Elite and Age Class Sprints

[EddieH]

Do we want people to take the shorter formats seriously? I do - Along with probably a big majority of seasoned orienteers I saw sprint/ park/ urban orienteering as something that held no interest for me. I tried it because I happened to be at the World Cup in England - I discovered what a challenge and what fun it was.

The numbers are small because not enough people have yet been persuaded to try it, (although the JK must be helping). What sort of a message does it send to older competitors telling them that they can become a British Champion in their age group, but in the sprint they have to enter something much younger - a reasonable 45 against 35s and 40s - how much more a 65 or 70 against a 55?

Is this likely to entice more doubters to enter? I think not.

[SJC]

If you want good competition, you need big enough age groups - so merge some of the existing ones.

Does this mean better competition, or just more people in each age group with the older competitors proping up the results ?
Is an M65 really going to bother if he has to beat all the M55s in order to be a British Champion ?

[madmike]

IMHO you'll need more than 2 veteran groups if your ain is to increase participation - same argument as for relays at BOC and JK made on other threads methinks. i.e. people will feel its not for them.

M75 or M80 competing against M55 - hmmm

let's think inclusive if we want to get the numbers up not just front end of the field

[SeanC]

Looking in the results for this year, seems to be enough numbers and close times in age classes to make each age class competitive. The exceptions are 65+ and M/W35. I read that speed decrease per year of aging increases after aged 60, so seems unreasonable to put 65+ with younger competitors, but perhaps there is an argument for combining M/W35 with M/W 21 based on this years results?

I'm sure sprint O will get more popular as more try it. Gut feeling is that some kind of team competition might get more trying it. Has anyone tried sprint relays for example?

[mharky]

Yes.

Sprint orienteering is about seeing and making a route quickly. In a relay this just resulted in a lot of following. It's not like in a forest where you can all be heading roughly in the same direction, but spread laterally over 50m and one of you is going to spike the control, the rest aint, in urban environments you just all pile down the same path/road/alley etc.

[awk]

As another member of the Senior Competitions Group, I'm as equally pissed off with the Board's decision as Graeme, not least because of the total lack of consultation.

I'm not going to bother going into any depth of discussion why - I've pretty much reached the end of any sort of understanding of BOF decision making processes.

Spookster states that as part of the Board's discussions, they consulted with "key people" such as Events Committee. A pity that Events Committee did not consult with "key people" like those responsible for non-elite competitions. Given what I've seen, heard and read, the Board would have been given a completely different set of recommendations/proposals/reasons. As it is, the reasons given for the merger don't stand up under more than a couple of seconds scrutiny.

What's the point of asking a group to take responsibility for something, then at almost the first opportunity completely ignoring them? (Getting deja-vu here).

[distracted]

Awk - the events committee meeting was as close to a 50/50 split as is possible with an odd number of people when asked for their opinion.

But I still don't understand - what exactly is the objection to the decision?

Every other country in the world manages to hold everything at one event, so why can't we? Why do we consistently seem to be trying to reinvent the wheel?

I feel that the Scandi nations must be sitting there, looking at us and have a little snigger. After all, their system blatantly works and we choose to ignore it?!?


And even if you had a totally transparent decision-making system, no doubt there'll still be a section of the orienteering population who will moan - even after having chosen not to contribute to a consultation, they'll then claim they "haven't been listened to" and the decision is wrong... you can't win.

[graeme]

But I still don't understand - what exactly is the objection to the decision?

My objection is that it is a non-decision, as I said.

Have they considered format? No
Have they considered date? No
Are the elites or the age group having to give up their format? Don't know.

Demanding that the events be combined before resolving the above is stupid. The discussion here introduced many good ideas: personally I'd be happy with most of the proposed formats (though this isn't the case of people who I'm meant to represent at SCG).

But nopesport discussion (or SCG membership ) goes no further to resolving the question of what type of race is being officially proposed, and when.

Scandi ... system blatantly works and we choose to ignore it?!?

so you propose holding the Championships in the Autumn then

everyone I ever spoke to at Age-group or elite sprints has said our current system works. Why decide to break it, before even proposing a fix?

[distracted]

I was attempting to refer to orienteering in Scandinavia in general, not just when they hold their events. Personally, I wouldn't have any objections to the British Sprint Champs in the Autumn, as long as the spring racing programme was not compromised - there aren't enough decent-sized sprint events in the UK as it is.

