Elite and Age Class Sprints

[awk]

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.

I agree, but given that numbers at the elite event have risen steadily over the past few years, it is a growing number, so I don't see a problem at present, rather the opposite.

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.

I agree that the elite's needs are most important for the elite race, but also it's the seniors/juniors who should not have to compromise over age class champs either. The fact is that by combining the two, there will be compromise, and given the way things go, it will be age class champs that has to compromise and be compromised, and I think that's wrong for a national championship. The current elite format works - so don't mess with it (unless the elite want to mess with it!).

I agree with your last sentence, but I advocate keeping them separate, not merging, so that there is an age class short distance weekend, and an elite short distance weekend. Much simpler, less compromise, more flexibility, easier to host by assocs, more focused, and because markets are more focused, not the fixtures congestion issue that has been raised.

[mharky]

I agree that the elite's needs are most important for the elite race

I'd imagine all elite runners would want is a good area, good map, good course and good elite competition on a weekend in spring. That should come standard with any British Championships; elite, veteran or combined. It's not important to elite if their are veterans on the course or watching at the finish. It's nice, but not important.

Veterans and Juniors have far more needs, mainly with the division of age groups.

[awk]

I agree that the elite's needs are most important for the elite race

I'd imagine all elite runners would want is a good area, good map, good course and good elite competition on a weekend in spring. That should come standard with any British Championships; elite, veteran or combined. It's not important to elite if their are veterans on the course or watching at the finish. It's nice, but not important.
Veterans and Juniors have far more needs, mainly with the division of age groups.

I can't disagree with any of that, but my understanding is that it's elite competitions group who wanted the events to merge, not junior competitions or senior competitions. I don't know how much, if any, of that influenced the Board though, but if all three had said that they were either not bothered or didn't want the merger, and the Board knew that......?

[mharky]

It's strange that the elite competitions group would want to see the events combined. It makes no difference to elite racing whether the vets champs is there or not. As I have mentioned, as long as the quality of the event is maintained then the elites will be happy.

I know that elite athletes were consulted. What about Vets? Clearly, many vets are not happy about the merger as they like to be able to take part in the elites, which is a great event, and then have their own age championships.

They only benefit I can see from combining the two is for BOF as marketing and publicity purposes. Will any competitors benefit? No. Surely the aim of our NGB and it's event groups is the quality of delivery of orienteering to its members. However, it seems that nowadays they make decisions which are beneficial to themselves and bringing them inline with UK Sport and Sport England policy which isn't drawn up with orienteering in mind.

[graeme]

It's not important to elite if their are veterans on the course or watching at the finish. It's nice, but not important.

I believe next year's "vets" include Jon Duncan, Jamie Stevenson and Dan Marston ...
The event history shows the 20s are pretty successful too.

[mharky]

A wee bit pedantic...

There is clearly a field of athletes who are competitive at the British Elites, this does contain some 35's and juniors.

My point is, there are a group of athletes who are competitive at the British Elite's. The event which is designed to crown a British Champion. Some of these people are "veteran" or junior. There are many more people who are not is this group, their attendance to the race doesn't have a significant outcome on the proceedings.

Is there not a junior elite class at the events anyway? I was certainly blamed for not handing back the M20E trophy for several years despite running non-comp in that race.

[graeme]

I think its a proper race where the fastest person is the winner, and slower people are not the winner. I don't think there's a junior Championship - I think M20 etc is at the age groups. Would have been a farce this year...

In the A final
Ralph Street was the only M20 finisher
Nick Barrable was the only M35
Peter Hodkinson the only M18
Jonathan Crickmore was the only M16

I've no problem with giving these guys awards for their great runs in qualifying - but "British Champion" without actually beating anyone? C'mon...

If you'd siphoned the non-M21s off into "age-group" races, you'd lose a quarter of the A-finalists, and dilute the feature that Dave Peel specifically wanted - that qualifying should be tough. So I think it would impact even on the potential elite medallists.

Then if the elites have to use the age-group two race format, combining the events will have a massive effect: please let that W75 punch first - she's more likely to be British Champion than you are...
Even if you have different formats, the veterans will organise - and as you know, these are the people for whom February and TioMila are perfectly good dates for championships.

What is proposed? Who knows? but it seems it will be discussed at a "major events conference" where there will surely be more vets than elites.

[roadrunner]

They only benefit I can see from combining the two is for BOF as marketing and publicity purposes. Will any competitors benefit? No. Surely the aim of our NGB and it's event groups is the quality of delivery of orienteering to its members. However, it seems that nowadays they make decisions which are beneficial to themselves and bringing them inline with UK Sport and Sport England policy which isn't drawn up with orienteering in mind.

I think that's a bit unfair. I don't agree with what I see as the over-concentration on Sport England and UK Sport policy either, but marketing the sport is a necessary role for an NGB - otherwise, who's going to fund it? Do we want to pay a lot higher membership fees and/or event levies? I don't think so!

As to whether a combined event is actually better from that point of view, I'm not sure.

