MICRO O in WOC 2006 for Middle

[awk]

If David thinks that the pursuit of TV coverage is the answer to the "terminal decline" in Britain, then I 'm afraid he is profoundly wrong in my view (later edit: both that the sport is in terminal decline, and that this is the answer).

A lot of sports have received some TV coverage. Aside from the big, traditional spectator sports, none has seen sustained interest, and even those only when there has been British/English/Scottish etc. success (take a look at the recent interest in cricket). Instead, there has been a brief flurry, or occasional 'big event' interest, and then nothing. One example to illustrate (but there are plenty of others): Hockey got considerable interest back in the 80's when GB won the Gold, but subsequently nothing. One of that sport's biggest problems currently is getting sufficient under-30's.....

The fact is that even if (and it's a very big if) Orienteering gets onto the Olympic programme, the media will show only passing interest, and that's only if we have genuine medal prospects (and gold ones at that). This will have NO long term benefit for the sport, as many sports before have shown.

So, what does work? Again, taking Hockey as an example (but again I could point to others), in spite of the many problems that the English Association has had (including bankruptcy), the sport thrives locally around here. The local club (Ben Rhydding) has a junior section to die for (e.g. they now have a waiting list for the under-11 section, as they can 'only' handle around 50 children). This has developed through word of mouth and steady coverage by the local papers. There is a good social scene. There is good quality local competition, an obvious progressive competitive structure, and the opportunity for the leading teams to compete regionally and nationally. Other clubs are also working successfully because of these factors. None of this has happened because of TV, not even because of international success.

There is no doubt that TV does attract some people: sports do see surges of interest when it has been on the box, but those are simply that, brief surges. It does not support sustainable development, and to my mind is a hopeless red herring for anything other than the mainstream spectator sports.

Orienteering is not, and never will be, one of those. It can be interesting and indeed exciting for a spectator to go and see, but in competition with any stadium activity it's a dead duck. It IS a fantastic participation sport. And that to my mind is where the main focus should lie: make orienteering as fun and exciting to take part in as possible, and sell that, preferably locally. If you can make it interesting for spectators all the better, but that is not vital. People regularly point to adventure racing as a boom sport: fun and exciting to take part in, but not massively covered by TV. MTB-O has seen excellent under-30 participation without an ounce of TV coverage: it's fun and exciting to do. The same can't be said of the monotonous litany of (often poorly planned) district/regional/national events. That's where the shakeup is needed!!!!

To that end, I think the introduction of sprint racing was a great innovation: it is fun and exciting to take part in. It also takes orienteering into places where the profile is raised. It is still difficult to cover televisually, indeed to spectate unlessto the well informed or with intensively coverage (Battersea came close) but so what? Equally, medium (awful name) distance racing has untapped potential. Traditional orienteering, with it's big technical and physical demands just to take part,
less so except as progression for those already sucked in.

Micro-O frankly looks dull to take part in, and from my brief experience of watching the video, dull to watch. It doesn't even represent the essence of the orienteering that excites either the children in my school club (who love the racing), or me. If the IOF thinks it will excite under-30's sufficiently to want to take part, I think they ought to take a look again. It smacks an awful lot of grabbing at straws and bowing to media demands.

[Kitch]

David,
I don't accept that the sport is in terminal decline. That would mean events not happening, clubs folding, maps not being created or updated.
A quote from the BOF website:
Although membership has been falling in recent years the participation in the sport has remained almost constant. Many participants are just club members or even casual runners.

You mention the 50 something demographic of the sport. Many of these and the 40 somethings were M21s at one time, so what brought them into the sport in the late 70's early 80's? Not television or media coverage that's for certain.

Perhaps we need to look elsewhere for the answers.
Graeme has made a valid point in other discussions about the switch from A and B courses (hard and easy) to Long and Short - all hard, which does not give people a way in to the sport.
Perhaps its a generational thing - a playstation generation of kids that weren't encouraged into sport.
Tell someone you do fell races and they react with some kind of wonder and typically might comment "Hardcore !" Fell running doesn't have the same image problem, but it has just the same demographic problem.

Why the obsession with image ?
Maybe we could focus on the content (which is what Graeme is talking about).
People will orienteer if they enjoy it, they will enjoy it if the content is right. Do this and they will stay with the sport, even better than this they will become enthusiasts, they will tell their friends to come and enjoy the sport too, they will put on events, they will strengthen their clubs, the sport might just grow organically.

But then maybe the fickle demands of the media are less effort than taking a long hard look at strengthening the sport itself and the way it encourages participation.

[Mrs H.]

