Rankings Consultation

[mharky]

Once upon a time I wasn't allowed to run the British Champs because I hadn't been to enough ranking events ... If they were still using that system, you wouldn't be allowed to run this year. Would you care?

Moot point; I didn't run the British Champs year
Moot point; they are not still using that system

Maybe mharky's scared of the tough competition from the older classes

there's enough competition on M21L, i'm the 161st best Brit. despite that people still seem to think that I am an elitist...

[Mrs H]

Gosh if middle distance races are ranking events - are the classed as Long or Short : ha ha ha

ps where is the last post from mharky which is visible on the reply page but not on the thread?

[mharky]

Good question...

Once upon a time I wasn't allowed to run the British Champs because I hadn't been to enough ranking events ... If they were still using that system, you wouldn't be allowed to run this year. Would you care?

Moot point; I didn't run the British Champs year
Moot point; they are not still using that system

Maybe mharky's scared of the tough competition from the older classes

there's enough competition on M21L, i'm the 161st best Brit. despite that people still seem to think that I am an elitist...

[greywolf]

Gosh if middle distance races are ranking events - are the classed as Long or Short : ha ha ha

Well currently ranking points from sprint races are credited to "long", d'oh. That's one bit of nonsense the single ranking list will banish...

[Clive Coles]

I think the working party have come up with a constructive set of questions which merits a full consultation. They have however introduced further fog into the agenda in this year of change.

That was, I fear, always on the cards ~ when ever you sit a different group of orienteers around a table they do a wide ranging investigation and come up with a considered set of arguments and recommendations. But they are not necessarily in phase with other groups that are also developing their own set of ideas.

BOF first of all translated District events into Local events ~ then the Rules group start suggesting that these events should really be upgraded to Regional status. Now we have the Ranking review committee suggesting we rank the larger Local events.

When we started out I think BOF had a "vision" ~ over the last 12 months there have been so many different attempts to define an event structure and a set of rules we have created ongoing confusion.

I am always amused by folk who seek to devise ranking systems that are "fair" to all. With the best will in the world different areas present different orienteering challenges. Some areas are a better test of orienteering technique than others. It is bound to be easier to accumulate ranking points at events where your age class leaders are not participating.

We do however need closure on these matters so that we can move forward.

I personally don't mind which way the argument gets resolved ~ I can just as easily fill the bottom slot of which ever ranking system we eventually adopt. I am sure many Sunday morning orienteers do enjoy a little local rivalry by scrutinising the results posted after the event. But that's as far as it goes. Ranking for me is not a big issue.

I am more concerned by the pressure that is coming from some quarters to stage more regional events on areas which hither too would not have been considered as providing a sufficient range of technical options.

I look at the new fixtures programme and see lots of events across the country staging a Black course. I presume the mappers in the less demanding areas have found some point features amongst the brambles and brashings to justify the inclusion of such courses. Perhaps runners on the Black course will just get extra distance by going round the forest on another loop !

I also see higher entry fees being charged for such events. I hope clubs don't shot themselves in the foot. At a time when money for families is especially tight this is not a time to be seeking to put up entry fees on the pretext of providing more of the same. If we get this wrong committed participation will decline.

Clive

[Mrs H]

Not disagreeing Clive but

Perhaps runners on the Black course will just get extra distance

I wasn't aware they were meant to be getting any more than that.

[EddieH]

Clive your comment on black courses seems to me very odd. If an area can technically stage a green then as long as it is big enough it can stage a black at just the same standard, (which will often not really reach TD5).

Your comment reads to me like it comes from someone who is stuck orienteering in bramble infested featureless patches in which case I doubt there is a lot of call for said black courses.

In the north of Scotland featureless areas are rare and significant brambles even rarer. So roll on lots of back courses here - whether they are nominated "local" or "regional" status, or inclded in ranking I am beyond caring.

[seabird]

I am more concerned by the pressure that is coming from some quarters to stage more regional events on areas which hither too would not have been considered as providing a sufficient range of technical options.

I think the problem here is the use of the word "Regional"

Under the previous system "Regional" events were really "Inter-regional" because they were protected from similar status events in neighbouring regions.

Under the new structure the use if the word "Regional" makes more sense as it refers to events protected within their own region.

The new structure wanted more quality events on more areas, and more local events. It seems to me to be succeeding in those objectives.

The prevarication over whether old C4s should be Regionals, which was confused by the need for Level 2 controllers, cannot have helped the RWG Not sure at what stage they decided to include some local events.

I am aware of 2 issues that still cloud this area - there may be others.

The Forest Enterprise agreement apparently has not been adapted so it demands higher access fees for "regional" events, meaning that some clubs, to keep event fees as they were, are keeping potentially "Regional" events registered as "Local" events.

Secondly apparently we can now have the smaller regional events controlled by experienced Level 2 controllers with the agreement of the Regional rep on one of the BOF groups (I know our relevant official but can't recall the group!) If someone could direct me to the document that says this and defines "experienced" I'd be grateful.

Inevitably some events of similar quality on embargoed areas may not meet this criteria and hence remain "Local" - despite being regionally protected.

Are these the issues that RWG was trying to address?

[IanD]

Perhaps we need an intermediate category for those "Local" events which offer a significant range of courses and would be suitable for inclusion in the Ranking List, while not being quite of "Regional" standard. Dare I suggest "District"?

[SeanC]

I think there is demand for black courses even in southern forests. There are those strange people that enjoy a 2 and a half hour marathon for the physical challenge as well as the navigation challenge. This might keep some who might otherwise leave the sport seeking something more physically challenging.

[madmike]

There are those strange people that enjoy a 2 and a half hour marathon

who are you calling strange it's perfectly normal behavoiur

[graeme]

2.5 hours? Don't flatter yourself...

29 Edwards,Mike RAFO 4:00:46 +2:23:13

:D

Black courses: most of these are a direct replacement for "M21L", not something new.

Drifting off topic ... Has any regular UK orienteer run a 2:30 marathon? Maybe Brian Hughes?

[wonderboy]

Rob Baker ran 2:30 at the London marathon.

[Silva Surfer]

I ran 2:29:58 in London 1988 - I know it's only 2 seconds - but if it had been the other way

[wonderboy]

according to his website, Graeme has run 2:38, but he may have gone faster elsewhere?