Event Structure Review - the rest

[IanD]

There are already two massive threads on this bulletin board discussing the Event Review Group's recommendations. One is about ranking lists, the other primarily about course names at regional, district, standard and local events.

However let's not forget that the Group made several other recommendations, including (I paraphrase):

• British Sprint, Middle Distance & British Night Championships should have their profile raised by given them National Event status.
• The Sprint should become a formal part of JK although not combined with the other days for scoring.
• the Masters Cup competition (for veterans) should have its profile raised by treating like the UK Cup (open) and Future Champions Cup (juniors).
• The number of National events should be reduced to 4 or 5 per annum (presumably not counting British Championships or the JK) and form Area Championships (Scottish, Northern, Midland, Southern and possibly Welsh).

What do we think about these?

Personally, I'm enthusiastic about the first three. I would also add, and I suspect the Review Group intend this although it's not spelt out, that the Sprint & Middle Distance Championships should be for all age classes, not just an Open class for each gender. For me this is vital; a strength of orienteering is it's appeal to all ages, and any “British Championship” which doesn't cover multiple age classes is automatically devalued.

I'm not keen on replacing the existing National Events with area championships. The objective seems to be to increase the quality of national events, but I don't see it working. I agree that it makes sense for areas to seek out National events for their championships, but the converse doesn't follow. There is no obligation for an area to host a National each year, but there is a requirement for an annual area championship, which tends to rotate around the associations in the area, irrespective of whether the association has terrain suitable for a National. This year's Midland Championship is in Salcey Forest; I rest my case.

[awk]

but there is a requirement for an annual area championship, which tends to rotate around the associations in the area, irrespective of whether the association has terrain suitable for a National. This year's Midland Championship is in Salcey Forest; I rest my case.

I would not take where any current championship (apart from the Scottish) as any indication of what might happen in the future: the northern champs has several times been held on a poor badge event area when there has been a high quality badge/national event elsewhere.

We discussed this in some depth, and couldn't see any reason why an area championship necessarily had to rotate. Indeed, my greatest concern in the discussions was that we didn't see Buggins's turn (one of the reasons the old championships were done away with). Equally, an area championship might not even have to be hosted within strict geographical limits of the associations (the guidelines only say 'normally'). The guideline has also been written deliberately using the wording of the National Events guideline, so as to include quality requirements. I suspect Salcey Forest (if previous experience is anything to go by) wouldn't get through those filters.

Having said that, I do feel that we tend to over-focus on having top notch technical terrain (something that we are rather short of anyway in England); I accept that there are limits (!) but great races/events aren't made up of technical terrain alone. One of the great joys of British orienteering is the variety, and my personal view is that I'd like any series of events to reflect that. But then almost all the best races I've done in the past year have been urban!!

[graeme]

any “British Championship” which doesn't cover multiple age classes is automatically devalued.

on the contrary, any age-group British Championships which clashes with other races that the top people in that age group are doing is devalued.

I'm thinking here about M/W20, 35 and 40 BOC which are devalued by some of the top people choosing to run elite on the same day. And to a lesser extent the elite being devalued by people skipping it to run their age group. Sprint and middle distances will be even worse if combined.

M55L and M60L are "equally worthy" champions. But M21E and M35L are not.

[greywolf]

Sprint and middle distances will be even worse if combined.

except with sprint, it's perfectly reasonable (unless the numbers get out of hand) to send everyone out on the same 3km course (or 2.5k for ladies if you must), and then everyone gets to compete both in the Open and their respective age class.

[EddieH]

There is a problem where you have parallel heats - it is possible to fail to qualify for final X in one heat when you have clearly had a better run than someone in another heat that does.

The newly devised rules for the Scottish sprint championships address this brilliantly. Apart from spreading the elite through the heats, all the other age groups are allocated the same heat so that the highest placed runner in the final has unequivocally won on the day.

Presumably on a shorter course, whichever is the fastest class would similarly be spread through the heats.


Graeme I see your point, but that is the choice of the athletes. As an M35 I chose to run Elite, but that in no mind devalued the M35 winner as far as I was concerned - you can only beat thoe that put themselves up for it.

Where the courses are the same as in the shorter races the problem disappears anyway as they will be running the same course.

[awk]

As an M35 I chose to run Elite, but that in no mind devalued the M35 winner as far as I was concerned - you can only beat thoe that put themselves up for it.

Maybe, but it certainly devalues the race. Much better to have a separate open class championship (or, as in middle and/or sprint, run the same course).

Where the courses are the same as in the shorter races the problem disappears anyway as they will be running the same course.

Unless you get the rather silly situation which has happened a couple of times recently, when the competitor/team eligible for another class running the same course, has been deemed therefore not to count for the open race.

I think I'm right in recalling that this effectively happened in the N. Ireland BOC, when M18 and M20 ran the same course (it was also the FCC final). It was won by an M18, but the M20 British Champion was declared to be the runner-up M20. I think it happened in the women's race too

[Rach]

I totally agree with point 1 in the original post that the british sprint, middle and night should be national events. This still means that out of a total of 8 national events (not including the JK there are 4 area champs + 4 british champs) there would be 5 classic races and and only one sprint and one middle. I realise that the area champs have to be classic races, but given that all 3 disciplices are the "same" at woc, from an elite athlete point of view it would be really good to have more 'national level' sprint and middle races. One way to do this may be to encourage those organising the area champs to have a sprint or middle race on the saturday? those races could then also be used in the UkCup/FCC etc encouraging a high standard of participation despite them not being named as 'national' events...