I'm really hoping to be able to provide a valid answer to some of these questions after the Malvern initiative. I agree with a lot of what is being said - I don't think orienteering makes good TV - but it makes a truly great family sport and it's the families I'm after because they provide the infrastructure of the sport (volunteers - transport - numbers - income) and most crucially the children (future volunteers - future champions - the future of the sport in general).
In return orienteering addresses a lot of problems facing modern families in a reasonably cheap and enjoyable way and is marvellously inclusive as nopesport demonstrates on a daily basis.
fingers crossed

[Guest]

When will the IOF get over the fact that Orienteering will never be an Olympic sport and will probably be all the better for it. It is a pipe dream perpetuated by the overblown egos of the IOF hierarchy who just want to see themselves sat at the Olympic table. Witness the meaningless involvement in the World Games, what the hell is that all about - we even got a medal but did it generate any media coverage? A bastardisation and simplification of the sport to what end? More than likely the accelerated departure of those of us who came into for its original appeal.

As the two Andy's have already pointed out orienteering is a participation sport not a spectator sport, never has been, never will be. Yet the IOF persist in making changes that piss off those very participants? Whose interests do they really have at heart?

If the IOF really wants to do something to benefit the sport and fight the problem that ALL sports are having with participation of people in their 20s and 30s then it needs to provide some real leadership to enhance the sport from the grass roots up. The UK alone would provide a fertile testing ground, because (for a start) our current competitive structure is a meaningless mess with the quality and competitiveness of the average event more dependent on the area and who is organising than its supposed level. Now try explaining that to a relative beginner...

Simple message to those running the IOF. Stop jumping from one ill thought out ego massaging idea to another and actually provide the sport with some real leadership that will increase participation and the enjoyment of those already in the sport. Either that or get out of the way and let some of those 20s and 30s already in the sport have a go, they couldn't do a worse job....

[FatBoy]

My other main competitive sport is Canoe Slalom, which is an olympic sport since 1992. Including Canoe Sprint which is also an olympic sport it is ranked as the 6th most important Olympic sport in terms of lottery funding. Athens brought back 3 medals (albeit no Gold ones), two of them being in Slalom where only 12 were available in total - an impressive result in comparison to athletics and swimming (the top 2 for lottery funding). Slalom is a better spectator sport than Orienteering as it's very easy to telivise, although like O it's difficult for your average punter to see what's going on technically. It does look exciting on TV though - i.e. not runners in pyjamas but small boats in BIG water - appeals to adrenaline seekers. BBC do show the Olympics and the World Champs, although only a very small amount. So in a way, slalom has acheived all IOF's goals. However it's a sport in a much bigger decline than O is! If Micr-O is about getting participation up then I feel we should think again.

[Guest88]

What would an "international" orienteering federation have to do with grass roots initiatives in the UK ?....surely it's their remit to be looking at the big picture...TV etc.

I would have thought it was the remit of those at national and club level to encourage the grass roots initiatives....and as far as I have noticed, a lot of effort is going into those areas at the moment - by people such as Mrs H.....and many others as well.

But lets keep this thread on the topic of micr-o.....

[Guest88]

That was in response to previous Guest, not Fatboy

[awk]

...surely it's their remit to be looking at the big picture...TV etc.But lets keep this thread on the topic of micr-o.....

Yes, big picture. So what have we got? What looks like a Norwegian and a Danish TV company (neither exactly big players) effectively dictating the shape of WOC, and IOF scrabbling around for what looks like ANY TV coverage. If that's the case (and I might be missing the bigger picture), definitely micro thinking.

[Guest88]

Having national TV companies on board is a much stronger position to be in than having no-one on board.

It's much easier to build up from a small position to a large position, than from nowhere to a large position, or even from nowhere to a small position.

It's the nature of TV companies to dictate certain things whatever the sport - I personally feel that micro-o won't damage the essence of the sport as long as it is well-planned. I certainly think this extra variety would increase the technical challenge for me, and the technical challenge is the essence of the sport to me.

It's interesting to note that the current elite orienteers with a chance of running WOC 2006 who have posted on this thread seem to be more positive about it than most of the other posters....and yet they are the only people who are actually affected by this decision to include it in WOC 2006!

[Patrick]

It's interesting to note that the current elite orienteers with a chance of running WOC 2006 who have posted on this thread seem to be more positive about it than most of the other posters....and yet they are the only people who are actually affected by this decision to include it in WOC 2006!

Scanning back through the thread, I can see negative comments from Rocky, Harry and Mharky, all of whom might have reasonable hopes of making the GB WOC team. If "Ravinous" is Nick Barrable (as I have always assumed), then he can be added to that list. Fish, Kitch and Godders may not be in line for WOC selection, but are all pretty close to the sharp end of elite orienteering. BJ and Claire W are the only elites I can see sticking up for Micr-O. [Apologies if I've missed anyone. Guest88, I have no idea who you are.]

