Sprint races - how long

[mharky]

Like it is with marathons and 10k races?

That is one of my favourite arguments ever!

Crap marathon runners take 5 hours, and deal with it.

[Gnitworp]

The genesis of age classes in orienteering was to accommodate increasing numbers having to start at intervals, unlike mass start road/cross-country races. Rapid increase in competitor numbers in the 60's and 70', caused the proliferation of age classes (there were only 2 senior classes until 1972 - Senior and Veteran over 40).

The resultant courses have had the added virtue of multiple (confusing) beaten trails, reduced following potential and many 'decoy' markers on other people's courses, however I do not think there is necessarily a demand for an older (especially only slightly) age class to automatically have a proportionately shorter course whatever the race type.

The insoluable conundrum of how long is Sprint, Middle, and Long (what happened to Classic?) for all the multifarious age classes is a product of the illogical compulsion to always proportionately and progressively reduce the lengths of all courses for different sex and increasing age.

For National Level I event championship courses, I think Classic (Elite 'Long' is Long O for the rest of us), Middle and Sprint should have the same winning time for all classes except the youngest and perhaps the very oldest (hopefully when I'm 90 I'll object to even this suggestion!).

This solves the insoluable conundrum; base your definition of the 3 disciplines across all age classes and gender on course duration.

Yes, women should have the same winning times as men! I've never understood why they don't. Maybe it's part of the dying throes of male chauvinism (once, they weren't allowed to run further than 800m)

The above, of course, doesn't cater for the consensus in this poll, which suggests that the majority, although interested in the opportunity to compare themselves with the Elite, aren't interested in a fixed Sprint course concept per se; I'm certainly not; for example, I like the 'chasing sprint' aspect of 2 courses of a length I can comfortably do and enjoy in one day without overexerting myself, but 2 races of 25-30 minutes beat 2 of 12-15 minutes every time. I also like all types of racing across the spectrum - urban to 'slow run' forest.

[EddieH]

Gnitworp asks what's happened to the classic.

Well the IOF in their wisdom, in order to differentiate styles of orienteering at different lengths, decided that "long" races should be al about route choice, and not fine navigation. Classic races were long and were designed to get the best possible out of an area including technically challenging orienteering.

At Culbin in March we are putting on Elite Classic races which is not a mistake. The planner is fully aware of the difference, and I am sure that punters will receive a good old fashioned classic course. Hence I am entering W21E (as I'd be out for ever on M21E nowadays ).

Don't worry all the majority that don't want to go that far- we have the full range of normal courses.

[graeme]

(once, they weren't allowed to run further than 800m)

Poor analogy: nowadays women run the same track distance as men. They don't have 9km track races or 90m sprints.

The point of the poll is that sprint races for senior age groups are just taking off in popularity. Rules are just being drawn up: surely those rules should be based on what people would prefer to do? The reason older age groups' classic distance is shorter than elite is that we can no longer run hard for that distance. Presumably elites run hard enough to be struggling after 12-15 mins (like 5km track runners).

As I get older, my maximum aerobic speed has dropped sharply, but the time for which I can maintain that (lower) speed is much increased. I assume this means muscle power decays faster than energy storage and lung power?

[DJM]

graeme wrote

The point of the poll is that sprint races for senior age groups are just taking off in popularity. Rules are just being drawn up: surely those rules should be based on what people would prefer to do?

Some rules have already been drawn up, e.g. those for the biggest Sprint race in the world so far (last year's WMOC) and those for the biggest Sprint race in the UK so far (last year's JK). And one fundamental principle behind both of them was that the winning time for all classes (save the very youngest) is 12 to 15 minutes.

Whatever the results of the nopesport poll (which is somewhat unscientifically designed!), there have already been two much larger polls about the 2008 WMOC and JK which gave overwhelming approval for the Sprint format. In fact, not one respondent suggested any change to the winning time for the course they ran despite there being the opportunity to do so in free response questions.

Sprint for older competitors should be thought of more as "sprint for the mind" than for the legs; courses should be planned differently for them as a result. Why? It is clear that a good W65 (speed ratio = 0.50) will take twice the time as a good elite if she ran the elite course. It is also clear that she has to make decisions at half the rate of the elite runner and so has a very different experience of the course. But if her course (a) had a winning time of 12 - 15 mins and (b) had shorter legs, then there is a better chance that she enjoys a similar "sprint for the mind" experience on her course to that of the elite runner on his. Isn't this what we want?

By all means have races which are longer but don't call them Sprint, call them urban instead. But where there is an age class Sprint competition, the overwhelming evidence from the JK and WMOC polls (408 and 342 responses respectively) supports a 12 to 15 min winning time for all classes.

[Gross]

Got to agree with David

PS - Biathlon Sprint is 10km

[graeme]

In fact, not one respondent suggested any change to the winning time for the course they ran despite there being the opportunity to do so in free response questions.

Which is a roundabout way of saying you didn't ask the question that I'm asking and nobody expressed an opinion on it.

Unscientific Ouch. I write polls in my job, I'm well aware of how easy it is to provide leading questions. I really don't see any bias here - do you?

