Orienteering and the older competitor

[Auld Badger]

As 21st century life takes hold, one of the effects is that people are living longer, and those people include orienteers. In 1974, the top age class for competitors was an eye-watering 50+, with relatively few in that age class. In 2024, there are nearly 600 HyperVets (75+) active in major UK events, notwithstanding those who only compete at local level, and so don't appear on the rankings list.

I asked one of my friends, who is about to move from M80 to M85, what he was looking for in an ideal event. Like many HyperVets, he's been an active competitor for many years, but he's starting to feel the effects of various health-related issues. He's reluctant to drop back down the colour classes, and besides, racing 11 year olds on an Orange course holds no attraction.

Below are his thoughts on what makes a "good" event for older competitors (when it says "I", it means him, not me. I'd be keen to hear what people think, particularly those in the south of the country, where there seems to be more Seniors than up here in Chilly Jocko Land.

His comments -
Looking at the problems faced by the older competitor……. these include reduction in speed, spring and strength, plus poorer balance, and vision.
In addition, medically they may well have heart, breathing, nerve and eyesight problems. Some may have injuries from a variety of sources.
So things to take into consideration include -

1 Distance - Not too long or too short. Plus side of 2km at M/W80/85 and shorter? for M/W90. I am after an easy longer distance. I don’t really see any need for a distance difference between men and women at this age.

2 Climb - British 40+ metres per km too much) Keep as flat as possible, lots of small climbs spaced out ie no long or very steep climbs (start of Scottish Middle Distance too much… that sort of climb puts you into oxygen debt/ brain “fatigue” right at the start and older competitors take longer to recover, if at all.

3 Terrain - thick (relative term) to very thick vegetation is as draining as climb. (might be thick bushes or worse still, thick underfoot e.g heather or blaeberry or brashings). The same applies to rough ground or stony ground. Nerve compression issues cause problems with balance too so that rough/ rocky ground becomes more of a problem and more energy sapping/dangerous.

4 No obligatory fence or gate crossings. Optional ones should not penalise those who have to take a detour. Barbed wire crossings should be covered or avoided. Easy stiles are a good idea.

5 Clear, larger scale map. (I am always amazed at the detail I can see on expanded routegadget displays compared with the map. This is partly due to developing cataracts with colours as well as detail becoming less distinct) Contours on urban maps should be more obvious. How?

6 Control placement. Not in a deep pit or on a steep slope. (I had a helpful M21 fetch the punch to me at one control then replace it. And I have taken several attempts to get out of a pit).

7 Ditch or gully width and depth - with or without water it is it difficult to jump or clamber through.

8 Control Density - ie number of controls per km should not be more than on say blue or brown course.

9 Competition - Can an 84 year old realistically compete against a 75 year old e.g 75+ age group? Obviously there are fewer competitors in the older age groups so maybe competition is not on the cards in any case. On the other hand it might make it more meaningful if we had 3 year groups instead of 5 (cf junior 12,14,16,18, 20) Would recognising the number of competitions people are involved in as well as or instead of winning positions be more encouraging?

10. Keeping in mind that orienteering is meant to be a running sport……….maybe this should be applied to all age groups, but judging the planning success by the winner’s time can give a wrong impression. Should we use median time?

[Gross]

Most of those issues won't matter in a few years as orienteering as us old gits know it won't exist in the UK.... everyone will be running rounds the local town. A long long way away from JK74 on Starposts or JK73 in Achry

[MChub]

I am sure not everyone will agree with 8. A W75 I know says she likes courses with lots of controls. Nor do I think everybody will agree what exactly should happen when it is impossible to satisfy all these requirements and still plan an interesting course.

[Snail]

All of these are 'nice to haves', and useful guidance for planners. Such competitors probably currently do a Very Short Green course, if provided. Numbers are already low, say up to 5 at level C, or perhaps 15 at B. Not sure there is demand for a VVSG course.

Confused by 8. Black course, flat equivalent 16km, might have 25-30 controls. Should VVSG, at say 2km, have only 3-4? Which is more attractive: controls per km or controls per minute?

If the available terrain can't meet the requirements, should you provide the best course you can, perhaps advising of the physical limitations, or say it is impossible to provide?

[awk]

Such competitors probably currently do a Very Short Green course, if provided. Numbers are already low, say up to 5 at level C, or perhaps 15 at B. Not sure there is demand for a VVSG course.
The distances described by Auld Badger are what VSG often is. I don't think it's a VVSG that's needed, but an awareness that VSG needs to be planned at rather below physical difficulty 5 (and I'm amazed at times at what some planner's think an 80+ year old should be expected to tackle). I think the demand is quite low, because quite a few older competitors don't enter terrain events at all nowadays.

Which is more attractive: controls per km or controls per minute?
Using controls per minute strikes me as a better way of looking at it. But then, all too often, I find longer legs (at least in England) turn out to just be tedious slogs once the decision is made (even more so in urban!), so I can't agree with Auld Badger's comments under that no. 8!

