London City Race

[Mrs H]

My point was actually - would there be more if the course was provided?

[madmike]

only one way to find out.....

[Catfish]

If you are going to have a Ultra Super Vets I believe the starting age should be 65.

[epocian]

If you are going to have a Ultra Super Vets I believe the starting age should be 65.

Here, here!

[andypat]

.

Well at London there are enough to make both men's and women's ultra vets a competition - and by the time I get there I'll be demanding it

:[/quote]

Not sure I agree - there were only 7 ultravet men in London. At lesser races there would perhaps be only two or three (not much of a competition!). Personally I'd sooner run in supervets (although I get 'hammered') there's much more competition[/quote]

Having just been beaten into 6th by 1sec on a blue course by a M70 (who outsprinted me from the 2nd last control!) I cant see what all the fuss is about

http://www.clydesideorienteers.org.uk/documents/general/Results_SoSOL_19_Sept_2010_nosplits.html

Well done Bill by the way!

[RJ]

Here we go again..... the cry goes out to accommodate 'me' because I can't or don't want to fit in with the model you have created!

The Urban racing scene was generated by the 'new youth' in the sport. We have the possibility of this new form of O to alter the existing demographic of the sport, and to attract large numbers into the 'youth' section of the membership. So what do we get.... the tail end of the demographic demanding changes to accommodate them, with all the compromises on the event layout that that brings. I say, ignore the 16-, if the insurance people won't let them play, and ignore the super ultra very old vets, let them run what's on offer.

Keep the Urban events youthful, with fit, healthy, appropriately sized athletes taking part. Let the events attract this new demographic, by being what they aspire to be part of.... a sport for youth!

If the demographic doesn't change then it will just gently slide into zimmer frame O and obscurity.

[Gross]

RJ's comments are the most sensible I've read on Nopesport in ages

[graeme]

Oh dear, it looks like I strongly agree with RJ and Gross. I must be getting "outside the new demographic".

No matter how well intentional or carefully thought out, one-size-fits-all BOF guidelines remain the best way to kill an innovation.

48 today, so past my prime, and no more prime for the next five years

[DM]

Ignore the 16- now and the chances are they will ignore the sport later.

Preferences on which sport to follow are often made around this age, lose them at this stage and we have a problem to get them back (as discussed at length elsewhere...)

I see your logic and agree to a point. Excluding the 16- is only an insurance issue which from all the comments I have seen here and from BOF communications suggests that the sport is being told what it can do, rather than finding an insurer willing to listen and assess the risk.

[andypat]

Hopefully nobody is suggesting we ignore the U16s.
BOF somehow need to come to a conclusion regarding this that is clear and we move on.


Its not unusual for u 14s, u15s or u 16s to be barred from athletics events such as 10k or half marathons, where the traffic is usually stopped. Anyone know what the argument is for that and why its any different for running around towns when theres traffic on the streets?

[DM]

Hopefully nobody is suggesting we ignore the U16s.
BOF somehow need to come to a conclusion regarding this that is clear and we move on.

They just did. See RJ post a few posts above.

Its not unusual for u 14s, u15s or u 16s to be barred from athletics events such as 10k or half marathons, where the traffic is usually stopped. Anyone know what the argument is for that and why its any different for running around towns when theres traffic on the streets?

More an issue of running that distance at young ages not being good for developing bodies, not insurance

[graeme]

They just did. See RJ post a few posts above.

Yes, he did, and he explained why. All you managed was a trite Ignore the 16- now and the chances are they will ignore the sport later. . And I call it trite because we've been bending over backwards to include 16- since forever, but a microsecond looking at the facts of BOF demographics will tell you that essentially all non-elite juniors ignore the sport later anyway.

To reiterate RJ's viewpoint, young adults are more likely to stay with a sport aimed at
and done by young adults, than one compromised to the needs of children and old people.

This remains untested, as opposed to your idea which is well tested and disproven.

Just because I'm an old person with a child who likes urban races, and even though I'm happy with a sport for old people and families, it doesn't mean RJ is wrong.

[Mrs H]

I don't see where we are "demanding changes" as RJ puts it, to the courses done by the young adults. We may have asked questions and put forward view points relating to our own experiences - and speaking as a super vet - I don't think we've been banned from urban races yet. Certainly if you only want to attract young adults put on courses only suitable for them - and a few old'ens who refuse to act their age. That's a perfectly legitimate choice for the event organisers.

[andypat]

What I meant was - we arent ignoring them. Its just possible that for this type of orienteering it might be too risky for them to compete. The whole rest of orienteering is geared towards juniors - how many times have you sat down to plan a colour coded event and thought how the hell am I going to get a white/yellow/orange course out of this and ended up compromising the start/finish or area just to get a junior course in?

What do junior distance athletes do until they are old enough to do 10k or half marathons? Presumably something less demanding.

[Arnold]

Just to say that as Planner I wasn't ignoring anybody

As with all races, the City Race is better for some courses than for others. Most of the time you can't actually chose whom to "favour", it just happens as a result of all the constraints you have (map layout, OOB etc)

As it happens in this case the best courses (in my view) were 2 and 3 (WO and M40) - the area wasn't quite big enough for course 1 so it involved a bit of twisting and turning, and because the best bits were a bit spread out I couldn't get the shorter courses to all of them. I actually thought the childrens course was pretty optimal too if a tick short for the faster runners.

But in previous years you could argue the shorter courses were as good as any as the best bits were near start and finish.

So I agree with the general sentiment that we shouldn't make the longer courses worse to accommodate the shorter ones, but I'm not sure that's a real choice we need to make.