Lakes 5 Days 2010

[andypat]

I'm afraid the answer is that on 2 of the days runner A is better and on 4 of the days runner B is better. Anything else is just semantics!

[mappingmum]

Who is better?

It depends on what the event rules use to define "best".

[EddieH]

I agree 100% with Jon Brooke. You comopete under the rules laid down by the event.
There is one reason that I disagree with the Lakes 5 scoring system quite apart from "fairness".
Because results require everyone to finish to be accurate inevitably some wrong people get the prizes at prizegiving. This happened in both of the classes I was involved in.
In M45 Clive's late run was quite clearly good enough to give him overall victory but the system hadn't got it. (At least Charlie and I realised that the results would be reversed.)
In W80 I knew that there was no possiblilty that my mother could have been second as presented at prizegiving - in fact she wasn't even third.

The Scottish system has the excellent merit that the right* people get the prizes.

* Right according to the freely known rules.

[mharky]

Let me rephrase that... Who would you want in your relay team?

[AlanB]

The good thing about 4 from 5, 3 from 4 or 4from 6 is that it prevents those of us who are newer to the sport/of less ability (or both ) being thrown out of the week's competition on, say, Day 2 because they made a silly mistake.

If you make a silly mistake on one day (newer to the sport or not) you deserve to be, as you put it, 'thrown out' of the competition. That's exactly the essential nature of orienteering. There are no other 'good things' about not counting all events than the one I've described above.

Well thankfully the organisers of events such as the Lakes 5 and the Scottish 6 take a more enlightened view, welcome all standards of competitor and organise their competitions appropriately. I can understand a more strict regime in elite multi-day events but that is not what we're talking about here.

Still, you could always arrange a multi-day event on the lines you suggest. I'm sure it would be very popular.

[fleetfoot]

The good thing about 4 from 5, 3 from 4 or 4from 6 is that it prevents those of us who are newer to the sport/of less ability (or both ) being thrown out of the week's competition on, say, Day 2 because they made a silly mistake.

If you make a silly mistake on one day (newer to the sport or not) you deserve to be, as you put it, 'thrown out' of the competition. That's exactly the essential nature of orienteering. There are no other 'good things' about not counting all events than the one I've described above.

Well thankfully the organisers of events such as the Lakes 5 and the Scottish 6 take a more enlightened view, welcome all standards of competitor and organise their competitions appropriately. I can understand a more strict regime in elite multi-day events but that is not what we're talking about here.

Still, you could always arrange a multi-day event on the lines you suggest. I'm sure it would be very popular.

It is already. Its called the O-Ringen!

[andypat]

Let me rephrase that... Who would you want in your relay team?

Well thats a differrent question. Runner B looks like he may be more prone to mistakes - so Runner A might be less risky. I'd check whether either had a history of mp in big events too and take that into consideration. Also having played football for a team where the left back was prone to having a few too many the night before and sleeping in - I'd maybe consider other relevant factors too!

[mharky]

I've come up with a new and interesting way to decide the winner of an orienteering race. Everyone runs the course as normal, but instead of taking the fastest time, we look at each split. You split times are converted into points using some random flawed formula. You then take your best points from say, 7/10 splits, and the winner is the person with the highest score.

This allows people to make silly mistakes, like missing out a control or retiring half way round to actually get a complete result. Everyone's a winner! (Except the winner probably)

What do people think?

[graeme]

I think it sounds just like the green jersey at the Tour de France.

[mharky]

They only thing similar is that the person with the most points wins. In which case, it sounds just like countdown.

[Mrs H]

Only just got back to internet land after northern jaunt. Here is my 10 point Observation on the Lakes 5 Days.
1 The "children" and I really enjoyed the event.
2 The areas were varied and attractive.
3 If the organising committee are worried that the event is attracting too many people then cap the entry to something which can be accommodated comfortably - people will be fighting to enter - simples!
4 Remote finishes aren't great for assembly field atmosphere which is a shame as there were some lovely assembly fields.
5 Consistency of map production (colours) would have been appreciated.
6 No water policy - absolutely fine as long as it is well published - which it was.
7 If you have any doubts about your car parking suitability then consider bussing as your first option - not a back up plan.
8 if you publish your definitive plan B as promised then don't subsequently change to plan C or D - it would have been better to go straight to D.
9 Speaking as someone who mis-punched, both here and at the O-ringen (I won't harp on about it - BUT 112 instead of 122 on similar features inside the circle ) Only everyday to count is fair - the rest is expedient so take your pick - they all have their pros and cons.
10 I never got my hands on a copy of the quiz

Oh and ps - really sorry to have missed Young Laddie's rant - has anyone got a brown paper wrapped copy they could lend me?

[pete.owens]

5 Consistency of map production (colours) would have been appreciated.

The BOF mapping guidelines do allow some leeway to use paler shades of yellow to help clarity by improving the contrast with contours and other brown features. So for Caw - no trees but lots and lots of wrinkles the rough open was pale (though perhaps a bit too pale). On the other hand, at Helsington Barrows, it was important to keep a darker shade of yellow to contrast with the white copses.

[IanD]

So for Caw - no trees

But there were trees at the end at Caw, and some courses had a control on a copse which was simply invisible on the map.

(Didn't cause me any problems, the copse wasn't on my course, but a clubmate was seriously annoyed).

[IanD]

I've come up with a new and interesting way to decide the winner of an orienteering race. Everyone runs the course as normal, but instead of taking the fastest time, we look at each split

I often play this game with a clubmate who normally runs the same course and runs faster than I do, but isn't a very good navigator. We call it 'match play'', like in golf where each hole/control is scored separately. My objective is not just to beat him in the conventional orienteering 'tournament play' (which I almost always do), but also to win the 'match play'.

There's would be nothing wrong with having a 'match play' orienteering event, with each split considered a separate race, and a points system. It might be a fun variation. (But I'm not suggesting it for the Lakes 5)

[Gnitworp]

Another interesting competition is one where the competitor with the best worst leg split position wins. (use Winsplits or Splitsbrowser) Really rewards consistency!