Most of those issues won't matter in a few years as orienteering as us old gits know it won't exist in the UK.... everyone will be running rounds the local town.
Apart from the fact that getting into terrain, at least around here, is getting increasingly difficult, part of the reason that so many 'old gits' are moving from terrain to urban, is the fact that so many terrain events don't adopt some/most (but not all) the ideas expressed in Auld Badger's post. A fair number of M/W80s (and younger) have told me over the past couple of years that they have found too many terrain events too hard physically to risk entering them.

[SeanC]

At some point everyone has to accept they are no longer able to cross rough and steep terrain, and leave these courses/areas to younger people. Events in tough areas shouldn't have their courses compromised for the needs of extremely senior people if we want the sport to survive

But there is a course that is a win win, being potentially more suitable for the needs of older orienteers and could attract more younger orienteers into the sport. Score courses. Specifically score courses with a mix of physically easy controls, likely borrowed from the orange and yellow course on or close to paths, and physically and technically harder controls borrowed from the green upwards. That way people aren't disqualified if they can't scramble down a steep pit to reach a control, and can choose a route that suits their physical and technical ability. Such a course is great for younger people new to the sport who are often far from conditioned to taking on terrain running in tough areas, and of course are still learning their technique and risk an excessively long run on the classic colour courses.

The only thing to watch for is to avoid time penalties for lateness.

[awk]

At some point everyone has to accept they are no longer able to cross rough and steep terrain, and leave these courses/areas to younger people. Events in tough areas shouldn't have their courses compromised for the needs of extremely senior people if we want the sport to survive.

It's not about compromising courses, but setting courses at appropriate levels. It's not being argued that the longer courses, for instance, are made any less tougher, but that the shorter TD5 courses are planned allow for the fact that the majority of those using them are senior competitors. Just as we have TD1-4 courses to cater for those not ready to race at the hardest technical levels, so we can have easier PD (physical difficulty) for those not running at the hardest physical levels. And if the sport is to survive, it needs older competitors, as well as those who don't want to flog their way round Black and Brown courses every weekend.

That way people aren't disqualified if they can't scramble down a steep pit to reach a control

That's bad planning whatever the age group. (On a personal level, score events are OK for a change, or for local/evening, but would hate for them to become the default).

[SeanC]

I'm thinking more that, at forest events, it is good to have such 'mixed ability' score courses as well as well planned appropriate classic line courses. We do this and it is used by some experienced orienteers for various reasons as well as the intended audience of less experienced orienteers.

I know from my occasional visits that some of those Yorkshire forests are pretty knarly!, so even the best planned line course will be too physical for some (of any age). Appropriate score courses offer a further opportunity to recruit and retain... in combination with classic/colour line courses.. for those that want to do what suits their physical and technical ability.

Basically I suspect we agree on this, and it's only the words on a forum that might make it sound otherwise.

[Homer]

I'm joint planning JK Day 3 on Wharncliffe next year. Whilst we're trying our best to give older (M/W70+ ?) less physical courses, it is still going to be a pretty physical test. In some areas it's just unavoidable.
I think most older competitors have been around for long enough to know which areas they can cope with and which to avoid. I remember the day that legend Lorna Collett finally decided that her orienteering days were over because her osteoporosis meant that she was too much of a liability to event organisers. Sad but the responsible thing to do.
I hope I'll recognise that day when my time comes. Hopefully I'll still be able to drive around the golf course on my electric buggy

[MChub]

While I like score courses, I don't think they are an answer to the issues raised here. Linear courses designed specifically for older people can, at least in theory, be planned in a way that all feasible routes avoid difficult terrain. On a score course, a competitor choosing what controls to visit will have no idea how deep a ditch on the way to the control is or how rough the ground is.

[Auld Badger]

Thanks everyone for your considered opinions on this. I'll feed these back to my friend, who I believe was looking to get his thoughts off his chest, rather than insisting that planners design a course specially for his requirements.

There's a thin line between "too easy" and "too tough" in a purely physical sense, and as our population gets older, it's something we have to take into account. The colour classes changed slightly this year with the IOF directive on equalisation of EWTs for males and females, and one of the outcomes was the addition of a Very Short Green course, which is seeing some use, in Scotland at least, with the HyperVets as well as few others who are returning from injury and still want a TD5 course that isn't 10km.

As planners, we can't have our hands forced by the area though - if an area just won't accommodate a course, we can't try and make it fit. We wouldn't put on a Short Yellow course and call it White, and similarly, if a really tough area can't deliver a safe Very Short Green, then we don't have a Very Short Green course. It's a shame for the HyperVets who aspire to race at this level if there's no outlet for them, but not as much of a shame as it would be if they are seriously injured by a "too tough" course.

