I think the issue of some posters claiming that urban courses are too short while others complain that they are too long is due to courses being designated for age classes rather than by colour as we now do at forest events. What people actually mean is I would personally prefer to run a longer or shorter course than the one the organiser has allocated to people of my age and sex.
At most urban events there will be a range of courses offered, and unless the posters are under 40 or over 75 there will be both longer and shorter courses to choose from. There was a suggestion a few years back that urban course planners should offer a sprint course for elite training - and it was pointed out that usually the UVW course would be just that. Similarly, unless you are an elite M21 wanting a 18km course to keep busy for 67 minutes, the longest course at an urban event will probably be long enough for you.
Urban Course Lengths
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
52 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Urban Course Lengths
pete.owens wrote:I think the issue of some posters claiming that urban courses are too short while others complain that they are too long is due to courses being designated for age classes rather than by colour as we now do at forest events. What people actually mean is I would personally prefer to run a longer or shorter course than the one the organiser has allocated to people of my age and sex.
At most urban events there will be a range of courses offered, and unless the posters are under 40 or over 75 there will be both longer and shorter courses to choose from. There was a suggestion a few years back that urban course planners should offer a sprint course for elite training - and it was pointed out that usually the UVW course would be just that. Similarly, unless you are an elite M21 wanting a 18km course to keep busy for 67 minutes, the longest course at an urban event will probably be long enough for you.
This is true.
Although I think a well planned urban black course only needs to be ~14-15km to be about right for most decent club runners to be able to get NAD 67mins. Personally I'd be happy if most planners aimed for Black EWT as 1hr.
The issue is that many still seem to think urbans should be MD - i.e. 35mins. Which I think is not right. It should be that if part of a double weekend or similar, one is long, one is MD, as you might do with terrain, but generally 35mins is too short to make the trip worthwhile.
Which was my point the other day.
But the bit you are totally right about is that we inflict (and yes I mean this) the artificial age classes over the courses, so people then complain about courses being too long for "their age category" - well then if you're allocated Blue and it's too long, do Short Blue or Green instead - that's how it *should* work.
But the age classes has warped the thinking, instead of *us* making the decision, we are 'forced' to run a particular course. The same is true the other way round too - newcomers in the 21-40 range should not be forced to run a black, but often the way the courses are marketed/advertised/displayed, it makes it look like they have to.
Which should get rid of all age cats, except at championship events! If we must keep the leagues and competitions, then we need to change the way they are scored.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Re: Urban Course Lengths
I know the course marketing by age class issue is often related to regional leagues that were created when most regionals were 'badge' event pure age class competitions (maybe with some B and C courses). After BO introduced the new colour based regionals about 15 years ago many of these competitions carried on without significant change by mapping age classes to colours - eg M21/20/35 = Black. This is what clubs tend to publicise - at least in my region with the impression that everyone must run super long courses. Clearly potentially off putting to all but the most determined and athletic new orienteers.
It must be possible to create a 'run whatever course you want' club or individual league using ranking points. Do any regional leagues do this? I think leagues are more likely to change if they can see a successful example elsewhere.
Obviously one issue is that under 16s are not ranked, so any regional club league using ranking points would need to fudge this problem somehow. A senior and a junior league might be a good approach for this?
It must be possible to create a 'run whatever course you want' club or individual league using ranking points. Do any regional leagues do this? I think leagues are more likely to change if they can see a successful example elsewhere.
Obviously one issue is that under 16s are not ranked, so any regional club league using ranking points would need to fudge this problem somehow. A senior and a junior league might be a good approach for this?
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Urban Course Lengths
SeanC wrote:It must be possible to create a 'run whatever course you want' club or individual league using ranking points. Do any regional leagues do this? I think leagues are more likely to change if they can see a successful example elsewhere.
Not ranking points please - they do NOT compare one course versus another.
I can't see the problem with doing what's done now - if you want to run in the league for your age class, you run the designated course, head to head. If you want to run something longer or shorter, then do (with the caveat that MO usually can't run longer!). Depends on your priorities. I do both.
rffozzy wrote:The issue is that many still seem to think urbans should be MD - i.e. 35mins. Which I think is not right. It should be that if part of a double weekend or similar, one is long, one is MD, as you might do with terrain, but generally 35mins is too short to make the trip worthwhile.
