Competition Review

[RJ]

There has been a proliferation of event types/disciplines over the last ten years with the flourishing of Urban, Sprint, Park, Middle, Short, Ultra Sprint etc forms of the sport. This has led to a congestion in the upper end of the competition structure.... that is, the regional/national level, where they all attempt to hold a Championship standard event each year. This has often led to complaints from people who wish to do them all!..... and then find that there are clashes that can't be dealt with. Should we worry?

Personally I feel that the various disciplines are really good for the sport and that the traditional 'long' or 'classic' distance is not the be all and end all of orienteering. Each of the disciplines will attract an audience, with some developing their own specific clientelle, while others will have a large crossover with other disciplines.

The competition review must take account of the different (new and emerging forms) disciplines and do its best to embrace the different strands and not to let any one of them fragment and become isolated. Just because Urban racing doesn't attract and satisfy every current orienteer, doesn't mean that that discipline should develop outside the mainstream. Embrace all these new forms of the sport. There is plenty of room for another 100,000 runners, and plenty of opportunity for crossover for them.

[graeme]

I think the interesting question is whether there should be a lot of "different disciplines", or whether what we're seeing is a lot more imagination about where you can have a map reading race, and how long it should be.

e.g. Although Chorley was labelled "Sprint", the real challenge of the racing was coping with "Urban", "Park" and "Forest Control Picking" all within 15 minutes. I hope the competitions review doesn't prescribe "different disciplines" and kill the scope for innovation. We've finally got away from the mentality of "if you're M21 your race must be 69 minutes long, regardless of the area", let's have the best possible courses on the widest variety of maps, not slide back to "Your race must be 69, 35 or 14 minutes long".

And yes, we should worry about clashes. Basically they come about because all the "Championship" races are shoehorned into a short spring season. Allegedly this is for the benefit of the elite, but looking at the BOC start list it doesn't seem to be working. The obvious solution is to use the Autumn season, as they do in Scandinavia. Taking Chorley again, it's wasteful hold that type of race at a time when the forests are in their best - it would have been just as good in October.

[Gnitworp]

let's have the best possible courses on the widest variety of maps, not slide back to "Your race must be 69, 35 or 14 minutes long".

What was the recent event at Wheal Florence on a 1:2500 scale map with a 1.25m contour interval, won by gg in 24 min (see his course assessment in the next CompassSport), that went down rather well with those who attended? I should think it would give the 'standardisation of disciplines' exponents apoplexy.

[RJ]

.....in the next CompassSport.....

Unfortunately you will have to wait till the June issue..... pressure of space.

[SeanC]

I think there is a natural tendancy for some competitions aimed at increasing participation, like local leagues, to discourage innovative formats. For example a regional galoppen built on colour coded events. Clubs feel obliged to provide the X number of events they have always done in the same format, leaving less time for innovative events in a climate of gently declining numbers of volunteers. Then there are the national competitions like Harvesters, Compass Sport cup etc that have strict rules and regulations and need committees to change them.

The former problem just needs clubs and regions to make regular reviews of their events and competitions, and sometimes make some difficult decisions to change or scrap competitions. This can be difficult as orienteers don't always agree with each other. I'm not sure how this national review can really help these local competitions - seems like a job for development officers to encourage orienteers to talk about their local competitions ... so I assume they will be focusing mainly on the national competitions? I hope there are some interesting, radical ideas (which will provide some good debate here ).

[IanD]

I think there is a natural tendency for some competitions aimed at increasing participation, like local leagues, to discourage innovative formats.

There's needn't be a conflict between having a regional league and having a mix of event types. Classic, middle-distance & sprint could all fit into the same league - the IOF have World Ranking events in all three disciplines without any apparent problem.

Not to mention the Kent Night Cup which SeanC is heavily involved with, which mixes forest and urban events.

[SeanC]

Fair point Ian. Competitions are perhaps less constraining than our image of what a Random Valley League event should be/has been

I'm down to do the last Kent Orienteering League* event next year and I'm thinking I should do something different for the experienced orienteers as it's a bit of a boring area (though good for the end of season picnic).

* typical local league with 4 cross country courses/league for each one

[harry]

You could include a spreading system and give them a mass start or 15 seconds start interval.

Here is an example of a spreading system used at Trondheim Sprint Cup (usually at least 4 combinations, with all classes except for young juniors running this A course, 15 sec start interval) http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_acNp44FFX9E/S ... 1_2010.jpg

UK course planners seem to have taken bog standard small butterfly loops to their hearts but there are of course lots of variations on this theme that can be used.

See also Norwegian Night Champs (4 combinations with a map exchange after the 1st 2 variants have been run) http://www.tulospalvelu.fi/gps/20100416nattnmD21/

You may be thinking that this makes planning and programming the electronic punching system overly complicated but remember you then only need to plan 1 course (with a little imagination) and once you get used to the programming it is probably not too difficult.

I would love to see more of these systems used in the UK and loops involving map exchanges etc at some races because it will prepare our homegrown athletes for more of these additional elements and continuing to orienteer well under different circumstances. FVO do a great job with their mass start mid-week night races. I ran one of these and it just used loops but they were at least of slightly different lengths - too often planners use butterfly loops with just small loops of equal length.

Let's have more variety!
Maybe there is already but not from the maps I have seen / few races I have been at.

