'Duration' versus 'Type'

[pete.owens]

That depends whether your speed is limited by your ability to run or your ability to navigate. Middle distance races emphasise the latter rather than the former so suit those of us who can read a map but would be hopeless in a fell race.

A well planned middle race should not just be about control picking (though longer legs should still involve intense navigation rather than dead running). I do agree that some courses do seem to have gone that way.

Back to the original question. I see no reason why people should not run-up to a longer course than that recommended for their age - after all it is within the entire spirit of the new colour coded structure to let people run whatever course they feel like. Just as the more physical runners often run longer courses at standard events the better navigators may prefer a longer course. However, to suggest that just because you are happy running for a given distance on a standard orienteering course that you would want to run the same distance at a middle race is missing the point somewhat. The reduced physical challenge is replaced by the requirement for sustained concentration.

Now, it sounds as if some folk basically don't like middle distance races. That is fine - you don't have to run in them - it's not as if the dominate the orienteering calendar. However, some of us do prefer the different character of the format.

[awk]

and will therefore, in my opinion, be a better test of my competence in the so-called discipline.

Choosing whatever you want to run - fine, etc etc, but this is the bit I don't necessarily agree with - it depends what you are aiming at.

The discipline is Middle Distance: that is racing a course with a w/t of 30-35 mins.
If you're preparing for elite level m-d racing - then fine, running a course with an elite w/t of 30-35 mins is spot on to test your competence. However, if you're preparing to run an M50/55/60 m-d race, then to run a black is not the best test of your competence - you're running overdistance. The technical/physical speed balance thus changes. Of course, it can still be good training, but it depends on what you are aiming to achieve.

Middle distance has been subject to a fair amount of disparagement here, implied or otherwise, but it is a different type of orienteering to, say, long distance. I think that's well illustrated by the long leg at the EOC that's been the subject of some discussion on another thread. Yes a great route choice leg, but when all said and done, once you've chosen the route, the navigation is not that demanding*. That will appeal to some, less to others. Personally, I like my orienteering leavened with that sort of challenge occasionally, but overall prefer the shorter distances simply because of the types of demands (including the increasing severity of a small mistake on one's result) - not as has been suggested at different times because of any other reason, such as being 'easier' physically or because they make me feel more 'competititive'. It's why I started to enjoy orienteering again so much after a few fairly moribund years - the greater variety has made it so much more fun.

*Great looking course though!

[HOCOLITE]

Interesting to read Pete Owens reflections. I think I'd agree with them. I'm not a distance runner, and thus do short courses in classic. But since the introduction of Sprint and Middle I'd opt for them as I find the intensity of concentration required good for my orienteering. Despite the distances of some of the urban races I will attempt them for the same reason however some are beginning to turn into classics with long boring legs with nothing more than running.

[Gnitworp]

However, if you're preparing to run an M50/55/60 m-d race, then to run a black is not the best test of your competence - you're running overdistance. The technical/physical speed balance thus changes.

Not for me it doesn't, and, I believe, many others. From analyses I've made, my speed on a 50 min course is the same as on a 30 min one. In fact, if anything, I tend to get into a rhythm by 50 min and run faster and often start thinking more clearly.

[Gross]

Not for me it doesn't, and, I believe, many others. From analyses I've made, my speed on a 50 min course is the same as on a 30 min one. In fact, if anything, I tend to get into a rhythm by 50 min and run faster and often start thinking more clearly.

That's got nothing to do with orienteering technique... it's all the old joints getting lubricated

[awk]

In fact, if anything, I tend to get into a rhythm by 50 min and run faster and often start thinking more clearly.

Which underlines my point - if you aren't getting into a rhythm until 50 minutes, then you're probably better prepared for running distances longer than 30-35 minutes.

In order to maintain the same speed in a middle distance race as compared to a 50 minute classic style race, you probably need to be running effectively faster in the m-d race - greater density of controls, higher proportion of fine navigation versus rough navigation etc etc.