New Event Structure

[Mrs H]

You're not paying attention - didn't i just say

As that information is frequently available (course results in conjunction with class results) will it really be so hard to provide that information for people who want it?

I also pointed out (as have others) that it is perfectly possible to be competitive with people of a different age/sex. why is it so particularly significant to beat people who are the same age - it's just a date co-incidence in lives which may have nothing else in common. Surely beating someone of a similar ability level is far more significant and meaningful (and truly competitive).

[EddieH]

Mrs H wrote "it's just a date co-incidence in lives which may have nothing else in common. Surely beating someone of a similar ability level is far more significant and meaningful (and truly competitive)."

It is clear that a huge number of people agree with this as amateur golfers compete on a handicap basis. This is something I always find strange as all it shows is how you are perfoeming relative to yourself on the day, and then there are those that perform much better in major competition who invariably beat their handicap.

Of course it is interesting to compare with others that one knows, but serious competition for me is on a level playing field against all-comers. Maybe, not at 35, but by my age it is no longer possible to compete seriously against the youngsters, so I really appreciate the construct that says that over 55's can have a serious competition. At major events this for me is very serious and motivating. As long as it remains with the level 1 events I personally will be happy.

[Mrs H]

Ah thank you Eddie - at last someone is engaging in a serious debate about the true nature of competition. I am also happy with your last sentence - and am mulling over the implications of your statement about handicap...
..so what will you use to measure yourself against in non-Level 1 events?

[BandD]

Glad to see handicaps being put forward as a possible idea.
The simplest form could see a minutes/k time allowance, based on age and gender, used.
A few years back someone (who?) had an interesting collection of times etc based on this.
The other method is the golf approach of basing your handicap on actual performances. This would have the benfit of relating the handicap to the distances you usually run.

[awk]

In my view, the Regional event changes should not have been introduced before the ranking list changes.

[/quote]
You're not the only one. I think most if not all of the review group would agree with you. Certainly, as one member, I'm completely mystified why they were. DJM's arguments carried great weight at the review group meetings, and were unanimously agreed upon (even a ranking scheme sceptic like myself thought his proposals were a great idea); as Graeme (another member of the review group) indicates, the system was all set up and then......

Another BOF review.

Heaven only knows why - I've certainly seen no sensible rationale for one - but then so much of the implementation has been a complete mystery to me too. The single list ranking scheme was MEANT to be part of that implementation!!

[greywolf]

IanD wrote:In my view, the Regional event changes should not have been introduced before the ranking list changes.

Agreed - can't see the sense in this... and it's not clear to what extent the conclusions, if any, of the rankings working groups are limited by the (premature) implementation of the event structure review.

[awk]

They shouldn't have been premature. After all, the proposals were agree upon a year ago now. True, they have been changed rather a lot (for the worse IMO) since then.

[Clive Coles]

I also quite agree with Ian

[quoteIanD wrote:In my view, the Regional event changes should not have been introduced before the ranking list changes.][/quote]

This has been an arse about face implementation from the start .

We enter the Year of Transition with:
a) a ranking review still in progress
b) a set of draft rules and FAQ's which have set off a frantic debate regarding colours and matrices ~ I am now totally confused as to what clubs should be providing and how they should publicise the courses which they stage. If I am confused spare a thought for anyone turning up at an event for the first time.
c) an unresolved understanding as to what quality really means at a level 2 event. For me I think we should be more concerned as to standards of the course between start and finish rather than the facilities in the car park. The balance has moved too far in favour of the provision of facilities.
d) the BOF board thinking their recent pronouncement on member discounts at level 3 events to be resolving the issue. Far from achieving this I think more and more clubs will just ignore BOF and continue to stage low key events with a £2 or £3 flat fee ( no BOF Member discounts).
e) a BOF fixture list which has merged C4 and C5 events so that you can no longer tell the difference.
f) a new on-line fixture registration system which is running late and in all probability is costing well over budget.

The sad thing is that a lot of time and effort has been expended by a lot of well intentioned and hard working BOF members. Time freely given on our behalf. There are however so many committees and working parties throwing further ideas into the trough that the implemention has become a pigs breakfast.

I believe it comes down to a question of leadership and direction. Who is really running the show ? Answers need to be sought from our Board of Directors at the next BOF AGM.

[EddieH]

Mrs H asks me "so what will you use to measure yourself against in non-Level 1 events?"

The answer is that I only take level 1 events really seriously. I simply love the sport whatever the rules and regs. Being a competitive individual I am generally interested and try to do my best, just as a training run can be somewhat competitive .

However when i was less experienced I took all regional events just as seriously which suited me at that time. What I would think then about all this I don't know.


BandD obviously likes handicaps - I brought them up because he is obviously in a substantial number. Personally I thought I'd made it clear I cannot take them seriously, and would not have any interest in their outcome, (although I'd still love the actual act of orienteering). To me they'd be as amusing that after many many years of attending the Wimborne Boxing Day Canter I finally found myself in FIRST place over EVERYONE this year - Well I happened to find both Father Christmas and the Fairy

[Nimby]

I had been expecting the BOF Fixture List to classify events as L1, L2 or L3 by now but the 8th Jan list still shows C2, C3 and C5. Is that going to change?

