UK Cities Cup 2007

[Steve]

So the much anticipated nopesport UK Cities Cup is to be an elite-only competition, PWT style, and I have to admit to being somewhat disappointed by that, after all the hoop-la in recent months.

I see this is only a pilot year, but next year there are only plans to increase the venues, not the participation. Any chance of introducing classes and scoring system that will encompass non-elite orienteers, and provide some incentive for the rest of us to turn up?

Would anybody else like to see the series including non-elites? Surely an opportunity is being missed?

[harry]

I understood it was open to all. None of those races are invitation only. You just have to enter the elite course. But an elite course in a sprint O is only a 10-20 min winning time, so it should take mere mortals not too long either. Maybe some of those like the York race will be a little longer but the "terrain" will certainly not barr non-elites from taking part.

The only one where you might have difficulty is the BEOC sprint in Scarborough where the open classes may become oversubscribed and they have to seed it or something - but even then there are qualifiers so I imagine everyone can have a go.

Seems like anyone can take part! But probably only elites take the top places! Which is the right combination in my opinion. eg. Stockholm City Cup gets big participation but they only have a junior and elite class, therefore the spread of times is big. Elite really means "Open" in terms of who can take part..

[redkite]

Whilst mere mortals can enter the races only the top 10 will score points.
at the JK Sprint over 350 will run the open courses but only the leading 20 (10 men, 10 women) will score points.

[Steve]

H, yes I know I can enter, and I'm not worried about the distance (I run much further in my speed sessions), but I have no means of comparing myself to my competitors because the scoring stops at 10th place. This effectively excludes me from the series, and I feel no incentive to travel to the more distant events to take part.

We can't all enter Open anyway, there won't be enough start times unless gaffling is used, then it will be more like a relay with attendent following. So, I still want the series to cater for competitive non-elites!

[Domhnull Mor]

Some interesting comments so far, some of which are worth considering. The points also include some which I am contemplating as planner for one of the events.

Steve, I don't quite get your point about not being able to compare yourself to your competitors if the scoring stops at 10th place? Is that not why we have individual timing? Are you looking for an "age class" based points system?

Steve also raised the point about gaffling. How do people feel about this in this type of event? Personally I don't see a problem (if planned with care). Like Steve points out, it allows closer packing of start times and reduces the risk for following and permits some flexibility given that the number of competitors is often hard to predict.

I am currently planning three courses with the aim of catering for as wide a range of abilities as possible whilst still providing the opportunity for a competitive "non-elite" race - i.e. the "elite" race is separated from a "non-elite" class of equal standard. (I am presently contemplating a fourth course for absolute beginners - very short - given that the aim of the event is also to promote the sport).

Details of the event I am planning are still to be finalised so take this opportunity to say your meaning.

[Steve]

I don't quite get your point about not being able to compare yourself to your competitors if the scoring stops at 10th place? Is that not why we have individual timing? Are you looking for an "age class" based points system?

I was meaning in terms of the overall series, except there isn't one if the scoring stops at 10th place. There is no tension generated between orienteers of similar standard before each race - e.g. who is going to come out of it with the highest overall table position. This tension increases towards the end of the series as races become critical, and the enjoyment gained from the race / series increases by some related proportion, as does the motivation to attend.

Steve also raised the point about gaffling. How do people feel about this in this type of event? Personally I don't see a problem (if planned with care).

Running gaffled courses can be fun, I like it, it just depends on what nature / purity of competition the race / series organisers intend.

[johnloguk]

I certainly don't see this Series as "elite only" but I am surprised that there are so few events. Obviously this is testing the water, maybe the organisers wanted to keep it simple, easier to market possibly too? I guess that there are only a small number of planners/organisers experienced in this form of orienteering, having more events opens up the possibility of poor planning/maps and therefore poor experiences?

I'm not really bothered about the number of courses or the need for gaffling. It depends on the number of competitors I guess, which is still an unknown quantity. The only thing that concerns me is that loads of people take part in the Series, all have a great time, and that it brings our glorious sport to many more new people around the Country.

If 2008 was still only this number of events I would start getting a bit twitchy and concerned about the motives of the organisers though.

[gg]

to get around people running together, a sprint with 30sec start interval and some sort of butterfly would work very well and add an extra challenge of seeing competitors running in different directions. There are loads of fair ways to stop the runners running together

[Wattok]

The series is about showcasing orienteering in an environment that it can be seen by the general public as well as creating i high profile series to find out who is the best urban orienteer. The series has put it's weight behind the top race of each event in order to acheive this however this does not mean that other classes/courses can't be run. The way its has been set up allows anybody to take part as long as they enter the correct race. The series is only just starting and is being coordinated by a very small number of people (1 at the moment) so cannot stretch to encompass everyone and everything.

For this series i just wanted to keep it simple in terms of scoring hence why i've only assigned points to the top 10 places in the open/elite category only.

The race format i've left up to the event organisers and if they wish to have a sprint by class then thats fine and allows you to compare yourself against piers. But if you want to go for the points and prizes then you need to enter the open/elite class.

As you quite rightly say, this year is a pilot and about establishing the series and in the future there is scope for change.

[HOCOLITE]

I was meaning in terms of the overall series, except there isn't one if the scoring stops at 10th place. There is no tension generated between orienteers of similar standard before each race - e.g. who is going to come out of it with the highest overall table position. This tension increases towards the end of the series as races become critical, and the enjoyment gained from the race / series increases by some related proportion, as does the motivation to attend.

Surely just running points down the entry and keeping a table of points like the FCC is feasible and as Steve says it will encourage participation through the series. If necessary have two points tables one for elite and one overall. It is obviously easier with unknown entry nos. to make the points score coincide with position and the lowest points determine the winners.

[Adventure Racer]

Reagrding fitting people in on courses, are these other sprint events not going to have qualifiers and finals as at BEOC at MK last year? In which case there isn't a problem as people are sent off on several heat courses simultaneously (and then on several finals courses simultaneously).

[Wattok]

but I am surprised that there are so few events. Obviously this is testing the water, maybe the organisers wanted to keep it simple, easier to market possibly too?

We had hoped to have more events but i was hanging on for a few definite yes's for a couple of races which dragged on to a stage where i felt i had to just go with confirmed races and start promoting it.

I do hope to increase the series next year and hope that clubs will offer for events in top urban areas to be included in the series.

[Scott]

I would have got in touch about Oxford, but I didn't really want to bring the event up in public until we were sure we would be able to have one. Blame the Council (again)...

Perhaps using a couple of broad age categories for urban races would be the way forward in generating a bit more competition? I know the Junior 16s/Open/Vets 40+/Super Vets 55+ system we use isn't universally popular (and Oxford is closer to middle-distance than sprint length, anyway), but something similar might work, whilst keeping the organisational/planning workload fairly low.

[NeilC]

I'm inclined to agree with Steve and Hocolite and would like to see points go all the way down. Obviously a bit more work but perhaps you could try and double the organisation team to cope with this. Keep it simple and only award points for those entering the open races. If there are heats/finals then award points only on the finals with the winner of the B final getting one less (or one more) point than last place in the A final.

[Steve]

Wattok, I applaud your commitment in getting this series organised, I just wish I could feel part of it, not just a.n.other competitor at the individual events.

It would be nice to see the likes of Lincoln and Oxford included next year, as high quality maps already exist.