The problem we've got into is our obsessive definition of peers as people of the same age. So a novice M21 is a "peer" of Kris Jones, but gg (M35) isn't.
We have it 100% wrong - instead of telling novice M21s that they must run Black, we should be saying they can't run Black until they proved themselves in the "lower" categories. Most sensible sports do it this way. Then, even in a league "aimed" at experienced people running the same course, novices can see success as winning qualification for ever tougher classes, instead of inevitable failure against age-group "peers".
pete.owens said:
You don't expect to find a short course at a marathon for people who don't want to run 26 miles.
But actually, a lot of marathons do have a half marathon option or a fun run (5k / 10k) option on the same day! By the same regard you don't say "Oh you are 55, well you only need to run 2/3rd of the distance and we will compare you to all the other 55 yr olds - whether they are former Olympians or just started couch to 5k last year.
As a novice in any sport, if you turn up to an event and sign up for the longest and hardest course you should expect to find it challenging.
Of course but often we don't direct people by length and difficulty - rather channelling them by age (whether its a newbie in their 50s, a teenager joining the sport for the first time, or someone coming back to the sport after having a family - event marketing / entries systems are often not well thought out from the point of view of those trying to work out the most suitable course for THEM).
Orienteering should be ideal for couch-to-5k'ers and the parkrun folk, we seem to attract those types at local come and try events and they seem to have fun but never progress... perhaps a related point - is "having to" become a member of a club off putting?