Isms, schisms

[Kitch]

What exactly is the point of different WOC disciplines if the same people are the best at all of them ?
(which is the logical implication of the complaint that all the best people can't do all the races)
What does it achieve to give Simone 3 gold medals ?
If there is any point in running all those different races then they ought to be so distinct that compettors are absolutely clear in which discipline they are the best and they ought not to be wasting their energy hedging their bets across multiple races.

The designation of long as a route choice exercise is a lame attempt to differentiate, but it just bastardises the challenge.
Middle is a proper navigational challenge but not a physical one.
Sprint is simplified orienteering (as evidenced by the ISSOM standard, which aims to define more precisely every feature in the terain, removing the skill of map interpretation and allowing people to move faster as a result).

But the essence of orienteering is such that you can't really make it different enough.
you can't take the orienteering out of orienteering and still have orienteering.
So whatever you do you still get the same people being the best.

I read an artical many years ago, predicting that WOC would split into different disciplines of different lengths. I thought it was a crap idea even then as an aspiring junior, I still do.
Then there was a World Chapion (Thon / Kringstad), they reigned for 2 years. They were giants, legends.

Now you get 6 world champions in that space of time, I could only name one - and that's an assumption.
Didn't win the Long? Never mind, have another shot in 2 days.

Each format came in as the next answer to selling orienteering to the media.
middle (nee short), sprint, a 3 man relay
"this is the format for TV" we were told
That hasn't worked.
Has the popularity of orienteering increased ?
does the sport have a media profile ?
yes we have trak trak and some tv coverage but who watches other than orienteers ?

It has always been orienteering's problem that it splits and divides.
Age classes, long and short versions of each age class. Long distance, middle distance, short distance, sprint. Sprint / Urban, how long should it be ? Specify, define.
Ultimately competition is devalued.
Spread people across more courses and more disciplines and you have less competition.

Divide and divide until you disappear up your own backside.

Just give me the toughest course in the toughest, most beautiful forest you can.
Old school style

[mharky]

well said

[distracted]

I also get the feeling that having the World Champs every year has devalued that competition, and has significantly reduced the status of the other international competitions (World Cup etc). One of the reasons the Olympics is the pinnacle of competition for the elite sportsmen/women who get there is that it only happens every 4 years...

[RJ]

Good points well made..... But, as a non-elite (and how.... very, non-elite) competitor I just want to orienteer, to run around a course and enjoy the challenge. I don't really care what the format is...... I just love the variety that our club manages to put on. I have a go at it all and just LOVE it.

You can argue about what the elite should be doing and how you will define the world's best...... but keep producing the different formats and new races. I am quite happy to give them all a go. The last several years has seen a vast array of challenges on offer for me...... not just the standard Blue course week in week out.

Oh...... and get rid of all dozens of so called winners. There are far too many.... winning is all devalued. Just a couple of real winners will do me. I just want to take part and enjoy a race, trying to make as few mistakes as possible.

[Gnitworp]

I started the 'New Race Format' thread passively accepting the existing situation of the 3 WOC disciplines with a view to examining how this format could be translated to championship races for the rest of us if that is what we want to have. I nevertheless wholeheartedly agree with all Kitch has said, and that it has devalued the sport.

Returning to one Classic/maximum technical challenge race for all National Championship races, not only WOC, would not only enhance the sport and the credibility and kudos of being a champion, but also solve the conundrum of what Middle and Sprint is for the rest of us; there would be no Middle and Sprint, just a wonderful variety of types and lengths of race held on every conceivable type of terrain to no set formulae.

[EddieH]

Roger writes "I don't really care what the format is...... I just love the variety that our club manages to put on. I have a go at it all and just LOVE it."

I could not agree more.

He then writes "Oh...... and get rid of all dozens of so called winners. There are far too many.... winning is all devalued. Just a couple of real winners will do me."

I could not agree less.

I think my competing history proves that I am no pot hunter. However there is no doubt whatever that I can enter M21E, Brown, the long course a whatever it is called and I have no pressure at all. By competing against my peers I have to choose to run a distance that I might not wish to, but I have a real competitive edge, and it is running under these conditions that hones the finer skills and prduces that pressure that is vital to have when it comes to WMOC.

And this extends to people who have little or no chance of winning anything. I am suprised how often I hear older ladies telling me that the SOLs are the only place where they feel there is any real point in being in a competition, even though they are not actualy going to beat all their rivals - but having Mr Short Elite runner means that green courses are nothing more than a Sunday outing in the forest.