That might be true for you personally, but, we (OH and I) think the opposite, and find it well worthwhile travelling for a sprint or middle distance race (eg we've opted out of the Long day at both JK and British Champs weekends). I see no reason why some urbans shouldn't be middle distance, and others longer distance, and the former doesn't have to be just an adjunct on a weekend, although they often are (in fact, our view is that there are far too many weekends now, and are now choosing to do just one day at many of them). Indeed, contrary to what you imply, there are plenty of stand-alone middle distance terrain events (did one 3 weeks ago).
As you and others have pointed out, the problem is surely more one of too few urban races with a longer distance option for younger faster runners (as an older, slower, M65, I rarely find a standard event where 50-60 minutes or more running isn't available, if I want it!).
Last edited by awk on Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:06 am, edited 7 times in total.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Urban Course Lengths
rf_fozzy wrote:1. Elite orienteer ≠ elite runner (barring a couple of notable exceptions)
Otherwise we'd see more orienteers focusing on running where they can make money
2. You are mixing up middle distance track athletes and long distance (5 and 10k, plus road). Whilst not all do compete at all distances, many do compete at a number of distances from 5k to marathon. Exhbit A: Sifan Hassan.
But again what an elite runner does is not the comparator. What you're looking as a comparison for orienteering is decent, competitive, club runners. I know very few of them who would only compete at distances of only 5km or less. Most will do several races (as a minimum) over a range of distances in a year.
My personal record is 106 races (running and orienteering) in a calendar year - ranging from 3k to (technically) an ultra marathon.
If you want me to be controversial, if orienteers cannot run a race of 60mins - hard, at a tempo pace, then it suggests those orienteers are not doing enough running training.
Saying people cannot manage an hour's urban race is ridiculous when most people happily run a terrain race of over an hour. Hence when someone comes along and whinges about urbans, saying they should all be sprints, I'll say so.
As for the technical Vs running challenge, well that's not what I was taught when doing my controllers courses. As long as it meets the technical definition for the level of orienteering, then the challenge of the event can have a focus on the running side or the technical side. Decision making and concentration whilst running fast at the end of an hour should be just as much part of an event.
Just because the running side has been eschewed by many planners in favour of control picks and focusing more on the technical aspects, it doesn't mean the running isn't important and shouldn't be tested more often. I suspect that this goes back to my point above and so as running falls more and more out of favour, we fall into the self fulfilling prophecy that we plan courses because that's what a certain segment of the orienteering public want.
That doesn't mean I don't want technical races, nor that I don't want sprints, not even that some urban events can't be "middle distance" urbans, but I think there should be a mix and all urbans should not just be "middle distance," but that there should be "long distance" too, planned to the same ewt (or as close as the area allows) - the Scarborough event a few years ago (despite the heat) was an excellent case study.
My injuries have nothing to do with training - they're from a traumatic (well several) sprains of my ankle that have caused knock on issues. If I can fix the ankle, I'll be pushing to get back to 40+miles per week, with a usual week including a 90-120min long run, a hard hour tempo run and at least one speed session. That's how you get fit for hard racing.
Then back to at least 50 races a year hopefully...
Urban races are completely different to terrain races, they are not comparable. Even the IOF ranking list separates the two. The 67-minute winning time should really only apply to terrain races. The intensity of running is much higher in an urban race because there is no non-runnable terrain.
Running is an important part of orienteering, but if the courses are made to the extent that if we train elite runners with a crash course in map reading, they will win every orienteering race, orienteering will then become a meaningless sport and people will not do them anymore because it is no different from a running race.
rf_fozzy wrote:pete.owens wrote:I think the issue of some posters claiming that urban courses are too short while others complain that they are too long is due to courses being designated for age classes rather than by colour as we now do at forest events. What people actually mean is I would personally prefer to run a longer or shorter course than the one the organiser has allocated to people of my age and sex.
At most urban events there will be a range of courses offered, and unless the posters are under 40 or over 75 there will be both longer and shorter courses to choose from. There was a suggestion a few years back that urban course planners should offer a sprint course for elite training - and it was pointed out that usually the UVW course would be just that. Similarly, unless you are an elite M21 wanting a 18km course to keep busy for 67 minutes, the longest course at an urban event will probably be long enough for you.
This is true.
Although I think a well planned urban black course only needs to be ~14-15km to be about right for most decent club runners to be able to get NAD 67mins. Personally I'd be happy if most planners aimed for Black EWT as 1hr.
The issue is that many still seem to think urbans should be MD - i.e. 35mins. Which I think is not right. It should be that if part of a double weekend or similar, one is long, one is MD, as you might do with terrain, but generally 35mins is too short to make the trip worthwhile.
