Discuss

[Kitch]

and now we embrace formats where the course is too short to build a gap by orienteering.

[Gnitworp]

They don't do it in golf because it's already a spectator sport.

[andypat]

I watched a video of a mass start sprint race some time ago and it was simply boring. It might as well have been a track race - rmeinded me of the track sprint in cycling - nothing changes until the final corner.

However, while I remain to be convinced by the mixed format, the sprint relay may turn out to be more exciting than you think. Tactics might become very important - how to deal with the gaffle, where do you put your fastest male/female runners, where do you plan the gaffle. I'm hoping someone plans one up here soon.

[housewife]

I have run a mass start ungaffled sprint race and it was a definate low point in my orienteering experiences. Its not orienteering. It worries me that the IOF seem to be prioritizing media coverage / politics over the quality of the races. More sprint races than any other format in the world cups last year, forest races where the quality of the orienteering was compromised by the need to hold the race in a certain place (world cup middle - holmenkollen, woc long final...). Sprint races are fine occasionally - still tough orienteering, testing very different skills - but most elite orienteers probably still fall in love with the sport while running hard and getting muddy in stunning, technically-challenging wilderness. I won't run a lot of world cup races this year as mass start sprint races, middle races in scrappy bits of easy forest etc does not motivate me. I worry that the IOF, in tinkering with lots of different 'media friendly' formats risk demotivating and alienating the athletes.

The woc sprint relay will no doubt be gaffled, and if done well will be great. I have no problem with that. Though I didn't run yesterday, I think the idea to have a gaffled chasing start sprint race was inspired, and I congratulate Kirsten for having the confidence to do it. Not sure it would stand up to scrutiny in a bigger race though. Could you imagine the analysis...

Claire Ward

[greywolf]

The weekend before last there was an ultra-low-key mass start gaffled sprint race with a small but high quality field (well, stronger than BOC is likely to be ). Post race feedback and AP logs suggest those who took part enjoyed it, the lead changed hands a few times, and the final result was decided by route choice.

The event was intended to simulate the first leg of a sprint relay, with head to head racing and rapid decision-making under pressure / distraction: one problem with running full-scale sprint relays as per andypat’s suggestion is that there isn’t enough strength in depth in GB to keep a pack together at the front.

It’s probably worth noting that the event used much more technical terrain (albeit fast and good visibility) and also had rather more gaffling than the IOF seem to be proposing for the WOC sprint relay: I reckon there’s still a bit of thinking and experimentation needed if the sprint relay concept is going to work successfully.

As Claire says I’m not sure what the response would be if this format were used for a high profile individual race: it’s a tough ask to wean folk off “everyone runs the same course”.

PS was this the discussion you were expecting Kitch?
PPS golf is sh*te, but could possibly be improved as a spectacle if tournaments used a mass start.

[Gnitworp]

PPS golf is sh*te

I wasn't suggesting it wasn't. I was just commenting on the fact that they don't need to compromise the quality and duration of the 'test' to give it spectator appeal.
I might even be veering towards the discussion Kitch was expecting. Who knows

[AAH]

With some sprint events it’s not possible to build a gap by orienteering but it is possible to give away a gap by making a mistake – but that happen to the person who is leading, not the person who is following. That’s the real problem – following works really well for anyone with a good finishing sprint. The 4-person sprint relay could be more interesting – lots of gaffling options.

But it’s especially important to stop following in sprint. Could try:

Real time gaffling – instead of allocating gaffles to alternate starters, give alternate gaffles to alternate people to punch at a control (punch and pick up new map – previous map showed the two ways but not which you will actually get).

No follow route choices – at the beginning of a couple of long route choice legs with good (but not necessarily equal) left/right choices, if within 5 seconds of person in front, must go different way at a T-junction or use a different crossing point part way through the route. If you want your preferred choice of route, get there first…

In both cases, providing a single punch before the split could sort out the order of runners.

I don’t have a problem with gaffles in which you don’t run both parts during a race, when it’s an urban sprint. It would be unfair if some people were sent to a difficult control with a risk of errors and others sent to an easy control.

However, in an urban context this might work particularly well with something like dead running gaffling proposals, e.g. at a first common control in a course, one gaffle runs directly to another control, a second gaffle runs to the same control via a 200m detour taking in a couple of easy controls, third gaffle runs to the same control via a 400m detour taking in a couple of easyish controls. All evened out by doing the same again with opposite distances later in the race (those who ran direct now do an extra 400m etc). Pick some points of the course where things are a bit dull (opposite ways round a block or two etc.) and it might work. Combine with real time option…

[Gnitworp]

What happened with Toon Melis's petition?