[Lard]

My concern is that all national Events at M21E are expected to have a 90 minute winning time.

This is fine for the JK and British but I would recommend more of a 70 minute winning time for all other National Standard Classics.
How many super long runs can people do in a year (I'm thinking of the younger seniors and middling punters that still love to run elite).

[IanD]

M55L and M60L are "equally worthy" champions. But M21E and M35L are not.

Under the present rules, the fastest M55's and M60's at the British Sprint "Championship" do not become British Sprint Champions, only the winner of the Open course does. I think that every top class (British) competitor at a "British Championship" should have a chance of becoming a British Champion.

The problem with 20/35/40's running up is easily solved at a Sprint race by putting those classes on the open course along with the 21's.

[greywolf]

The newly devised rules for the Scottish sprint championships address this brilliantly. Apart from spreading the elite through the heats, all the other age groups are allocated the same heat so that the highest placed runner in the final has unequivocally won on the day.

Any idea when these rules might be made public? On the SOA website page of Scottish Sprint Champs rules it just says "Junior, senior and veterans classes are the minimum which should be provided. If courses are combined, the winning time shall pertain to the fastest competitors."

Given the numbers last year it seems a bit optimistic to think about using the heats do anything other than sort out the start order for the final, but lets be hopeful...

[roadrunner]

from an elite athlete point of view it would be really good to have more 'national level' sprint and middle races

I totally agree - and not just from an elite athlete point of view, many non-elites would enjoy these as well. At present, there are very few sprint or middle distance races of any standard in the year.

It seems that one of the main problems with the existing regional events is that some classes (M/W35 and M/W20 in particular) have too few runners, because many tend to run up. Surely the simplest solution is just to scrap these classes (and others with the same issues), so that we would have M18, M21, M40, M45 etc.

In terms of who wins the (say) M40 trophy if the best M40s run up, surely it's simply a case that if you want to compete for the trophy, you run the prescribed course; if you choose to run another course, then you rule yourself out just as if you didn't run at all. But the event information needs to make it clear whether (for example) the M40 trophy is for the fastest M40+ or the fastest M40-44, to avoid any ambiguity. Of course, if (as is common in sprint events) several classes run the same course, then the problem should not exist - you should just enter a course, not a specific class, and be eligible for any relevant trophy.

Thinking about how you define the courses, I'm wondering whether "winning time" (by the top elite, who might never choose to run that course) is really the way to go. The current ranking scheme recognises that the spread of times varies from course to course, so as far as the average competitor is concerned, might not the median (or average) time be more relevant?

[awk]

from an elite athlete point of view it would be really good to have more 'national level' sprint and middle races. One way to do this may be to encourage those organising the area champs to have a sprint or middle race on the saturday? those races could then also be used in the UkCup/FCC etc encouraging a high standard of participation despite them not being named as 'national' events...

As you say roadrunner, not just from an elite point of view!
This was something we discussed, and we were in agreement that this was something we would really like to see, but again, particularly at this stage of development, we felt it wasn't something that should be dictated centrally, as it requires more voluntary input. On the other hand, I think we'd agree that it should be encouraged. Maybe longer term there could be some upgrading of status. I'd certainly like to see some more sprint/middle races included in the Masters Cup.

Personally, I think it should always be M40+ not M40-44 (and equivalents elsewhere).

On the winning time business: having recently planned a fairly major event, I found it a lot easier basing on a theoretical elite winning time and then taking ratios than trying to go for a median or any other type of average. Far easier to conceive what sort of lengths we were looking at.

[Gross]

Thinking about how you define the courses, I'm wondering whether "winning time" (by the top elite, who might never choose to run that course) is really the way to go. The current ranking scheme recognises that the spread of times varies from course to course, so as far as the average competitor is concerned, might not the median (or average) time be more relevant?

It's fairly easy for a good planner to get the M21E winning time correct - and a good planner will know his/her market & have a good idea of which 'top elites' are likely to attend. Assuming then that the BOF ratios are correct (they're not) then the rest of the courses will be correct. Trying to plan for an average winning time is a bit hit or miss.

[DJM]

Gross wrote

Assuming then that the BOF ratios are correct (they're not)

They were "correct" in 1997 but older age groups have got faster since then - and at World level too. New ratios are currently being confirmed and will be available for use next year at both British and World level. Current thinking is that the GBR ratios should be the same as the World ones - there doesn't seem to be a good reason why they should be different!

[graeme]

Graeme I see your point, but that is the choice of the athletes.

No it isn't. For ten years I cannot choose to race against all the best people in my age group at the so-called BOC, because they have to choose between races and for perfect;y good reason choose to run elite - obviously if they don't show up its different. Whoever won M35 when you were running elite had no choice but to have their victory devalued by not having the opportunity to beat you.

Where the courses are the same as in the shorter races the problem disappears anyway as they will be running the same course.

The word you're after here is if, not where. Every indication I've seen is that they won't be the same course, or if they are you won't be eligible for both.