[harry]

BUT.. (there is always a but)
I'm not a fan of planners who put in these elements for no reason, spoiling the actual orienteering element or great terrain*. But if it is a mass start or to make use of a small or "boring" area or to allow lots of people to race the same course with a very short start interval then it's great!.
*the Men's course at Norwegian night champs was an example - perhaps they should have had their map exchange in the forest like us & the juniors instead of in the arena - the terrain around the arena was not so interesting.

[graeme]

Why do you want to spread people out? Surely its best to be running alongside the opposition? Of course, you don't want people to follow, but these methods don't seem to achieve that - you know where the course forks and where you can safely follow.

[awk]

There has been a proliferation of event types/disciplines over the last ten years with the flourishing of Urban, Sprint, Park, Middle, Short, Ultra Sprint etc forms of the sport. This has led to a congestion in the upper end of the competition structure.... that is, the regional/national level, where they all attempt to hold a Championship standard event each year.

I take on board the thrust, but as far as I know there has been no attempt at holding national/championship standard events in urban, park, short and/or ultra-sprint orienteering. (Are there any plans?). Aren't they currently focused on the three distances plus relays and night orienteering?

[graeme]

I think RJ has chosen his words carefully: "Championship standard event" isn't rigorously BOFdefined. But, for example, JOK has always aspired to run the Chasing Sprint to the highest possible standards, to attract a field from across the country, and to be the most prestigious race of its format. So I guess that's the sort of thing he's thinking of.

Similarly with the London city race, Sheffield ultra-sprint, Perth PWT. They may not have the BOF seal of approval, but they aspire to be the best and consequently cause fixtures congestion.

[RJ]

Exactly right graeme. It is the top tiers of event that will give the competition review the most 'soul searching'. These are the major, attactive and most widely 'competitive' events that require the most fixture protection. However, as there are more and more of these 'biggies' being put forward to attract the top competitors the more difficult the protection is to achieve.

These level 1 and 2 events are the ones that aspire to stand on the national stage. We may find that they will have to content themselves with a fragmenting audience. The Urban races are attracting a particular audience and many may choose London over a top class middle race in the Trossachs. We'll see. This audience does, however, only make up a fairly small percentage (significant though!) of those who orienteer.

The lower tiers of the event structure, club and "district" levels are where the bulk (90%?) of the orienteering takes place. This is where our future competitors learn their trade and the structure should reflect that development. IMO it is important to have a strong colour coded event structure for this development. We shouldn't try to reinvent these events or to make them 'exciting formats'. Club events can have a wide variety of format to keep the regular club members engaged.

So how do we populate some of these tiers? Is the Harvester a level 1 event? I would say yes! How much 'fixture protection' should the Cadihoe Chase have? Should the Cumbrian Galoppen series of colour coded events have any protection at all? Where would something like the Maize Maze go? Is that just a one off novelty event?.... but it does sound such good fun that surely it would be great to have that available to a much wider audience.

Have the competitions review group published any initial thoughts about their remit? Lets have something to debate please!! Tell us what you are doing!

[harry]

Why do you want to spread people out? Surely its best to be running alongside the opposition? Of course, you don't want people to follow, but these methods don't seem to achieve that - you know where the course forks and where you can safely follow.

Is it ever safe to follow?

With well planned courses the system is not always so clear and we often have a map exchange. If the whole course is on your map then you can begin to understand where the course forks but even then if you are racing and really focused on the orienteering you do not really have time to think about things like that. Granted with bog standard butterfly loops it is obvious.

There are many reasons to spread people. To avoid a traffic jam for example. It is not a nice experience to be stuck in a line of runners or to have to fight to punch at a control. You still get a head to head feel even when others are 20m away running a different line to a different control.

Totally agree about those races in Chorley. I'm sure they were great races but with the circumstances in the UK it would be sensible to shift the British Sprint Champs to the Autumn season. With the 2 "Centres of Excellence" lying in cities with little technical terrain on the doorstep (but presumably a wide variety of sprint spec. maps?) and the nature of orienteering meaning most athletes have to hold down some kind of job it makes sense for them to use mid week races for their sprint preparation and then get out to some technical terrain some weekends/ training camps.

[awk]

Exactly right graeme. It is the top tiers of event that will give the competition review the most 'soul searching'. These are the major, attactive and most widely 'competitive' events that require the most fixture protection.

No, no, no, no, no!!!!!! That is the nightmare scenario (and for me the big elephant in the corner of the 4-tier scheme proposals).

These events do not require protecting. If they are good enough, others will not want to clash with them. But to legislate protection - that is the route for stifling events and creating congestion.

The lower tiers of the event structure, club and "district" levels are where the bulk (90%?) of the orienteering takes place. This is where our future competitors learn their trade and the structure should reflect that development. IMO it is important to have a strong colour coded event structure for this development. We shouldn't try to reinvent these events or to make them 'exciting formats'.

Couldn't disagree more: there is plenty of scope at this level for a wide range of formats, and the bulk of those events will be at this level. After all, level 2 is supposedly only for "prestigious" urban races and the "best" of the old regional (2 generations ago as it will be) events (not that I ever believed that claim for one second). I certainly wouldn't want to see my club taking such a hugely retrogressive step as to limit itself to bog standard colour coded type events at this level.