[DaveK]

With some sprint events it’s not possible to build a gap by orienteering but it is possible to give away a gap by making a mistake – but that happen to the person who is leading, not the person who is following. That’s the real problem – following works really well for anyone with a good finishing sprint. The 4-person sprint relay could be more interesting – lots of gaffling options.

But it’s especially important to stop following in sprint. Could try:

Real time gaffling – instead of allocating gaffles to alternate starters, give alternate gaffles to alternate people to punch at a control (punch and pick up new map – previous map showed the two ways but not which you will actually get).

No follow route choices – at the beginning of a couple of long route choice legs with good (but not necessarily equal) left/right choices, if within 5 seconds of person in front, must go different way at a T-junction or use a different crossing point part way through the route. If you want your preferred choice of route, get there first…

In both cases, providing a single punch before the split could sort out the order of runners.

I don’t have a problem with gaffles in which you don’t run both parts during a race, when it’s an urban sprint. It would be unfair if some people were sent to a difficult control with a risk of errors and others sent to an easy control.

However, in an urban context this might work particularly well with something like dead running gaffling proposals, e.g. at a first common control in a course, one gaffle runs directly to another control, a second gaffle runs to the same control via a 200m detour taking in a couple of easy controls, third gaffle runs to the same control via a 400m detour taking in a couple of easyish controls. All evened out by doing the same again with opposite distances later in the race (those who ran direct now do an extra 400m etc). Pick some points of the course where things are a bit dull (opposite ways round a block or two etc.) and it might work. Combine with real time option…

No doubt it's me, but I'm not sure that I understand?

[plain lazy]

Rallycross uses a system these days where the 4 cars that start all have to complete a fixed number of laps (say 4) but one of these laps must include an additional loop once in the race. It's mass start, the loop can be done on lap 1, 2, 3 or 4.

This format could work in a sprint relay format by using the same two main controls twice or maybe three times. Runners could choose when to take the long loop. If everyone followed the leader it would lead to a right stramash at the controls and tight pack racing, if one decided to try and get an advantage by waiting til the second time round they might get enough free air to build up a nice gap... or would they miss out on the pack racing speed and slow down?

It would make the commentator's job a bit harder but with good quality GPS on the big screen it could be fun to watch.

[graeme]

dead running gaffling proposals...

The issue with this is that, in a chase, whoever gets the "long" gaffle first can spend the course chasing and following, whereas whoever gets the "short" gaffle first has to do the nav.

[Ali Wood]

No doubt it's me, but I'm not sure that I understand?

Like you Dave I've lost the will to live.
Why not do away with controls and maps and just gather all the runners together at a random spot and fire a gun?
.... a starting pistol, I should have said.

[Gnitworp]

Like you Dave I've lost the will to live.

I was wondering whether Kitch had also since we haven't heard from him for a while

[AAH]

dead running gaffling proposals...

The issue with this is that, in a chase, whoever gets the "long" gaffle first can spend the course chasing and following, whereas whoever gets the "short" gaffle first has to do the nav.

True... you would have to set it up so the first person gets the long gaffle first - it should also be long enough to separate them from whoever they might be with. At urban sprint that might only be 45 seconds.

I suppose I'm supporting the view that on consistent tarmac or grass, it doesn't really matter where someone does distance and so there might be more scope for 'gaffled' controls in which the competitors don't all actually run entirely the same course on tarmac or grass than would be the case in normal forest orienteering where it would be very hard for two different gaffles to be precisely balanced. On tarmac dead running can be an easy control or two that doesn't look like dead running.

Allocating gaffles during a course would also be interesting. e.g. in a serious classic race, if a group of 2+ people punch at one control within say 30s of each other, then at a butterfly starting from the following control, whichever person in the group started last (and is doing best) is sent one way, which person in the group started second last is sent the other way. Anyone else has in that group has to wait until the first person is 45 seconds clear - they are not going to win having been caught by at least two people and should have orienteered faster, so tough.

Furthermore, with gaffles allocated during a course, everyone has the same possibile course on the start line - if you want the advantage of the long gaffle first, be the first person to a specific control (one punch, elbows allowed). Might liven up those 4 person mass start sprints NORT had - I watched one online and it really wasn't exciting.

[graeme]

4 person mass start sprints NORT had - I watched one online

Me too, indeed I know quite a lot of people who watched one online. Rather fewer who watched two...