Elite course winning times

[Duncan]

Why do we frequently have M/W21E courses that are too short, with winning times below what the guidelines suggest?

Obviously the recent example was JK Day 3. The WRE bulletin 1/2 promised 90-100 mins for M21E and 70-80 mins for W21E, and we got 74:46 and 57:12 respectively. That is an inexcusably long way off (even if you take into account some favourable weather and running conditions on the day).

BOF rule A for BOC, BOF rule G for the JK, and BOF Rule I for Area Champs, all say 85-95 mins for M21E (and for the JK there is explicitly no 10% reduction in lengths of elite courses, unlike what there is for non-elites at the JK). Not sure what the guidelines were pre-2011, but I think quite similar. If an event is a WRE then IOF WRE rules take precedence, and that means 90-100 mins for M21E.

I did a bit of digging into previous M21E events. Taking the long distance UK Cup races from the last few years (those being events that have elite classes and are likely to be well attended):

• JK Long 2008, South East, winner 84 mins, 9 runners under 95 mins
• British Long 2008, Culbin, winner 81 mins, 13 runners under 95 mins
• WOC Selection Long / HOC National 2008, Brown Clee, winner 92 mins, 2 runners under 95 mins.
• JK Long 2009, Kyloe, winner 87 mins (8 runners under 95 mins)
• WOC Selection Long 2009, Forest of Dean, winner 80 mins (15 runners under 95 mins)
• FVO Long 2010, Trossachs, winner 87 mins (7 runners under 95 mins)
• JK Long 2010, Braunton Burrons, winner 82 mins (16 runners under 95 mins)
• British Long 2010, Cannock, winner 84 mins (5 runners under 95 mins)
• Southern Champs 2011, winner 86 mins (6 runners under 95 mins)
• JK Long 2011, N. Ireland, winner 74 mins (34 runners under 95 mins)

So out of 10 events, 6 were below the guideline range, 4 were within it, but 3 out of those 4 were only just inside it. Any ideas why so many are outside the range? Do planners just not appreciate the speed the top elites go at? Are they scared of making courses too long? Just speculation, but I did wonder whether the course length ratios in the guidelines are misleading/wrong, and planning elite courses to the correct length results in other classes having winning times that are too long?

[AndyC]

I'm sure it is modesty that meant you left out the Northern Champs at Ray Demense where only one M21E runner got significantly below 90 minutes (7 seconds isn't significantly below) .

[greywolf]

And you could add
2011 Northern Champs winner 80 mins
2011 Midland Champs winner 83 mins
2010 Scottish Champs winner 80 mins
2010 Northern Champs winner 77 mins
etc etc

IMHO the main problem is that [edit: insert "many" ] planners (who are gradually getting older...) don't appreciate how fast the elite go... It's usually predictable: when you see an event advertising "very runnable" terrain and an M21E course of 14k you know something doesn't add up....

As far as the ratios for other courses goes, my memory is that M45 (and neighbouring classes) are usually also won in shorter-than expected times.... But I think there is a problem with the ratios for some of the older vet women classes: e.g. W65L is supposed to get 0.36 of M21E - in an area like Culbin that could be 6.5km (36% of 18k) which might be a bit of a shock.

[Gnitworp]

I remember the 'Good Old Days':

Achilty M21E British 1986: 3 runners under 120 min (Kitch 1st in 106.41)

Gnitworp 39th in 219.40 (last finisher - 1 mispunched 17 retired)

[Spookster]

IMHO the main problem is that planners (who are gradually getting older...) don't appreciate how fast the elite go.

That shouldn't be a problem at BOC, I reckon Oli has a pretty good idea of how fast elites go.

His WRE M21E course at Wharncliffe is 14.3km with 420m climb.

[MacMan]

Interesting, 25th Feb 1996, National Event II (Warncliffe), and the elite managed to run 12.5km, 400m climb with a winning time of 73:57 ... suggesting 14.3km and 420m just gets to the bottom range of the EWT of 85-95 mins, unless the elite of today are slower or the forest thicker ... interestingly the planner reported "...the longer men's courses were faster". The report goes on to say .."Winning times at previous Warncliffe events (held in poor weather) were long so we planned "shorter" courses"

It just shows, getting EWT times in not an exact science with many factors, however I still look forward to Oli's use of a challenging area

[Bill]

Come to the Scottish 6 Days for a classic race on Creag Mhic Chailein. Distances currently planned as 14.25km for men and 9.5km for women. It will be interesting to see how times compare with BOC.

Perhaps some "older planners" could take a day out of their normal class and run elite on Day 3 on the best terrain in the UK!

