Badge Course Lengths

[roadrunner]

I notice that the latest BOF guidelines specify a target winning time for M21L (68 minutes), but for all other classes it is only the course length (relative to M21L) that is specified - whereas previously the target gold badge times for all long courses were specified, with the length ratios being just a guide.

It seems to me that the new approach is less fair, in that under the new rules, the times for the older classes are going to be excessive if the area is rough going, since older orienteers will be more affected by this. (Conversely, a very fast area might result in shorter times for the older classes.) What does anyone else think about this, and does anyone know why it was changed?

[mharky]

It seems to me that the new approach is less fair

less fair on whom???

On another point, 68mins seems a bit short for an M21L, it should be more round 75mins, maybe more

[distracted]

On another point, 68mins seems a bit short for an M21L, it should be more round 75mins, maybe more

No, that's right for a regional (badge) event, around a 67/68 min winning time. although it's meant to be longer at National Events - maybe that's where the 75mins you're thinking of comes in?

[NeilC]

It seems to me that the new approach is less fair, in that under the new rules, the times for the older classes are going to be excessive if the area is rough going

If the area is excessively rough it shouldn't be used for a regional event (see guidline B section 2b)
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/documents/rules/regsguib1p0.pdf

[gross2006]

An area suitable for fast M21 runners & on which the length ratio for other classes is based on might be overly rough for the older classes.... doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for a regional event.

What it does mean is that the planner should be good enough to recognise that fact and adjust courses lengths accordingly. The ratio's aren't set in stone & if the lengths move slightly either side it doesn't matter so much.

The day orienteering courses are planned to set figures then the sport is lost... might as well take up age class cross country running

[Pingu]

I'm sure junior courses are on the whole getting shorter: When I was a last year M14 I would have been regularly running the same course as m dad - then M40 in the following year. This has been progressively put off, to the extent that in this last year [M18vs.M45] there has been at least one event when my dad's course was longer and tougher than mine, and many where we've run the same.
Shame, as I like long courses...

[mharky]

Distracted>>> What do you mean "Thats right...". I wasn't saying the BOF rules were otherwise, I was saying that the BOF rules lead for short races....

[distracted]

12k is generally long enough for me...

[LostAgain]

With respect to junior courses, at the shallow end (white/yellow JM1/JM2) there is a massive difference from event to event. One week they can be won in <10 minutes (my son actually won one in <7 minutes at Age 8 not really value for money at £2 - £3), whilst the following week it is nearer 30 minutes.

This also seems to be occuring on the orange / JM3, but we have less experience of this as the eldest has only run a handful.

I'm sure there would be greater outcry if us older farts had such variability in winning times.

[NeilC]

Which is why guidelines exist. As Gross said an experienced planner can tweak course lengths to suit the conditions. Unfortunately other planners/controllers all too often change the course parameters to suit what they feel the course should be. Part of the problem is that few (any?) associations have feedback mechanisms as part of quality control.

To keep the sub-thread on value for money going we flew our youngest to NI for BOC2002 so that he could win M10B in around 7 mins. Any advances on the most expensive sub-10 minute run?

[Rob P]

Pingu, when I was a M18 (96-97) it was normal for the M18 and M45 to be the same course, so if this is still the case nothing has changed.

[DesignatedDriver]

its a difficult thing to judge - how long it will take for the winner/average joe o

just take this years SHIs for example - Mr B did his homework for that one, yet they were still out longer than expected.

so i reckon as far as times go, it is down to the personality of the planner. do they err on the side of caution or three sheets to the wind.

[roadrunner]

gross2006 wrote:

An area suitable for fast M21 runners & on which the length ratio for other classes is based on might be overly rough for the older classes.... doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for a regional event.

What it does mean is that the planner should be good enough to recognise that fact and adjust courses lengths accordingly. The ratio's aren't set in stone & if the lengths move slightly either side it doesn't matter so much.

I agree entirely (though I can think of some areas where the lengths would have to change more than slightly) - and this is what would have happened under the old guidelines, since a good planner would recognise that an area might be slower for older runners. But the new guidelines seem to discourage it:

The recommended winning time for M21L is 68 minutes. All other course lengths should be scaled to the length required for M21L.

So, why the change? As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[NeilC]

I agree entirely (though I can think of some areas where the lengths would have to change more than slightly) - and this is what would have happened under the old guidelines, since a good planner would recognise that an area might be slower for older runners. But the new guidelines seem to discourage it:

So, why the change? As they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Let me play the Devil's Advocate and ask you to name such an area. Then we can compare the relative running speeds of the various age groups at events on that area to see how much they vary from the normal M21/M_WXX speed ratio (of course the normal ratio would have to be determined first). Since the course length ratios use adjusted length (ie taking climb into account), adjusted length should be used when calculating speed ratios. Gold badge time is perhaps a fairer measure than winners time for comparison.

I've no idea what the answer will be but, like the various scientific manuscripts I constantly have to review at work, I prefer people to back up their claims with reliable data.

[Simon E]

As the person who oversaw the rewrite of the BOF Rules for 2003 perhaps I should add some comments.

1) Guideline 4 in the 1997 rules specified the M21L course length as "recommended gold badge time" of 80-90 minutes. This caused endless debate and confusion, and specifying a winning time of 68 minutes is much easier to understand. Note that if the top three all do about 68 minutes then the gold badge time is 85 minutes, so there is in fact no change at all in suggested M21L course length.

2) Rather than try to specify badge times for every class it is a lot simpler just to specify a ratio. This is especially true if you are trying to reduce the overall number of courses to be planned (as we were), since once you start combining classes and courses you inevitably end up with compromises. So the main reasons for the change were to make the requirements easier to understand, and to fit with the overall reduction in number of recommended courses.

3) Appendix B of the rules (see http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/asp/makepage.asp?PID=RULES) covers planning, and includes some guidance on allowing for variations in terrain.

4) Junior courses were deliberately shortened. This was driven by AWK, and I'm sure he'll chip in soon.

There are so many possible variables here that it can all get very confusing if you try to over-analyse it. What matters is that people go out and run a course of roughly the length they expect (in terms of running time). I think the current guidelines are pretty good at letting that happen.

Simon Errington
Chairman, BOF Technical Committee, 1997-2002