4 Levels

[distracted]

The event structure should drive the ranking list.....

Disagree. The competition structure should drive the ranking list, as the ranking list is a competition.

The thing is, we don't have a competition structure at the moment. That's why we have the competitions review going on. But it is also the major reason why we're here arguing on this thread...

The motion being brought to the AGM shows that some people base their choice of events on the competition that they offer - i.e. the position of an event in the competition structure. This is what a fixtures list should be advertising, but if we don't have one then it can't... It not being there means people thinking that there is a problem with what is there - the events structure.

The AGM proposal is not magically going to turn this upside-down and give us a competition structure. A competition structure is far more complicated than 4 levels of event, and will vary considerably between the different age-groups and abilities within the sport. That's what the competitions review is for. An event structure should sit underneath the competition structure, and give some sort of technical/administrative/standards basis for the running of the events. The event structure should be almost invisible to the orienteer, and have little effect on event choice. I'd go as far as saying that if the competition structure is set up well/correctly, the level of an event in the events structure doesn't need to be advertised to the general population in the fixtures list.


We have ultimately gone wrong in defining the new events structure without initially having defined a competition structure to sit over it. The cock-up in implementation hasn't helped. But if things had been done the "right" way around - competitions review, then event structure, we probably wouldn't be in this mess...

[Mr Chips]

Several pages ago, when the world was young,

By the way, am I alone in feeling that the distinction between "events" and "competitions" is pretty blurred? (Don't all shout at once.)

No, it's clear that the majority of people don't understand the distinction between the two.

I'm glad it's not just me. Thanks.

I've just had another look at the survey referred to above - it seems to me to be largely about events and why we choose to go (or not go) to them.

To be honest, I'm still none the wiser.

What I'm trying to say is, wouldn't be a good idea to help people to understand the question before looking for answers?

[edited for typo]

[RJ]

......The thing is, we don't have a competition structure at the moment. That's why we have the competitions review going on. But it is also the major reason why we're here arguing on this thread......

I really don't agree with you distracted. The fundamental piece of the jigsaw is the event structure.... the things that clubs put on. We need a series of them that are pretty well standardised throughout the country. Events at different levels are then used, by whoever, to create various competitions. Each level will define various aspects of the events that they want standardised..... embargo etc etc.

I am adamant that there are four distinct levels of event, and there always has been, ever since I first started orienteering.... a few years ago now!! And there is no good in awk telling me that NO THERE ISN'T, and trying to bully me into disbelieving myself.

Over the years various competitions have come and gone and they have been 'hung' around the existing event structure. Even the new 'urban' races and urban maps still use a basic cross country course. The events are staged by clubs, or by a 'higher power', and fit into the four tiers accordingly.

In what way are we going to standardise the 'competitions'? We have already made the changes that are needed..... colour coded competition instead of fixed age classes. However, lets wait and see what the competition review comes up with.....because unless there is some quality, attribute, feature or characteristic that I am missing.... there just isn't anything special about competition other than what we have at the moment..... a changing and evolving system.

[EddieH]

[i]I am adamant that there are four distinct levels of event, and there always has been, ever since I first started orienteering.... [/i]

Oh yeah What level were the C5's then?

I always understood that there used to be 5 levels - there certainly were when we started orienteering at virtually the same time and same club.

[RJ]

Yep, quite right, but 1 and 2 were really the same. International and JK etc. 3, 4 and 5 were Regional, District and Local.... as you well remember EddieH.

[NeilC]

But isn't it that Level 2 (Harvester, top quality cross-country (aka National) events) that the AGM motion is attempting to restore?

[Mrs H]

Ha ha. Spot on Neil!

[Blonde bombshell]

Which brings us back to where we started......

Level 1 BOC, JK, Nationals etc

Level 2 Regional

Level 3 District

Level 4 Local

[seabird]

And where in that Blonde Bombshell are you placing the Long Os, the Middle Distance races, the Sprint races, the Urban races etc?