[geomorph]

BandD obviously likes handicaps - I brought them up because he is obviously in a substantial number. Personally I thought I'd made it clear I cannot take them seriously, and would not have any interest in their outcome, (although I'd still love the actual act of orienteering). To me they'd be as amusing that after many many years of attending the Wimborne Boxing Day Canter I finally found myself in FIRST place over EVERYONE this year - Well I happened to find both Father Christmas and the Fairy

Well having gotten vilified (two years ago) for suggesting handicap races/leagues in addition to 'open' competition I'm glad BandD has stood up for them.
Done properly they are not a way of inflating the standings of the mediocre, but a promoter of excellence; an alternative challenge. NOT a replacement for open competition.

EddieH - you are one heck of a competitor so I'm surprised at your comments. The toughest match for a scratch golfer is not against another scratcher but against a lowly handicapper.


I think the new rankings will be great; many of my runs are in events where my age group is merged with others, and time and again I've faced the same other-age guys and gals but cannot compare with them, and now I will be able to do so.

Graeme: you said you'd done the algorithm some time ago - was it published?

[BandD]

Congratulations to Eddie on his Wimbourne success.
But as he must know, Christmas handicap events are designed to give the usual no-hope runners a chance of winning for a change. Not that that applies to him.
Proper handicapping is designed to bring everyone close to par.
That means any well above personal average run can give you a win.
Of course, age grouping is a form of handicapping - a form that means the winners at 21 can continue to win at 40, 45, 50 and so on.
An across the board system could mean that everyone has a chance of winning.
This could prove important when it comes to encouraging beginners and those 21/Open competitors who have no real chance of winning if running at scratch against the elite.
Those who don't believe in handicapping should always run elite or open (21) courses.
Bill Melville

[Brian Hughes]

But these mixed mode regionals allow us to have our cake and eat it. Beginners and the less fit can treat it as a colour coded event, those motivated by being top of their age class can aim for such.

The only problem is the time needed to build computer programs that can display results in both modes.

If people are motivated to orienteer by competing against their age class then this will raise participation, improve the economics of the sport and give us more publicity opportunities. It's only sport, why spoil their fun?

Spot on SeanC. With a little give and take we can all be kept happy. Personally if results of the larger classes at Level 2 events are published by age as well as course everyone's idea of what 'competiveness' means can be satisfied. You just look at the list that suits you, and if you are really non-competive you look at neither. Now if a rankings system (handicap) emerges that relatively sensibly permits me to challenge the M21s on Brown at Level 3s, I would be smiling. Gnitworp was responsible for alerting me to that possibility for Level 3's under the new system, so I can be flexible enough to change position on issues.

When Mrs H talks about 'the true nature of competition' that little word 'the' suggests that there is only one 'correct' form. The real world is not like that. MrsH likes making her own selection to compare against, Eddie only takes competition seriously at Level 1, but might have felt differently when he was not so good (was there such a time!) and many of my correspondents would badly miss competing against friends (who are simultaneously deadly rivals), and seeing results printed in that form. As SeanC says it is so easy to meet everyone's needs without affecting BOFs desire to simplify things for beginners. I certainly do not need to be told how to readjust my notion of competitiveness.

Clive Coles well argued case strikes at the core of the problem. All the rapid change is causing a huge workload for volunteers. As is inevtable with any major change some confusion remains and people get upset. As I say in my CS piece if we can be flexible and understand viewpoints other than our own, then BOFs aim of attracting more new members than we lose through dissatisfaction may be achieved. If not, O is in real trouble.
Brian Hughes (HOC)

[graeme]

Graeme: you said you'd done the algorithm some time ago - was it published?

If you're asking "can you find it on the BOF website", I think not. email me and I'll send you the details (I'm not going to write out the maths in ASCII)

I don't understand what's meant by "handicap"? Do you mean we all go orienteering as usual and the results are printed in an order different from "fastest first". Or are you proposing changing what we actually do - perceived slower people run less distance like in the Highland Games. Or make fast people carry more weight like racehorses?

For me I think we should be more concerned as to standards of the course between start and finish rather than the facilities in the car park.

You may be confusing two things here. I'd agree that

"standards of the course between start and finish are more important than the facilities in the car park."

But that's very different from saying "course standards can be improved by BOF rulings". I believe that rigid rules about course types ('If you are 45, you need to run 8km at TD5') have hindered the development of a whole range of exciting types of competition. The review recognised not only that course standards are important, but also that the planner and controller (not a BOF committee) are the best people to ensure this.

What I've seen in BOF's implementation doesn't change my view on that!

[roadrunner]

I think we should be more concerned as to standards of the course between start and finish rather than the facilities in the car park.

From the perspective of an experienced orienteer, yes, but a newcomer might see things differently - just think about the recent discussion about re-using the same areas. But that aside, I agree with all the points you made.