MTBO - discredit certainly not deserved

[the exile]

DIDSCO wrote: With all respect to those that compete in MTB-O, TRAIL-O, SKI-O, CANOE-O, BIATHLON-O, ALC-O, your achievements are great but cannot be compared to those of our best orienteers (I don't agree with the term foot-o, so I'm not going to use it). These sports are novelty variations of the real thing.....bit like underwater rugby, crazy golf, bog-swimming, 100m sprint in high heels, and womens football

And AWK responded: Maybe said in jest, but unadulterated rubbish.

Dids,

Your comment if it really was not made in jest, certainly merits discussion hence this separate thread.

I really do hope that you are jesting, or maybe you have lived too long in Sweden?
but I have to take issue with you and wholeheartedly back AWK's response.

MTBO is certainly a very established variant of orienteering in many European countries, especially Central Europe but also Denmark, Finland, Russia etc. A fact confirmed by more than 500 competitors at the recent World Cup weekend's racing in Hungary, even if not in Sweden although MTBO is now being re-established in Sweden after a decade of minimum or no activity. See the SOFT website.

You may not have tried it, you may not like it, but to discredit it as you have done in your statement, as well as being wrong, doesn't do MTBO any favours and also doesn't make you look very smart. Do you really mean what you stated?

For what it's worth, I also hate the "foot-o" tag. Orienteering is orienteering on foot, other variants should be tagged accordingly - ski-o, mtbo, trail-o etc.
(Foot) orienteering does not need a tag - it is just orienteering.

[DIDSCO]

Im not afraid to say what I think. In my opinion "your achievements are great but cannot be compared to those of our best orienteers" and as such the whole point being, that I'm not convinced that a medal in one of these variations of the real thing is worthy of honoury BOF membership. Hopefully one day these sports will develop further and I'll change my opinion.

Although these variations of 'o' are in the novelty league of sports, I'd say they're a division higher than the 100m high heel sprint .....but there's no getting away from the fact that they're unusual variations of real orienteering, and therefore a novelty. Just as orienteering is an unusual variation of cross-country running, and therefore a novelty in this sense. Just because a sport is classed as a novelty doesn't mean its not fun and competitive........but there are differences in class between sports, though hard to define. We all rate the World Cup in football much higher than the World Cup in Beach football, its a much tougher way to the top and should be honoured as such. Even within orienteering we rate winning the JK relay much higher than winning the British relay.

[the exile]

'Foot' orienteering and MTBO both require a map and demand high-level (albeit slightly different) orienteering skills.

Foot orienteering and MTBO are both endurance sports and require hard and specific training to achieve top international results.

To use your analogy - if orienteering is just an unusual variation of cross-country running, then MTBO is just an unusual variation of competitive cycle racing.

How therefore is MTBO any more of a novelty in your eyes than 'foot' orienteering?
Maybe because you have no direct experience?
Using your argument above, surely they must be equally 'worthy'?

[keever]

We all rate the World Cup in football much higher than the World Cup in Beach football, its a much tougher way to the top and should be honoured as such. Even within orienteering we rate winning the JK relay much higher than winning the British relay.

I think this is the main point, if there were as many people competing in MTBO as there were in standard orienteering then I'd rate medal winners just as highly as each other in each discipline. The same goes for women's competition versus men's, the competition in men's sport is always greater.
If someone was to choose to either start orienteering or MTBO i'm pretty sure they'd have a better chance of some day winning a world champs medal if they chose MTBO.
It's not that i think MTBO is any more of a novelty or that it's easier but it is easier to get to the top.

[MTB-O-MAPS]

Exile, I think you are missing the point.

It's not the validity of orienteering or MTB-orienteering as sports. They are both sports, as are football and cycleball (serisouly, check the UCI Website).

What Dids is commenting on is that the standard of MTBO is less than for orienteering. There is undeniably a disparity between the level of competition for these two disciplines. A top 10 at MTB WOC is not the same as a top 10 at WOC. Some medals are harder to win than others.

I enjoy both disciplines, but I am under no illusion that MTB-O is more competitive than normal orienteering. Top international orienteers are national level runners. Matt Speake won a British Champs fell race. Carsten Jorgenson won the European XC Champs. This level of athlete, or should I say cyclist, is not yet present in MTBO.

[the exile]

I would like to point out that I am discussing international MTBO standards and the standing of the sport internationally, not the actual or perceived status of MTBO in Britain as the original contentious statement concerned the status of a possible future MTBO world champs medallist from Britain

KEEVER wrote: I think this is the main point, if there were as many people competing in MTBO as there were in standard orienteering then I'd rate medal winners just as highly as each other in each discipline. The same goes for women's competition versus men's, the competition in men's sport is always greater.

This implies that you would therefore rate men's medal winners higher than women's medal winners?
You are very brave to go there ....

If someone was to choose to either start orienteering or MTBO i'm pretty sure they'd have a better chance of some day winning a world champs medal if they chose MTBO. It's not that i think MTBO is any more of a novelty or that it's easier but it is easier to get to the top.

Easier to get to the top -Really? Not if they couldn't read a bike ...
Seriously though , that is quite a bizarre statement. On what grounds? Based on a pure mathematical assessment of probability based on numbers at the base of the pyramid might be correct, but does not take into account the standard at the apex of the pyramid. On what do you base your opinion? Do you have direct experience of international MTBO racing?

MTBO O_MAPS wrote:What Dids is commenting on is that the standard of MTBO is less than for orienteering. There is undeniably a disparity between the level of competition for these two disciplines. A top 10 at MTB WOC is not the same as a top 10 at WOC. Some medals are harder to win than others.

