British Middle Distance - Haverthwaite

[awk]

Just to say a huge thank you to LOC for what will undoubtedly be one of the events of the year for me. It's a long time since I've been on Haverthwaite, and it was an absolute joy from start to finish (and beyond!). The organisers of this event have set an extremely high standard for this event over the past couple of years - long may it continue!

[Paul Frost]

RouteGadget now available.
Sorry for the delay, but I needed to merge the 2 sets of data for each map scale.

[Spookster]

Just to say a huge thank you to LOC for what will undoubtedly be one of the events of the year for me. It's a long time since I've been on Haverthwaite, and it was an absolute joy from start to finish (and beyond!). The organisers of this event have set an extremely high standard for this event over the past couple of years - long may it continue!

I agree entirely - it really was a good event. Thanks LOC.

It looks like there were around 700 people competing on Saturday. This event will probably never be as popular as the British (Long) Champs, but it would be good to see it get to double its current size in the next few years. The difference between "traditional/long orienteering" and "middle distance orienteering" is much less of a step than the difference between "traditional" and "urban", which seems to be a step too far for some.

[graeme]

I must be the odd one out then. I found Haverthwaite boring and repetitive, running 25 near identical legs with a significant percentage of leg time to be saved if someone was at the control when you got nearby. This despite it being a fabulous area, very well organised, a beautiful assembly and a lovely day, and I even had a good enough run to win a medal in a class with a sensible number of competitors. The 2003 Short champs was much more challenging and interesting IMO (I would be interested to hear opinions of anyone else who ran both).

Chorley, by contrast, seemed to have all the elements of "proper" orienteering. Route choice, varied leg length, changing terrain, plus an excellent spectacle for the elite race finish: it's nice to see the top runners mess up! (even if not as badly as I did ).

[madmike]

You are not alone - I felt exactly the same way about both events

[awk]

I found Haverthwaite boring and repetitive, running 25 near identical legs with a significant percentage of leg time to be saved if someone was at the control when you got nearby.

Especially interesting, as we ran the same course. I found the way the planner ran us through different terrain types (diverting to go through at least one block that was distinctly different from the rest), varied the leg direction all over the place, and varied the pace needed, provided plenty of variety. Not certain how, for instance, Legs 11, 12 and 18 (course 4) could be described as near identical.

[graeme]

11. run 100 on a bearing, spot thicket attack point, visit control
12. run 100 on a bearing, spot awk attack point , visit crossing point...
run 100 on a bearing, spot fence attack point, visit crossing point...
run 100m on a bearing, spot col attack point (as used for 3), visit control
18. "run" 100m on a bearing, spot end of hill attack point. visit control.

So I see the crossing points to 12 aren't compulsory, but I don't see a much better route.

[Gnitworp]

As you know, Graeme, I agree with you in principle. Last Saturday, however, I made 3 enormous navigational howlers, two of them on fairly short legs, penalising my tendency to run out of controls too quickly without a proper strategy.

So short legs have their value, but I still maintain that 'middle' courses should be set with maximum intense, unrelenting navigational challenge as the overriding philosophical principle, rather than making the obligatory inclusion of many short legs a principle in itself. Simply set the technically hardest course of the appropriate length you can elegantly fit into the area.

Did the old 'Short' Courses have less of an identity crisis?

[LostAgain]

I agree with AWK and the following

but I still maintain that 'middle' courses should be set with maximum intense, unrelenting navigational challenge as the over-riding philosophical principle,

which I thought was achieved and say I found the Saturday event superb. I also ran in 2003 and was not dissappointed in 2010. I'm bound to say that as it is rare that the rest of the field is reduced to allowing me to be within a minute or so of a medal

AND eldest is a British Champion

[awk]

So you used compass and attack points. Basic techniques that one should use on every control, and how I could describe 90% of legs if I wanted to simplify my description of what was going on (although on at least one of those legs, my own view was that following a compass line was a time loser).

If it was route choice you were after, well no there wasn't a huge amount, but that was pretty much the only thing that was missing - and where there was one, both you and I missed it and lost time as a result, and on no. 12 there are certainly quite a variety of routes chosen, with different risk factors etc. thrown in (for instance, over the top was certainly as fast, possibly faster, but riskier in my view).

Personally, I found the course pretty unrelenting in its demands - you couldn't let up concentration for a second, and if you did, it was likely to bit you back. Looking at route gadget, there are very few, even amongst the faster runners so far, who managed to avoid making at least one substantial error, sometimes more. This was one of those courses that worked on a cumulative basis, and very effectively too by the looks of it.

[distracted]

I found Haverthwaite boring and repetitive, running 25 near identical legs.

Agree to a certain extent. The terrain is at Haverthwaite is most definitely navigationally challenging, but the part of the area used for the event was often of the same 'nature' which can reduce the difficulty for some by cutting the number of techniques you have to use.

