Short course racing

[SeanC]

MHarky and MadMike's plan would work for us. Will someone be submitting something to the relevant BOF committee?

What would also help us is to modify the neighbouring club alliance concept. I suggest something like this.

Two small clubs* from the same region (not necessarily neighbouring clubs) can form a small club alliance for all relay courses at any one relay event.

*small club definition = CSC small club definition

This would mean our female runners wouldn't have to run as men. Also our small numbers of juniors could form junior teams - which sadly isn't always possible due to lack of numbers, and any fast M/W21's could form a competitive team without having to move to a big club. The big clubs would still have the advantage as big clubs such as SO, HOC etc have a greater membership than the combined membership of the two largest small clubs.

Any comments?

[Wayward-O]

In this proposed system, how many different maps would be required? If the competitor's map code was added at the end of their chest number plate then couldn't it be as simple as the competitor collecting their map from a box or being handed it after handover?

[Scott]

The obvious disadvantage with that system is that you'd be pretty much unable to avoid working out who was on the same gaffle as you when hanging around in the changeover pen. Aside from any concerns about the fairness of the resultant following, that would also make things significantly less fun.

[Wayward-O]

Point taken.

[mharky]

Sean, I had also had exactly the same thought about small clubs. I think it would also be fair to allow geographical or "regional" neighbours to club together when they have an odd number of runners, but not if they are just trying to make a super hybrid team. To be fair, I think most clubs would be able to get a 1st team of 3 or 4 together.

[Adventure Racer]

a novice/crip/OAP one too.

The big clubs would still have the advantage as big clubs such as SO, HOC etc have a greater membership than the combined membership of the two largest small clubs.

Blimey - all of a sudden we're a big club with a competitive advantage (well I suppose we are in the CSC final this year - there is of course a first time for everything!)

[PorkyFatBoy]

Blimey - all of a sudden we're a big club

I blame that Hartmann woman and her MAD(O) recruitment drive

[Knee Deep Mud!]

When I'm 60 I'd much rather be running in a relay like that.

Agree totally. Large fields and head to head racing are exactly what makes relays fun.

And that is why whenever possible I have always run the Mens Short, because it and not the open is the race that has the the largest fields and therefore is the most fun to run in. Looking back at the results for the last 6 JKs and the Mens short has had 60-100% larger fields than the open, and is as a result the most competitive of the 'open to everyone' relays. On that basis we should scrap the open (and other age based relays) and make the Mens Short into the JK Trophy.

Stodgetta wrote: There were several who were entered the short open because they didn't have to run as far as the 120+ legs, or because the only other alternative for the ages of competitors would have been the Ad Hoc with a 4.2km course and an orange.

Exactly right Stodgetta, that was our view

My view too on the numerous occasions I have been in charge of putting together our clubs relay teams. The Mens short is the easiest relay to fit everyone into a team, youngest to oldest, fittest to unfittest, fastest to slowest. It is also the easiest to shuffle teams around when necessary to accomodate injuries etc from the previous days racing. From experience, if you try and force everyone to run the JK Trophy a lot of the unfit, slower, older runners will find something else to do on Easter Monday, and probably take their families with them. i.e. a counter-productive step when a bigger field for great racing is what you ideally want.

Personally I'd change the British Relays to match as well.

[awk]

On that basis we should scrap the open (and other age based relays) and make the Mens Short into the JK Trophy....From experience, if you try and force everyone to run the JK Trophy

The largest men's race was the M165 - so if you are going on size, why scrap it?

However....
if you look at the new structure, what they are saying is that the trophy will keep the two short legs, but only one of the longer ones. The two short legs were the same as the longer legs on the M165. So two-thirds of next year's trophy will be the same as the M165.

I know the Short Open was even shorter, but if you look at the times on the Men's short, a huge majority (80%) of the "long" leg runners were still managing under 30 minutes. So what the new system will do is add an extra 7 minutes or so to these legs- is that really going to put so many people off, when they are still only running the same distance as over-55s?

The answer is, we don't know - we can only speculate. You may be right, and short course runners abandon in droves, but you may also be wrong. So why not give it a try and see? It's not fixed in tablets of stone. My concern is only that the 120 race will still be regarded as 'separate'': on results and everything it should be incorporated, with the 120 eligible teams simply identified within the overall results.

Personally, on reflection and if we're not going down the route of one race for all, what I would be tempted to do is try out two senior men's races and two senior women's races. Race A = Trophy, incorporating 120. Race B = Short, incorporating 165. But that may be for consideration another time.

In the meantime, maybe this should be something for the Senior Competitions group to consider, rather than just the Elite group?

[madmike]

Good point Awk - other thing that occurs to me is the age profile there are now increasing numbers of M70s and M75s who presumably have to run the 165+ - is it time for a 200+ or 210+?

[Knee Deep Mud!]

The largest men's race was the M165 - so if you are going on size, why scrap it?

Yes, but the M165 is not really an 'open to all' relay. Unless you have lots of the M70 and M75s madmike refers to then your M21s are not going to be able to compete in it. My point was that the short open was the largest relay where any combination of runners from the same club could form a team and still be competitive. i.e. One big relay for everyone.

That said, I didn't run this year's JK relays, and have only just seen that both the JK trophy and mens short were significantly shorter than in previous years. In fact, if you take out one of the short legs to make it a three leg relay, this years JK Trophy (14.75km, 335m climb) was effectively the same as the JK2005 Mens Short (14.1km, 400m climb). On that basis I would have no qualms about everyone doing the JK Trophy.

[graeme]

The answer is, we don't know - we can only speculate.

Or we could look at the facts.

All the course distances at the JK were cut a few years ago. This was supposed to boost numbers on the trophy - it basically made b*gger all difference. If all the distances went back to where they were the numbers wouldn't go down.

But that doesn't mean we should do so.

The crappiest leg on the JK is running last leg for a team way off the back "making up the team". Do this a couple of times and you realise there are a lot better things to do with Easter Monday. We should try to address this.

IMO, single relay is the way to go, that way far fewer teams are "off the back": you're racing with everyone you see in the forest.

Prizes for leading 120s, women, 165s, juniors? Might be a pain to check the eligibility, but in principle why not? Bragging rights for first Scottish, Welsh, NorthEast club? why not?

We should also have National age group relays. But that's what the BRC is for.

Graeme

[Billy Whizz]

In the meantime, maybe this should be something for the Senior Competitions group to consider, rather than just the Elite group?

And will this mythical group, which ought to be called the Veterans (or "Masters" if you must) Competitions Group, ever meet?

[Scott]

They met before the AGM. And I'm not sure "Masters"/"Veterans" would be appropriate, as I believe they're responsible for competitions for us non-elite 21s as well.