There may be a disparity in numbers (after all MTBO is a far younger orienteering discipline than 'foot' orienteering) BUT to state categorically that there is 'undeniably' a disparity between the two disciplines in terms of standard is also without foundation. On what basis do you base this view?

I am under no illusion that MTB-O is more competitive than normal orienteering. Top international orienteers are national level runners. Matt Speake won a British Champs fell race. Carsten Jorgenson won the European XC Champs. This level of athlete, or should I say cyclist, is not yet present in MTBO.

Again a bizarre and completely erroneous statement without any foundation. Do you actually know the cycling background of the top international MTBO racers?
Whilst there is no MTBO Carsten (yet) (and he was an exceptional athletic talent, even if never winning points for running style) there are many MTBO racers who are also top level MTB racers in their own countries. I could you name you one MTBO WOC medallist who was just outside the very best in his country and chose to remain in the MTBO world rather than succumb to pressure to take prohibited substances in order to make his national team for the Olympics. But that touches on another topic all together.

I would also contend that just as most top level orienteers are not exactly international standard runners either (there are a few exceptions of course - Mårten Boström of Finland being one current example) precisely because they train for the demands of the sport - fast running through the terrain whilst navigating . That is also the case for top level MTBO racing - fast riding in all kinds of tracks and obstacles whilst navigating at speed...

[DIDSCO]

Exile > I really like the passion you've got for your sport. Anybody that's willing to fight their corner and push their sport forward, perhaps changing public opinion in the process, I'll give a lot of respect to, regardless of whether I agree with you or not.

[Mrs H]

Nicely said

[the exile]

DIDSCO wrote: I really like the passion you've got for your sport. Anybody that's willing to fight their corner and push their sport forward, perhaps changing public opinion in the process, I'll give a lot of respect to, regardless of whether I agree with you or not.

Respect back:) even if we do not share the same view. You do know me although you don't know who I am.

'My sport' is orienteering - full stop. My background is both in that horrible term 'foot-o' and in MTBO. I have competed and team managed at World Championships and World Cups in both disciplines and so consider that I do have some platform on which to make a reasoned comparison of the elite levels in both IOF disciplines. I actually do know what I am talking about.

And I am not connected in any way with the British MTBO team, but it really does piss me off when flippant and in all honesty uniformed opinions are made which can damage our (collective) sport and belittle the hard work of dedicated athletes.

I only comment on things I know about, which is why I have only disputed your comment from an MTBO perspective. I have no experience of trail-o so do not consider myself able to comment specifically on it, and I have only very limited experience of ski-o.

My contention is that whilst foot-o is the more traditional and established form of orienteering, it just cannot be stated that a world championship medal in MTBO is worth less than a world championship medal in foot-o. It could perhaps be argued that if ever a Briton does win a ski-o medal in the future (1981 was in the infancy of ski-o, but a bronze medal is a bronze medal - you can only beat the other competitors, not people who are not there), then he/she would be even more worthy than an mtbo or foot-o medallist given the absolute dedication necessary to be a ski-orienteer in the British climate!

My view is that as all the four disciplines recognised by the IOF - foot-o, MTBO, ski-o and trail-o crown world champions, then we should recognise the efforts and dedication of the world champions in the different disciplines without belittling some of them by making comparisons with alc-o or the 100m in high heels.

The Great British Public does not seem for example to make a distinction between a Redgrave/Pinsent Olympic medal and one won in a swimming/running/cycling discipline when they really should according to the arguments made on this thread as rowing is such a smaller sport in terms of numbers than the other mass-participation sports. No one could surely argue that Olympic rowers are not seriously dedicated athletes. Why shouldn't therefore an top international result in MTBO (or ski-o or trail-o for that matter) not be acclaimed and appreciated on an equal basis with traditional (foot) orienteering?

And I would also support any move to make Dave Gittus, as a World Trail-O Champion, being made an honorary BOF life member,

[Jon Brooke]

I think this is the main point, if there were as many people competing in MTBO as there were in standard orienteering then I'd rate medal winners just as highly as each other in each discipline.

What a load of crap.

Presumably you think Daley Thompson was rubbish because he could only manage a 10.4 second 100 meters and that his achievements in the minority sport of Decathlon weren't worth recording?

[keever]

Presumably you think Daley Thompson was rubbish because he could only manage a 10.4 second 100 meters and that his achievements in the minority sport of Decathlon weren't worth recording?

No.

[mharky]

Nine mickey mouse events followed by a slow 1500m - Steve Ovett

[frog]

I think achieving a top medal in a mass participation sport probably is more of an achievement than getting one in a more minority sport where the pool of athletes doing the sport is smaller.
In that respect your running athletes, particularly for distances like 10k where lots of people compete probably are more "talented" than say pole vaulters of heptathletes where hardly anyone does it.
Not sure that comparing sports in this way gets you very far though. If you're the world's best pole vaulter then you're still the world's best pole vaulter. The fact that there are more 10k runners doesn't affect that.

[the exile]

OK, enough of debating serious subjects seriously, let's return to the normal flippant and much more satisfying topics familiar to the British o-punter
i.e. that absolutely awful person who goodness me used the F-word in the forest, or the absolute necessity of implementing creches for dogs at all events above grade 4, or whatever .....

[mharky]

All gold medals are hard to win, it's just the standards drop off quicker in some sports/events/disciplines.

A top 20 at WOC actually means a lot less than a top 20 at NOC. But to win you still have to be absolutely f###ing awesome. I'd also say that winning a middle Gold is better than sprint, for example. Some people will strongly disagree, but it's just an opinion.

Supersaint certainly did better at MTB-WOC than he did in the foot World Cup, but he wasn't fighting for a podium in either, and I don't think he was in the best form of his life for either. So you can't really use those results to say anything at all.

Anyone interested in doing orienteering duathlon? Dalbeattie would be perfect.