The 2003 Short champs was much more challenging and interesting IMO

Has anyone got a map of this to share so we can form our own opinions?


I wonder whether we have been getting/having forced upon us the wrong impression of what a 'middle' race should be - making the course tick a particular set of boxesinstead of using some imagination and flair in course planning. Graeme's picked up on a couple of things I've experienced with UK middle races in the more technical terrain - too many controls, and not enough variation.

Before the race, I tried to get an idea what the course might be like by planning a 'sample' course. It seemed very difficult to obtain a 4.6km course with 29 controls - first attempt was about 5.2km with 22 controls, and cutting out length whilst adding in more controls was a challenge. But the guessed course did use more of the map than we seem to have been on at the event - Routegadget shows the controls are mainly on the central "plateau," apart from at the end of the courses. Was this a deliberate choice, or were the contrasting western/southern slopes off-limits? Was there scope for a few more 300m+ legs, even if half the leg is simple because of paths/the criss-crossing of walls and fences, to break the course up with a bit of faster pace running to 'con' you into breaking the concentration? Was reducing climb a restriction in the courses we got? I think there was opportunity for contrasts within the courses, which didn't seem to get used.

The World Cup middle on Leith Hill is still up there as the best planned middle course I've seen in the UK in my time in the sport. Clever use of the terrain forcing changes of pace and technique means it isn't just a control pick like some recent races...

with a significant percentage of leg time to be saved if someone was at the control when you got nearby.

This was a bit of a let-down for me - many of the kites were very tucked away, so that on a number of occasions the feature could be seen, but the flag was well hidden. It was verging on unfair at certain points on the course. Did the planners think the courses weren't technically challenging enough otherwise?

[RichardE]

[quote="distracted"
This was a bit of a let-down for me - many of the kites were very tucked away, so that on a number of occasions the feature could be seen, but the flag was well hidden. It was verging on unfair at certain points on the course. Did the planners think the courses weren't technically challenging enough otherwise? [/quote]

This is an interesting discussion. I very much enjoyed my course and the whole day, but since it was my first Middle event and my first Brit Champs of any sort, perhaps I'm not qualified to comment further.
However, I compete regularly in the Lakes and I thought the control placement was exactly as I expected. On my visits to other parts of the country I have sometimes been surprised by flags being more visible than I expect.
If I'm approaching a small crag from above or whatever, I don't expect to see the flag until I'm absolutely on the spot.

Richard

[awk]

Was there scope for a few more 300m+ legs, even if half the leg is simple because of paths/the criss-crossing of walls and fences, to break the course up with a bit of faster pace running to 'con' you into breaking the concentration?

Well we certainly had that - maybe not longer legs, but a lot of pace variation. You don't need longer legs for that.

I wonder whether we have been getting/having forced upon us the wrong impression of what a 'middle' race should be - making the course tick a particular set of boxesinstead of using some imagination and flair in course planning.

What, you mean like a box to tick for including the compulsory longer leg?

This was a bit of a let-down for me - many of the kites were very tucked away, so that on a number of occasions the feature could be seen, but the flag was well hidden. It was verging on unfair at certain points on the course. Did the planners think the courses weren't technically challenging enough otherwise?

We only had one control that I would have described as perhaps overly hidden. The rest of the time if you could see the feature, you saw the control, bearing in mind that the feature was often more precise than just (e.g.) knoll, but more precisely placed and described. If a control is described as knoll SW end, then I wouldn't expect to see it unless at the SW end of the knoll. They were no more tucked away on Saturday than I've experienced most of the time in Scandinavia.

[Homer]

Boring?!! I can't see how anyone could describe that as boring.

It was so intense that there was no chance of getting bored. The relentless pressure of trying the keep track of which leg you were doing whilst working out where to go next was too much for me. I never settled into any sort of rhythm and made the mistake of trying to go ever faster the more time I lost. The result: a complete disaster. Personally very disappointing after a good start to the season. It was exactly the same last year.

I can only conclude that Middle Distance racing is a very different sport to the normal long distance race. I am determined to master it. We need more ordinary middle distance races (at Level 2, 3 or whatever...) so that people like me can get some practice.

Thanks to LOC for an excellent event. Please can we have another one soon (on Haverthwaite, Bigland, Great Tower, Graythwaite or any other wooded lakeland area)?

[RichardE]

Thanks to LOC for an excellent event. Please can we have another one soon (on Haverthwaite, Bigland, Great Tower, Graythwaite or any other wooded lakeland area)?

We went to the LOC Technical event last Wed evening at Great Tower. Control placement was same as Haverthwaite, but the flags were laid flat on the ground, no stakes. Very difficult but also very good practice.