If you don't care a jot RJ, why would you wish to take this away from those that do (all other things being equal that is) - E.G. Why do people propose to make 65s compete against 55s in a National Championships simply because the can share a course?

[Red Adder]

I quite agree with the view that a championship is devalued if one person can win all the titles. At least its not as bad as Olympic swimming with the program being set out so that Phelps could win 8 golds - shorly each single gold then is not worth that of the marathon runner who really only gets a single shot at a title (yes I know a 10k x marathon double has been achieved - about once) - or that of Redgrave / Pinsent / Oerter who all achieved multiple golds but over several games.

By all means experiment with lots of different formats but accept that at championship level there should only be one King and Queen of tghe Forest.

[lilywhite]

and why do the guys in 6th get to go up on the podium? all this talk of podiums piss me off when we're counting 4th-6th as podiums.

[The Cumbrian]

I struggle to get interested in International O...and having read this thread through have to agree that one of the reasons is the nonsense it seems to have become. The different disciplines/lengths is fair enough (all running sports have different lengths of event) but the concept of World Champs/cups etc every year and finishing fourth-sixth on the 'podium' just makes us a laughing stock. English/British Fell running champs have the right concept with different lengths of races and competitors having to have completed one of each to be eligible to win.

Longest courses on the best areas

[NeilC]

finishing fourth-sixth on the 'podium' just makes us a laughing stock.

Well at least they will be laughing at Mountain Biking as well since they have five on the podium (although they briefly flirted with just three I believe)
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/EAlbum/ALBUM/default.asp?MenuId=MTUzOTk&CurPage=2

Good company or bad?

[RJ]

He then writes "Oh...... and get rid of all dozens of so called winners. There are far too many.... winning is all devalued. Just a couple of real winners will do me."

I could not agree less.

I understand where you are coming from Eddie, and I can see you are defending the current situation. What I am saying is that we shouldn't have got here in the first place.

It has always been orienteering's problem that it splits and divides.
Age classes, long and short versions of each age class. Long distance, middle distance, short distance, sprint. Sprint / Urban, how long should it be ? Specify, define.
Ultimately competition is devalued.
Spread people across more courses and more disciplines and you have less competition.

Divide and divide until you disappear up your own backside.

[Tatty]

Personally I orienteer because I ,ove it, not because I want to be a champion. I would guess that is what most people do too

[geomorph]

In track, as Red Adder points out, in 5 10 and 42k you can get the same winner for all three if the schedule suits. Likewise orienteering races are in the same 'effort/tactics category' that is what was traditionally called, by track people, long distance - they are certainly not true sprint nor true middle.

If as Kitch says there is not sufficient orienteering technique difference twixt s,m,l 'formats' then those skilled at orienteering technique will triumph over those who are not, given equal fitness levels regardless of the distance.

And that to me is what is wanted. A triumph for skilled orienteering technique.

And therefore is orienteering any more diluted as a sport than track?

If Usain Bolt breaks world 400m record is then there no point in having 100, 200, 400 races?

[geomorph]

Here's a further thought

If a skilled orienteer trained exclusively for urban terrain would they consistently beat a similarly skilled multi-terrain person at same fitness standard?

[Patrick]

If a skilled orienteer trained exclusively for urban terrain would they consistently beat a similarly skilled multi-terrain person at same fitness standard?

Back in the 1990s, most of the Park World Tour races were won by Rudolf Ropek and Yuri Omeltchenko. Yuri won Gold in the Short (now Middle) in WOC 1995, but Ropek never got above 9th in Long or Middle in the various WOCs he ran (thank the World of O runner database for these facts!). They were usually well beating the likes of Bornar Valstad and Petter Thoresen, partly because PWT suited their speed, but also because the top Scandis were less fussed about the whole PWT idea. It's only since Sprint became a WOC discipline in 2001 that the very top guys have seriously trained for it.

What this means is that it's only in the next few years (if at all) that we'll get seniors coming through who have prioritised sprint/urban O throughout their careers. We'll see then whether it's really the same people who win all the time.

Personally I have less of a problem with multiple formats (provided it doesn't go any further!) than with WOC being held every year. It's destroyed the World Cup, which in turn has removed almost all the variety at the top level. Look at the programme of top class races for this year, and it's almost identical to 2008, except that WOC has moved a few hundred km south-east. It's no wonder the same people win everything when they don't have to deal with acclimatising to race conditions in Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, etc.

If Usain Bolt breaks world 400m record is then there no point in having 100, 200, 400 races?

Bolt would get thrashed over 40m - maybe they should put that in the Olympics!

Cheers,

Patrick