The proviso though is that this applies to colour-coded National level events. For a championship, it would be expected that the selected area was suitable for all age classes, and that an experienced planner had taken into account the needs and vulnerabilities of all athletes. If you're lucky enough to be in your 80's and still fit enough to get round a Blue course in two hours, then fantastic, but the recommended course for M & W 80 is still Very Short Green and the very fit 80 year old can't be used as the measuring stick for what's appropriate to his or her age peers.

[Scott]

Your last paragraph is interesting - I would probably have said the opposite! I've always thought that championship courses should be planned for the best in each age group. It doesn't matter if the M21E course at the British Long is physically too tough for me to complete as long as it's right for the winner; similarly, I would expect the M80 course at the British to be planned with the top M80 in mind and not to compromise on the quality of the orienteering to accommodate those towards the back of the M80 pack.

Of course, I have the luxury of a choice of shorter (albeit non-Championship) courses that I can drop down to if I decide in advance that M21E looks likely to be too long/hilly/tough. The very oldest age classes don't have that option - although there's no reason why an M80S couldn't be offered at the British, given that M80 is than twice the length of the shortest course specified in the rules.

I think different considerations apply at other events - including the JK *Festival of Orienteering*, where I've always thought that greater weight should be given towards inclusion if compromises have to be made (I'd be more tolerant of a very long walk to the start or a remote finish at a British than a JK) and the summer multidays - hence the decision, as planners at the last Lakes 5, to give M75+/W70+ an extra day on Dale Park instead of Raven Crag.

I do accept that there are some areas that are likely to be physically unsuitable even for the top M80s, and I agree that those should be avoided for British Champs.

[Auld Badger]

I've maybe not explained my thinking clearly enough, and for that I apologise. I didn't mean to imply that the British Champs should be planned so that the average "man on the street" can get round a course, but more that, when planning a championship event, the area should be suitable for the age groups which will enter.

I'm in two minds over the demand for a Short course for HyperVets. We do provide short courses for other age classes, but on the other hand, there aren't that many HyperVets (yet). This is where the whole conversation started though, so if there was demand, I wouldn't rule it out.

[Scott]

I didn't mean to imply that the British Champs should be planned so that the average "man on the street" can get round a course, but more that, when planning a championship event, the area should be suitable for the age groups which will enter.

Yes, I think we're in agreement about that! There are certainly areas in the Lakes that have made for excellent UKEOL races of the past couple of years but which wouldn't be suitable for an all-age-class championship, and that's fine.

[Atomic]

We really should be recognising that there's something special about orienteering that manages to keep people involved well beyond the normal retirement age for athletes.

1 Distance - Not too long or too short. Plus side of 2km at M/W80/85 and shorter? for M/W90. I am after an easy longer distance. I don’t really see any need for a distance difference between men and women at this age.

There's not really any reason for a gender distance difference at any age - women don't run shorter 10k/5k/marathons!

6 Control placement. Not in a deep pit or on a steep slope. (I had a helpful M21 fetch the punch to me at one control then replace it. And I have taken several attempts to get out of a pit).

A common issue - planners seem to get confused about the purpose of the sport and see it as a technical challenge rather than a navigational one! The odd thing is controllers don't seem to solve this by simply moving the control a few feet to a slightly less treacherous spot.

9 Competition - Can an 84 year old realistically compete against a 75 year old e.g 75+ age group? Obviously there are fewer competitors in the older age groups so maybe competition is not on the cards in any case. On the other hand it might make it more meaningful if we had 3 year groups instead of 5 (cf junior 12,14,16,18, 20) Would recognising the number of competitions people are involved in as well as or instead of winning positions be more encouraging?

This is where I think I differ from your friend. There are 84 yr olds who will beat 75 yr olds. There are 75 yr olds who would beat 69 yr olds on the same course. The idea that we would get more granular at this stage is odd - by this point age is no longer a good proxy for "running peers" especially in women. I'd group everyone over perhaps 60, on the basis of previous results so the competition is between people of similar ability regardless if thats a 75 yr old with a hip replacement, a 65 yr old hoping to get one or an 85 yr old who's hips are great but eyes are failing. Actually as we try and bring adult noobies into the sport a short TD5 is probably a friendlier introduction than their "proper" course, and I'll bet many of the older wiser navigators will still beat far younger legs!

But except at the very largest events you could solve all this by removing all the notions of which class certain age groups "should" run in and just have clear course descriptions so that people can decide for themselves what to enter based on their ability/fitness/experience. That needs to be provided at the point of entering not 4 weeks later when the final details are published - which does mean planners might need to be more organised. There's no reason why we can't have a sentence or two describing the course.

10. Keeping in mind that orienteering is meant to be a running sport……….maybe this should be applied to all age groups, but judging the planning success by the winner’s time can give a wrong impression. Should we use median time?

we could solve all of this by not using something as arbitrary as EWT which depends on who enters! If we want to stick to times then as you say something like "time for a notional 6000 pt ranking runner" would probably be more logical.