I have been looking around other orienteering sites for reaction to this, and it seems to be overwhelmingly negative. At least some of these comments seem to come from international team members. For example, the following was posted on the Orienteering Today forum...

I was waiting official publication, both in WOC 2006 and IOF web-pages, about this sad news for our sport (introducing micro-o in WOC 2006) to do same letter as You did.
Really, I can't believe this very fast and confidential decision.

Sprint race were already done for Media. Now, every 4 years, we will change rules of our sport?!
I can't understand why we will destroy the most exciting event in the world: the middle distance! (ok, I am may be not impartial...).

I have been following NOC micro-o on TV. I was just looking nice pictures from forest. But then when I saw the map from micro-o, I asked myself: Are we getting crazy?! It was impossible for me to adjust map and pictures. We have to remember that any map are perfect (ex: WOC 2005 map were good but not perfect with bamboo representation).

Very soon, top orienteers will only enjoy training, not competition (that's was my case in 2002 World cup).

I really hope that IOF will take different decision about introducing micro-o in WOC.

Best regards,
Thierry GUEORGIOU

Finally, I take issue with the idea that this will only affect WOC runners. It will directly affect anyone running an elite-level Middle race in the next 12 months as squads try desperately to acquire competition experience using the format. It will directly affect planners and controllers of such events, assuming any are found who are willing and able to take on such a task (see earlier posts concerning the technical requirements of the format). And if the hypothetical TV viewers are enthused by Micr-O sufficiently to rush out and try it, then it will affect those poor club officials who will have to explain to the avalanche of newcomers that what they have seen isn't actually part of a normal orienteering course. Seriously, if the impact of Micr-O is confined to the day of the WOC Middle final then there is clearly no point to it whatsoever!

Patrick

[Guest]

I certainly think this extra variety would increase the technical challenge for me, and the technical challenge is the essence of the sport to me.

Doing a crossword in the middle of a race might increase the technical challenge, but it isn't orienteering. A facetious example maybe, but suggests that we might have to agree to disagree on what is the essence of the sport: for me the control identification with little physical challenge and reduced decision making (no route choice) as exemplified by micro-O and trail-O is almost the antithesis of what the sport is about for me. Certainly it can be argued that micro-O involves physical elements (unlike trail-O) but they are trivial at the point of the actual map reading.

It also provides a totally false image on the sport that will only deceive spectators.

[awk]

That was me. BTW - spot on Patrick, especially last para.

[Guest88]

>>Patrick, your points about the elite orienteers are fair - I retract that comment. I don't know whether the planners of next years UK cup races would see it as an interesting challenge, or an extra unwelcome complication....so you could be right on that as well....

[mr chris]

I know this post isn't really on the subject of micr-O, but it is on the image of orienteering.

While reading my Sunday newspaper's (The Observer) Escape section (21/08/05), on a subject called geo-caching cauht my eye.

Geo-caching was shown to be an activity with people walking to points using GPS, and it seemed to liken the activity to orienteering. i think the problem of people thinking of orienteering as walking, rucsacs etc has already been covered (by me for one)so i won't bang on about it.
We need to show that orienteering can be a Sport not just an activity, although it can be an activity if you want it that way.

The first sentence of the article caught my eye,

Quote
"As far as geeky pursuits go, 'geocaching' could be perceived as being up there with Robot Wars, flying model planes and orienteering."

I'd never perceived orienteering as being that geeky, but if that is the perception of our sport in the wider world there is more of a problem than i thought.
When a national newspaper portrays the sport as geeky, we have an enormous amount of people's opinions to change. Maybe an article or two in a national newspaper would be good, not necessarily in the Sport section, but maybe in a section suggesting activities for the summer, or the Escape section or similar just to show what orienteering is really about.

And micr-O isn't what orienteering is about for most of us.
I always understood the purpose was to get round as quickly as possible, and the point of the bright orange control was to alert you to the control if you were close enough, say within 5 or 10 metres. If you got on the wrong side of a hill top, you lost 5 seconds for being on the wrong side of the feature but you didn't have to run a penalty loop for a small mistake in navigation. Therefore it is preferable to navigate to the exact point of the control, but small mistakes weren't punished overly. It is precisely for this reason that i thought we try not to hide control flags.

[graeme]

Geeky? No longer: for how could the fine art of distinguishing between the upper and middle part of a reentrant live on TV possibly be considered geeky?

Graeme