[distracted]

Yep - it's probably an underestimate of how fast the top elite runners go - i.e. planners should expect the best in the world to turn up. Though there's not a great deal of information on running speeds on certain areas - previous results will only tell you so much, based on who turned up then, and the difference between the best in your club/region and the best of the elite can be huge. Perhaps the planners also think that the elites slow down over such long distances? Also, with recent winter conditions, some areas have been much faster than in recent years - a difference which can be difficult to factor in exactly.

Duncan - one 'short' one to take off the list - the 2009 WOC selection was advertised as 80% distance of a WOC classic i.e. ~80 minute winning time - looks like they got that one bang on

[housewife]

I agree the courses are way too short. How are the elite supposed to practice taking on energy, pacing themselves correctly etc when the courses are so short? wharncliffe should be excellent though!

[awk]

Chatting to a number of those who had entered elite before the JK, and they were all querying whether the courses had been underplanned - the figures and comments didn't match up, i.e. the courses were too short unless the area was a lot tougher than organisers' comments indicated. Looks like they all got it right.

[graeme]

... From course lengths, they figure the top elite will be doing ... 7mins/km on the mountain. That makes it sound pretty slow, steep, rough and horrible... (or, more likely, underplanned)

Guidelines haven't changed for a long time. e.g. BEOC2000 men was won in 90:13, ladies in 71.
But I've found this year by running M35 my courses have been spot on where M45 should be.

[RJ]

We made a conscious effort to plan a 90minute winning time Black++ course at our recent Eskdale Tarns event for exactly the reasoning being expressed. The elites don't get sufficient opportunity to run that distance/time. Duncan Archer managed 92.26 for the 12.5km 460m course.

Where the area allows, clubs should make an effort to include an M21E length course at the regional events. Unfortunately the Eskdale Tarns event clashed with a SYO double event and BUCS, so the entry was low. Never mind.... we tried!!

[70plus]

Greywolf suggests that too-short elite courses may be partly because planners are getting older. While this is inarguable, might it be because of the rare opportunity to plan courses which will be run by a significant number of elites. Much of their planning experience will have been gained at Level-B events, which many elites don't bother to attend, so either the winning times look long, or the courses are really too short. The problem therefore may lie with the controller?

As a senior competitor (and an experienced controller of B events) I have found that too-short courses are commonly found for M/W 50-70 at (for example) the Scottish 6-day; even allowing the permitted 10% reductions, courses are often won in under 45 or even 40 minutes. It's not only E courses at championships!

The safest way to guesstimate proper course lengths is from recent results on the area in question, preferably at the same season. But elites tend to like competing on unused areas ...

[EddieH]

The idea that some older courses are too short according to the rules seems misplaced. They are all a proportion of the M21E/L course (presumably nominal in day 1 of JK)

It interests me that the elite at the JK was clearly much too short, yet my course had a much considerably longer winning time than is common for major events. I haven't spent any time looking at the relative lengths but guess that the ratios were not adhered to.

Personally I think that the BOF ratios are not good for many older men's classes because whilst the elites have improved beyond measure since my elite(ish) days, the ability of these older classes has risen even more.

I agree with M70+ that our winning times are usualy ridiculously short, but not that this is because planners get it wrong.

[greywolf]

The idea that some older courses are too short according to the rules seems misplaced. They are all a proportion of the M21E/L course (presumably nominal in day 1 of JK)

It interests me that the elite at the JK was clearly much too short, yet my course had a much considerably longer winning time than is common for major events. I haven't spent any time looking at the relative lengths but guess that the ratios were not adhered to.

Personally I think that the BOF ratios are not good for many older men's classes because whilst the elites have improved beyond measure since my elite(ish) days, the ability of these older classes has risen even more.

I agree with M70+ that our winning times are usualy ridiculously short, but not that this is because planners get it wrong.

M55L on Day3 of the JK was won in 56.01 - this is towards the bottom of the EWT range (54 - 63 mins) in the JK rules, which say M55L should get 50% of corrected course length of M21E... in fact M55 got c. 54% of the M21E course (7.125 + 365 cf. 13 + 700)

JK courses for non-elites are supposed to be 10% shorter than those for BOC & Area Champs, where the rules give EWT for M55L of 60 - 70 mins – if you think your course “had a much considerably longer winning time than is common for major events” then that suggests that they are usually very short indeed (or your memory is going )

There are probably 3 interlinked issues:
(Many) Planners & controllers underestimate elite speed & therefore underplan courses. They then follow the corrected course length ratios which results in shorter-than-guideline courses for other classes
The course ratios for some classes may need reviewing
For major champs, the guidelines give both course ratios & EWT - however, for some classes these blatently do not add up