[greywolf]

I think its a proper race where the fastest person is the winner, and slower people are not the winner. I don't think there's a junior Championship - I think M20 etc is at the age groups. Would have been a farce this year...

er...the Junior Champs was at the Nottingham Uni Elite race, at least according to BOF... News Item posted 9th May (sorry can't seem to link direct) says:

"Ralph Street won the Junior title with an impressive fourth place finish in the Mens elite race whilst Joanna Halliday won the Junior womens title with equal 9th place in the womens final, just ahead of W16 Charlotte Watson."

[gg]

Having a combined champs makes sense from some points of view - much of the organisation does not have to be duplicated - only need to get a team of officials together once, spreads the expenses, and most importantly probably - the cost. Having one off elite races is very expensive, as BOF will testify after the WOC test races. You cannot justify a new professional map very easily if only 50 people are going to enter the race and pay max £10-12 each.

With separate 21s elite class at a combined champs, make the final harder to qualify by reducing the number in the final! Could be as few as 12 or 15! Only 4 from each heat or similar.

[mharky]

Every time I've run BEOC the Junior Elite has been there. That's how it should be.

It's like Wimbledon & Junior Wimbledon. Except British people do a bit better at BEOC.

[Adventure Racer]

Every time I've run BEOC the Junior Elite has been there. That's how it should be.

It's like Wimbledon & Junior Wimbledon.

For the sprint (held with a qualifier/final format as the Elite is) it's not at all like Wimbledon and Junior Wimbledon. Those are two separate competitions held at the same venue at the same time. Juniors can take part in both the junior and the senior competition. The orienteering Elite Sprint is like awarding the Junior title to whichever junior happens to get furthest in the main draw - if you happen to be the best junior in the world yet get drawn against Federer in the first round then that's just tough.

The usual suggestion of putting each age group into it's own heat to decide the age group title in a qualifier/final race is rather spoilt by the number of top level M35s next year. Putting all of those together in one heat would upset the elite seeding system somewhat!

Not that I can see why there needs to be an M35 (or indeed M45) sprint title. I get the comments about M65s not having a chance against M60s, but down at the younger age groups that's surely not such an issue, and 5 year age bands seem too tight. Then again following that argument to it's logical conclusion, does a 64 year old stand a chance against a 59 year old, so should we have even smaller bands? Or should people accept they're just not going to be in with a chance of winning a prize every year in veteran age group classes?

[awk]

Having a combined champs makes sense from some points of view - much of the organisation does not have to be duplicated - only need to get a team of officials together once, spreads the expenses, and most importantly probably - the cost. Having one off elite races is very expensive, as BOF will testify after the WOC test races. You cannot justify a new professional map very easily if only 50 people are going to enter the race and pay max £10-12 each.

With separate 21s elite class at a combined champs, make the final harder to qualify by reducing the number in the final! Could be as few as 12 or 15! Only 4 from each heat or similar.

But the British Elite Champs didn't only attract 50 this year - something over 400 at Nottingham! Over 25% of the A finalists were not M/W21. By taking them out of either the elite races or the age class races, one or both competitions will be devalued, and nobody has yet successfully created a formula to merge the two competitions into one format. If they were taken out of the elite races, then reducing the A-final numbers wouldn't necessarily make the elite races harder to get into - may be even easier.

[distracted]

Awk - if you're so concerned about competitions being devalued then look at results from the elite champs over the past 5 years to tell you more. A snapshot:

Non-21s in A-final top 10: 14 (/100) - inc. 13 juniors
Non-21s in A-final top 5: 1 (/50) - Ralph's 4th place this year.
Juniors in A-finals: 45 (inc 4 16s)
Vets (40+) in A-finals: 7, all in 2006 where the elite field looks weak.

Observations:
- Age class/elite competition 'clash' mostly happens at the junior elite level.
- Vets don't have a great deal of chance of getting in the A-finals unless the elites don't turn up.

So, using the above evidence to come up with a format, you could have:

- Heats for all 16-35s. 16s, Junior elite and Senior elite finals, running the same course. Meaningful 16/18/20 age-class awards, and you can see where the top juniors stand in the elite champs. Given the low number of 35s, perhaps top non-qualifying 35 from each heat runs senior elite final, 35 age-class based on this?

- Rest of the age classes can have 'qualifying courses' (some could be the same as the elite 'heats'), if there are enough runners have A finals for them, if not use them to seed the start list for the final. No concern with the elite results here.

And keep the recognition of the elite A finals by running them when no-one else is running, as has been done for at least the last couple of years.

[awk]

Distracted, you make a fair point, and your model might be viable (haven't thought it through in any depth), but given that there is a generation of younger orienteers with experience of elite sprint starting to get older now, the age breakdown could well change.

The fact is, though, this should have been part of the discussion BEFORE the Board decision was made, not looking for a way to solve the situation the Board has created, without input from or consultation with specialist groups. Their decision now severely limits options (and the reasons don't stand up to much scrutiny), particularly given the understandable desire of elite competitions group not to compromise. And your model effectively represents a change in format......