To me, the decision is surely following the natural process for anything new:

1. We want to find the best UK sprint orienteers at all levels/ages?
A: Create the (all-encompassing) British Sprint Championships

2. How will the new competition work?
A: ...

What says the new competition has to use one of the existing formats? - you could come up with something completely new! If there's a want/need to keep the heat/final system for the elite (as I think there is) - does it have to be at the British Champs? Could be used at the UK Cup Final instead. The stand-alone age-class competition? - that'll exist for the grand total of two years... and going on numbers in its first year - slightly over 50% (260 vs 470) of those at the elite champs - it would be hard to argue it as an "established" event/format. Where's this so-called 'problem'?

[awk]

Distracted, it's hard in a shortish space to detail all the reasons why this decision is a bad one, but just to take a couple of the points you raise:

Let's consider the first question:
1. We want to find the best UK sprint orienteers at all levels/ages.
You say creat an all-encompassing BSC, but nobody has yet come up with a model for one that works. Until they do, what DOES work is the separate competition structure.

You say take a look at the numbers. The fact was that the age class event was in its first ever year, whilst the elite is now established and held in the centre of England, so one can't compare. However, the elite is increasingly popular partly because it IS an open event and it does give people a chance to compete across age classes. I for one would not be half so keen if it was an age class only event, and the only one available. Nothing like wrecking an established and growing format.

On date: the elite group have made it clear (understandably) that they are not prepared to compromise on date or format, so by merging the Autumn is now not a consideration - yet feedback from other quarters suggests that an Autumn date for the age class competition was a viability. A classic case of the age class championships being compromised by the merger even before other things are considered.

BTW, what do the Scandis do? As far as I knew (not looked lately), they tend to hold their elite championships completely separately from other age classes.

But what has got me really riled about this decision is that, first of all, you say events were almost exactly 50-50, but Senior Competitions, the group supposedly along with Junior Competitions responsible for age class competitions, were never asked to input. Were JCG either? (I understand no, but am not sure). So Events have ridden completely roughshod (yet again) over their specialist groups. So it's not so much wanting a more transparent decision system, it's wanting BOF to use the one it's got!!!

Secondly, the very reasons given by Graeme - it's a non-decision with none of the enabling detail considered and taken, if the reasoning given in the Board minutes are anything to go by, on very superficial grounds. The fact is that we have something that is working, and can be developed. Instead a merger is being forced that will benefit no-one, force unnecessary compromises, and with no particularly well-founded reasons for doing so.

[NeilC]

Should be an interesting conference on Sept 26th

[EddieH]

Is the current system working??????

As far as a serious age group championships is concerned I think not.

Having the age group sprint champs as a stand-alone event is NEVER going to encourage people to travel, and hence it will remain a parochial event and people won't take it seriously, thus reinforcing a common belief that it is only conventional long (45mins sometimes!!!!!!) events that count.

[Gross]

Should be an interesting conference on Sept 26th

What conference is that then? (found it on BOF website).

Thought it might be the Major Event Conference.... but can't find dates for that anywhere! Heard it was in September and was thinking of tagging along for a bit of fun

[awk]

Is the current system working??????
As far as a serious age group championships is concerned I think not.

On what basis? Based on a one-off event in Scotland at a time of year when every one has a lot of travelling, which still attracted 250-ish competitors,the response looked pretty good for a non-standard event, with lots of positive feedback from those who attended both events.

Having the age group sprint champs as a stand-alone event is NEVER going to encourage people to travel, and hence it will remain a parochial event and people won't take it seriously, thus reinforcing a common belief that it is only conventional long (45mins sometimes!!!!!!) events that count.

You don't know. Predictions of 400+ at the British Elite would have seemed pie in the sky not that long ago. These things take time to roll, and sprint orienteering is still a relatively new concept- some people always seem to want instant 'hits' nowadays, and maybe we just aren't in that world anymore (see The Longer Long Tail by Chris Anderson). And who said it needed to stand alone necessarily anyway? Simply separated from the British Elite is all that has been argued so far. But of course things have always got to be changed before being given a chance.

[EddieH]

AWK Hardly supirising "with lots of positive feedback from those who attended both events" as these are the people that made the effort/expense. These are not the people that need convncing.

On your last point I agree with you. Whether the Elite is separate or not doesn't bother me - I think it is the elite's needs that should be the primary concern here not those that simply wish to run both. What does bother me is having the middle as a combined event on one weekend and the sprint an entirely separate event.