Which was my point the other day.
But the bit you are totally right about is that we inflict (and yes I mean this) the artificial age classes over the courses, so people then complain about courses being too long for "their age category" - well then if you're allocated Blue and it's too long, do Short Blue or Green instead - that's how it *should* work.
But the age classes has warped the thinking, instead of *us* making the decision, we are 'forced' to run a particular course. The same is true the other way round too - newcomers in the 21-40 range should not be forced to run a black, but often the way the courses are marketed/advertised/displayed, it makes it look like they have to.
Which should get rid of all age cats, except at championship events! If we must keep the leagues and competitions, then we need to change the way they are scored.
Urbans in Hong Kong are generally sprints. However, there are variations for fun, such as X-Y sprint, one-man relay, etc. There are also double weekends as well - sprint and middle urban (30-35 minutes winning time).
Orienteers consider if a trip is worthwhile or not by the quality of the terrain, not the length of the run. Taking the matter to an extreme, there were sprint races requiring 3 hour out and 3 hour back in transport to attend, and we had enough people to fill a chartered minibus for the trip.
Here in the UK the leagues definitely influence my course selection - especially that urban races are marketed by age group, not by difficulty. It's also one of the reasons why I don't run age group forest races anymore because there is no hope for me to even complete an M21 course in the forest, and I normally do short blue for colour coded races.
- miklcct
- off string
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:29 pm
Re: Urban Course Lengths
SeanC wrote:It must be possible to create a 'run whatever course you want' club or individual league using ranking points. Do any regional leagues do this? I think leagues are more likely to change if they can see a successful example elsewhere.
The Cumbrian Galoppen has a simple points-per-position scoring system. The club competition just adds up the points of the five runners from each club who score the most points on each colour-coded course over the course of the season, with no restrictions on who can run which course.
It seems to work pretty well as a not-too-serious whole-club competition. In last year's end-of-season table, the runners who counted for their club on the Brown course last year ranged from M18 to W60, those on the Orange course from W10 to W70 via M18 and W45.
British Orienteering Director | Opinions expressed on here are entirely my own, and do not represent the views of British Orienteering.
"If only you were younger and better..."
"If only you were younger and better..."
-
Scott - god
- Posts: 2384
- Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 4:43 am
- Location: in the queue for the ice-cream van
Re: Urban Course Lengths
Maybe it is a NW thing because the NW night league doesn't allocate age classes either.
40 points for 1st on the Blue course 39 for 2nd ...
30 points for 1st on Green
20 points for 1st on Orange
Pete
40 points for 1st on the Blue course 39 for 2nd ...
30 points for 1st on Green
20 points for 1st on Orange
Pete
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Urban Course Lengths
Thank you Scott. That works a bit like our local Kent Orienteering League in that people select what course they run at and there isn't the concept of age classes 'should' run specific distances.
Just to remind people of the issue, here's the age breakdown of our most recent regional event:
under 20: 37
20 to 40: 17
40 to 60: 91
60 to 80: 121
Over 80: 13
There are surely multiple causes of this distribution. My assertion is that one of them is the pressure placed particularly on younger orienteers, less experienced orienteers and casual go a few times a year orienteers to do a course that is far to long and tough to be a pleasant enough experienced to go again.
Because our regional league is all about the age class competition, event details shout loud and hard that the age class course is the one you 'should' run, even if this is not what is meant. You can see a typical example here: https://www.saxons-oc.org/events/knole- ... 3-mar-2024
Just to remind people of the issue, here's the age breakdown of our most recent regional event:
under 20: 37
20 to 40: 17
40 to 60: 91
60 to 80: 121
Over 80: 13
There are surely multiple causes of this distribution. My assertion is that one of them is the pressure placed particularly on younger orienteers, less experienced orienteers and casual go a few times a year orienteers to do a course that is far to long and tough to be a pleasant enough experienced to go again.
Because our regional league is all about the age class competition, event details shout loud and hard that the age class course is the one you 'should' run, even if this is not what is meant. You can see a typical example here: https://www.saxons-oc.org/events/knole- ... 3-mar-2024
Last edited by SeanC on Tue Mar 26, 2024 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Urban Course Lengths
Organisers often accidentally give the wrong message by just putting out a simple course table with columns for length, clmb, perhaps number of controls, and then a list of age classes.