I can't find the JK poll anywhere. From memory you were trying to establish whether people liked it (overwhelmingly yes). Whether it should replace the training event (overwhelmingly yes), and whether it should be combined with the other days
(generally "no"). I agreed with all those things, and after such a fantastic race as we had at Surrey its not surprising others did too.

There is an impact on organisers. At the JK, you have so many entrants you have to have separate courses. But this will not generally be the case. The Scottish Sprint Champs works fine with a single course: the more courses you plan, the more compromises you have, and the more chance of error. I wrote those guidelines. I spoke to people afterwards. Some people want age awards but nobody wants multiple distances. I'm not falling back on the "nobody complained so there's no room for improvement".

Isn't this what we want?

My preference is to ask people what they want, rather than tell them...
The answer appears to be "no".

Personally, I don't much care either way. If pushed I'd go for what gnitworp once described as "the longest course which the area can elegantly support" (I love that quote).

and I think urban races on legible ISSOM maps are the best development in orienteering since epunching, and I want someone else to organise/control/plan/map a few up here so I can get a run!

[DJM]

It's not a good poll because the answer may well depend on the type of Sprint race you're thinking of. If it's the JK then a non-elite might want to answer 12-15 mins, if it's a smaller event, they might want to choose the elite course instead. The results of the poll won't show this ...

Although the two polls I referred to didn't ask specific questions about course length/winning time, both of them had a free response question along the lines of "is there anything else you'd like to comment on about the Sprint?" All sorts of replies came, many along the lines of "my knees don't like hard ground", etc, the fact that not one out of the total opf 750 mentioned course length tells us quite a lot I would suggest!

Of course, if the event has a single course, then there's no option that all have to run it. But where the numbers mean multiple courses then it seems daft to do anything other than make the winning time 12 to 15 mins for each class. If all have the same length instead, then the W90 WMOC Sprint course would have been longer than the W90 WMOC Long courses ...

[graeme]

the fact that not one out of the total of 750 mentioned course length tells us quite a lot I would suggest!

Given that not a single veteran man (and only two women) finished in under 15 minutes, I'm wondering what you think it does tell us?


Not, I hasten to add, that it wasn't a fantastic race, highlight of the JK, a brilliant innovation, a superb area, excellent map, ideal choice of scale, challenging all the way round etc. etc. etc.

[geomorph]

Well if a sprint is
' a course where the continual rate of delivery of information critical to the successful execution of the course is close to the maximum capability of the best participants to assimilate and translate', then oldies never do sprints if all they do is the same course as an elite, cos as the oldie goes slower then they have more time to assimilate the information....'

This does allow 'sprint orienteering' to have different duration races if the terrain can support it 'elegantly' (thanks Gnitworp). Though in practice 30 minutes is probably a maximum

[EddieH]

I think DJM has reiterated my point exactly. I cannot answer the poll as it entirely depends on the context of the race, but if the older ladies have to run the elite course in a national championship the term "sprint", (which I interpret as a media word for short,) becomes utterly ludicrous. Then it is hardly likely that they will enter the event and lo and behold you have a self fulfilling prophesy - sprint racing is only for the young plus the really fit veteran.

Personally I prefer longer races where there is no title at stake.

[Mrs H]

Speaking as an older lady I'm not sure we're that bothered about the designation of the race - as long as the distance isn't ludicrously long we'll go round it as fast as we can - it may not be sprinting as such - but those of us who are up for it are going to have a go what ever - I mean what Mharky called middle distance round Edinburgh streets this weekend is actually about twice as long as the short courses i prefer to run ( ultra long distance for me)- but I'm coming a hell of a long way to do it anyway - and so are a lot of my fellow older ladies i notice. I can't see much point in putting on courses shorter than 2.5- 3km - no matter what you want to call it.

an yes i like the chasing format on shorter races too.

[Godders]

They don't have 9km track races or 90m sprints.

But they do have only 100m over lower hurdles, and lower at 400m and steeplechase

[awk]

I like both the 'true' sprint (i.e. where my age class winning time is 12-15 mins) and the 'elite' sprint (where I'm out somewhat longer!). To be honest, I'm pretty relaxed what I get, as long as it's advertised in advance, so am content to get 'true' sprints when there are lots of us (e.g. JK - great race) or 'elite' sprints when there are fewer (e.g. Scottish Sprints - another great race). Either way, it's all a lot faster and more intense than standard distance orienteering (I can't really describe the distances M50s get as 'long', although I do enjoy them too. Thank goodness - I don't particularly like the long format, much preferring classic style orienteering. The occasional long-O is fun though).

[DJM]

Given that not a single veteran man (and only two women) finished in under 15 minutes, I'm wondering what you think it does tell us?

It tells us that, as JK Sprint planner, I overestimated things for the older classes! It's not that they didn't run fast enough, but it was more a case that they made more mistakes than the Hubmanns of this world and missed the 15 min target as a result. At least that's what my interpretation of the race splits tells me - many of the winners were making 2 mins of mistakes or more.

As JK Sprint Guideline author, I'm not inclined to adjust the course length ratios on the basis of the 2008 results as my feeling is that the older classes will perform better relative to the elite as they get more Sprint experience.