[Blonde bombshell]

'If it works, don't break it'

The 4 levels worked well. Everyone knew what was expected at each level.

Surely, the long O's, sprints races, urban races would fit into the old levels. Some (JK sprint?) would be level 1, some would be more ad hoc and would fit into level 4.

You cannot have different levels for every different format of orienteering. It's the standard of event that the levels refer to.

[awk]

'If it works, don't break it'
The 4 levels worked well. Everyone knew what was expected at each level. Surely, the long O's, sprints races, urban races would fit into the old levels.

Except there were 5 levels, and they weren't working well, partly because the new formats didn't fit in, and the level system was starting to break down. Which was why the event review group was set up. And despite what RJ says, there weren't 4 levels, and as has been pointed out, the one lot of those 5 that he says could fit neatly into level 1 are exactly those that are being separated out in the proposals. (And I've no idea why he thinks I'm bullying him - as far as I can see there was no abuse - he was simply factually wrong, and I was pointing out why).

You cannot have different levels for every different format of orienteering.

Agreed

It's the standard of event that the levels refer to.

That's the fundamental mistake that is being made time after time. The level does not refer to the standard, simply to the level of BOF organisation it comes under, as Spookster so clearly showed in his recent post. It used to try to refer to the standard - but part of the problem was that so many lower level events were actually organised and planned to a higher standard (including quality of terrain) than higher level events.

You say there are 4 levels. How, precisely, would you differentiate them in terms of criteria for each level, incorporating all the formats.

[awk]

We need a series of them that are pretty well standardised throughout the country.

Why?
and how are they to be standardised? You are somewhat vague on that, but surely have a more precise vision, given your passion for making this change? I'd be particularly interested, given the very large variations in formats etc now available.

[seabird]

Surely, the long O's, sprints races, urban races would fit into the old levels. Some (JK sprint?) would be level 1, some would be more ad hoc and would fit into level 4.

Well you don't mention the vast majority that would fit into either Level 2 or 3.

But let's look a bit more closely at Urban events,as an example.
All the proponents of 4 levels have talked about "High Profile" urban events being in Level 2, without explaining how "High profile" will be defined.

Most urban events have a long lead in (2 years) as the mapping etc takes a lot of time and/or expense. The vast majority of urban races hope to pitch to an audience that travels the country. So it is likely that most would pitch for Level 2 status.

However real Urban status is conferred by being nominated to be part of the Nope League. Not all events will be nominated by any stretch. The nomination happens at the very beginning of the year of each competition; Long after the proponents of the 4 level scheme would want level 2 events fitted into the fixtures list (presumably to ensure their "protection"). That's how it's worked in the past.

A 3 level scheme can accomodate the required flexibility; the 4 level scheme is most unlikely to offer the same flexibility without causing chaos as Event Levels are changed at the last moment, or can't be determined early enough.

i won't go into the difficulties that the embargo and event official guidelines, that will inevitably come with an extra level, are also likely to cause for events that currently function perfectly well. (I realise that the current guidelines have not been written with a careful understanding of the 3 level system - so have caused chaos in their own right.)

[Blonde bombshell]

Auk - can I just ask - were you part of the event review group?

I am an ordinary orienteer. I don't care about the level of organisation(BOF, Region, Club). I look at the event and decide if it is regional(badge) or district (colour coded). I have looked at the recent Aire events (level 2) and decided which were regional (which I would travel to) and district (which I probably wouldn't).

I understood this distinction as a beginner and will work like this for years to come. When were BOF members asked about a change?
Why do so many not understand the change?
You ask about criteria for the new formats into the 4 level system. I am not good at explaining the difference, but as I said before, the new formats should be able to fit in (JK sprint = 1, 'casual' urban = 4).
There are people out there who are far better at explaining then I am

[Gnitworp]

Auk - can I just ask.......

Careful, if you spell his name like that he might become extinct