'Duration' versus 'Type' - The Poll

[Gnitworp]

I suspect many people want to do different forms of orienteering, but would usually prefer not to do them in curtailed forms if the terrain and area allows it. Variety is the spice of life, but not in severely limited doses!

[madmike]

Surely 50-60 mins is running Short at a Classic

[andypat]

Ah but arent you falling into the trap of thinking "middle distance" is only defined by distance. This was my mistake until enightended by the guys on here. Its got as much to do with the nature of the legs as distance.

[Gross]

Run what you like

[Spookster]

Surely 50-60 mins is running Short at a Classic

Not if the Middle courses are properly planned. (And if the Long courses are properly planned. They should be different sorts of orienteering requiring).

[Gross]

There ain't no classic distance (or long) in GB anymore.... it's all urban, sprint & 60 to 70 minute winning times... that's why there were no GBR qualifiers (men, that is) for the EOC long final.... bring back real classics with 90min winning times

[greywolf]

There ain't no classic distance (or long) in GB anymore.

rare but not completely extinct
http://www.dearman.org.uk/Moravian/Mora ... ltat/1.HTM

[NeilC]

There ain't no classic distance (or long) in GB anymore.... it's all urban, sprint & 60 to 70 minute winning times... that's why there were no GBR qualifiers (men, that is) for the EOC long final.... bring back real classics with 90min winning times

None of the EOC long finalists took more than 70 minutes in their heats.

[graeme]

greywolf: What did that 1:10000 mapscale race polluted with non-M21s and non-elites have to do with classic elite orienteering?

[Gross]

None of the EOC long finalists took more than 70 minutes in their heats.

that's coz they were heats.....

16.9 The courses shall be set to give the following winning times in minutes:
women men
45 60 Long distance qualification race
70-80 90-100 Long distance final

[madmike]

Ah but arent you falling into the trap of thinking "middle distance" is only defined by distance. This was my mistake until enightended by the guys on here. Its got as much to do with the nature of the legs as distance.

One of us fell into a trap

[NeilC]

So the heats were ideally suited to the standard GBR 60-70 minute winning time.

[Gross]

So the heats were ideally suited to the standard GBR 60-70 minute winning time.

Crap.... and if it were accurate then GB athletes would be winning the heats... and if it were accurate it don't do GB much good with our top athletes training to win heats.

[EddieH]

Gross wrote: [quote]There ain't no classic distance (or long) in GB anymore.... it's all urban, sprint & 60 to 70 minute winning times... that's why there were no GBR qualifiers (men, that is) for the EOC long final.... bring back real classics with 90min winning times [/quote]

I couldn't agree with you more Gross. This has always seemed self evident to me - I was unhappy when M21 badge courses were reduced from 81 minute winning time to something very minor in the eighties. My argument was always that any other classes aould run yp to get the distance they required at the big events.

However since then the UK national events have been seriously reduced. This year' BOC which you controlled Gross, at 84 minutes was about as long as it gets nowadays.

I was gobsmacked by the WOC long selection race being won in 68 minutes. I made no comment at the time but it seems to me like selecting your marathon runners from track event results.

[Gross]

However since then the UK national events have been seriously reduced. This year' BOC which you controlled Gross, at 84 minutes was about as long as it gets nowadays.

And my original comments on the elite course at BOC was that it was slightly too short... maybe by 800 m ....