s, but the fact is that under-21s and over-34s will still feature in the placings.

[roadrunner]

Looking at the results, I counted about 221 competitive championship runs, for which 81 medals would have been awarded: more than 1 in 3. And there were 7 senior and 1 junior categories where every finisher who wasn't n/c would have got a medal. Two of these were M/W35 - the very categories which you might expect to enter both the Age Class and Elite champs.

I know this was the first event of its type, and a long way from the centres of population in the South, but surely we have too many categories? Shouldn't we proceed the same way as was done in "normal" orienteering, and start with just a few categories (e.g. M/W21, 40, 55 - not sure about juniors) until we have enough competitors to get real competition in a greater number?

[Becks]

Just make it the JK sprint? I have no doubts that numbers were down because few people want to travel the length of the country twice within a week, to run sprint courses.

I'm sure Graeme will correct me if I'm wrong, but a cursory glance of the JK sprint results shows most age class winners in the top ten, but not many at the very top. Numbers were bigger, less travelling etc etc. Can't it be the "JK sprint incorporating the British Age Class Championships?" But then it'd have to be a single race format. Surely the best way to pick a winner is to have the most people competing as possible, as opposed to the most consistent of a small pool over two small races?

[awk]

There's some merit in what you say Becks, but I'd hate to lose one of the very few sprint races actually on the calendar. There's not enough as it is. I did hear somebody say that sprint lends itself to summer/autumn, and I do think that this is one fixture that could be moved out of the spring period. That would help.

I think the JK suggests one thing though: sprint is popular, but for most people it needs to be incorporated with something else to make it 'worthwhile'.

I'd also suggest waiting to see how the sprint age class championships numbers work when in a more accessible part of the world for the bulk of the orienteering population. Perhaps not much, but worth checking up first.

I'd agree about the age bands though - we only have 5 year bands to deal with numbers anyway, and when there aren't that many, it does seem a waste of time.

[graeme]

Would be a shame to lose a race.

I think there are two good sanity checks to do here:

1/ For numbers/format...
Given two lists, the British Champions, and the JK Champions, can you say one is "stronger" than the other?

2/ For age groups ...
Are the younger age groups faster than the older ones?

Answers..

1/ I'm not convinced you can.

2/ Our family experience is that Jane could have been JK champion in W40 or W35 rather than unplaced in W45, and I could have bagged a medal by entering M35 rather than M45. Indeed the fastest in both the 35-45 classes were 45s.