It should be easy to change the message by splitting it up. One table to list the courses offered and indicating that people can enter whichever course they like (except for juniors). And then a separate table to say that if you are participating in whatever urban / regional / local league applies you should enter X course for specific age classes.
Alternatively adjust the column headings to make the same point more clearly.
It should be easy to change the message by splitting it up. One table to list the courses offered and indicating that people can enter whichever course they like (except for juniors). And then a separate table to say that if you are participating in whatever urban / regional / local league applies you should enter X course for specific age classes.
Alternatively adjust the column headings to make the same point more clearly.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Urban Course Lengths
SeanC wrote:There are surely multiple causes of this distribution. My assertion is that one of them is the pressure placed particularly on younger orienteers, less experienced orienteers and casual go a few times a year orienteers to do a course that is far to long and tough to be a pleasant enough experienced to go again.
I can't disagree with anything you say SeanC, as on a broader front the colour scheme should be a good answer to those concerns - it's how it's pushed/sold. I find this interesting though, given that one of the main complaints on this thread has been that courses aren't long enough (although from experienced orienteers)!
Other sports, not age class based, are finding similar issues with age profile - local running clubs, games clubs etc. Any sport that requires either a regular commitment or attendance at a certain time in a certain place seems to be struggling, whilst anytime sports are thriving. And then there's the travel element in orienteering....
[/quote]
Last edited by awk on Tue Mar 26, 2024 11:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Urban Course Lengths
It might be easy to change the message - but it's been like this since the new 'non badge' regionals came in about 15 years ago. Much of this is 'cut and pasteism' ie just copying the previous event details - which works for the majority of competitors aged 40-80, experienced physically fit orienteers directed to a course that suits them. Numbers aren't affected in the short term, but over the long term it is a factor causing the sport to shrink away.
A compromise would be mixed message... hide the league rules and just list the courses. But the league rules are still there and that message that you 'should' run a long course or you're not good enough to be part of the sport is still there but has less impact.
A compromise would be mixed message... hide the league rules and just list the courses. But the league rules are still there and that message that you 'should' run a long course or you're not good enough to be part of the sport is still there but has less impact.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Urban Course Lengths
Snail wrote:It should be easy to change the message by splitting it up. One table to list the courses offered and indicating that people can enter whichever course they like (except for juniors). And then a separate table to say that if you are participating in whatever urban / regional / local league applies you should enter X course for specific age classes.
Or... just have one table listing courses offered. Then a note saying 'This event is part of [x] league. If you are a league competitor, check the allocated course for your age class at [hyperlink to league page containing the appropriate information].'
That would completely separate the messages of participating in the event from those of competing in the league. Most people interested in the league will already know their allocated course anyway, so repeating these on every event information sheet is a waste of space- so long as people who want to check their allocated course are clearly signposted to where they can find the correct information.
For those circumstances where the courses offered at an event don't match the league allocations, a simple note can be added without swamping the event info, e.g. 'Please note that this event is unable to offer a Black course, and so M21 league competitors should run Brown.'
I think the complication and resulting barriers come from trying to get one thing to perform multiple functions. Let event details and event promotion focus on the event offer, emphasising the variety of courses on offer and the flexibility for people to choose whichever course most appeals to them. Leave league information and promotion to a league information guide and regional/club-level coordinated promotion.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Urban Course Lengths
SeanC wrote:A compromise would be mixed message... hide the league rules and just list the courses. But the league rules are still there and that message that you 'should' run a long course or you're not good enough to be part of the sport is still there but has less impact.
Ah, you got there first...
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Urban Course Lengths
SeanC wrote:A compromise would be mixed message... hide the league rules and just list the courses. But the league rules are still there and that message that you 'should' run a long course or you're not good enough to be part of the sport is still there but has less impact.
I disagree. A simple statement/table "If you are competing in the X League, these are the courses you need to run...." doesn't say anything about 'should' or about being good enough to be part of the sport. But it does keep the info easily available. The negative impact of having to click 'through' is well documented, and leagues also encourage people to take part.
But, if a club wants to present it that way, it's up to them (just as all the distances etc are too).
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Urban Course Lengths
It might be easy to change the message - but it's been like this since the new 'non badge' regionals came in about 15 years ago.
Is it time to go back to separating the colours from any form of age class allocation in the BOF Rules. If local leagues want to do this it is up to them, but for a lot of events it would remove any implication that you have to run a certain course based on your age.
- SJC
- diehard
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:45 am
52 posts
• Page 3 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 181 guests