Are old men getting too quick?

[Paul Frost]

I had a discussion today with another ex M50 who has just moved into M55 that got me thinking...

I don't know how widespread it is across the UK, but there are a lot of fast men in Scotland that move into the M55 class this year (I'm not one of them I should stress). The course length ratio moves from .82 to .77 but the gap will be bigger on the colour coded course equivalent at larger events, but those fast guys aren't going to be going any slower than they were a few months ago. So I suspect the winning times are going to tumble.

So will planners need to increase course lengths for this class?
Should the ratio be changed?
Should we reduce the estimated winning time?

[andy]

I was speaking to the same 'old' men last week about this and, as a slow M21, thought it'd be great if there were more events with less courses so I can get beaten by these guys as well as getting gubbed by fast 21s.

For the bigger events though your point is more applicable but I think the majority would probably prefer the slightly shorter courses, if these fast guys want to run further/for longer they should be running up.

[AndyO]

So will planners need to increase course lengths for this class?
Should the ratio be changed?
Should we reduce the estimated winning time?

no, no, and no.

Planners can't plan courses around which competitors might turn up - that's what the course ratios are for. Andy's right too, in that these "fast guys" can choose to run up if they prefer a bigger challenge, indeed they often do in non age-group competitions, where they like competing against each other.

[graeme]

I think "a lot" actually means five ? And some slower guys too. I don't think we can change the guidelines based on one exceptional year, even they might no thank us when they're M59.

The only issue is that as non-squaddie M21 standards drop, its very hard to hit the 69 winning time (depends if SEDS arrive in force) and so the black course gets shorter and drags all the others with it. As Andy suggests, many* don't want to be running courses planned for people who aren't there.

*Not me though

[greywolf]

So will planners need to increase course lengths for this class?
Should the ratio be changed?
Should we reduce the estimated winning time?

No Every year fast runners move up age categories, but they're still gradually getting slower as they get older - you would need evidence of systematic change in age/speed ratios before tweaking the guidelines. [edit: the important question is not "are they slower than they were a couple of months ago?" but "are they slower than they were 5 years ago when they moved up to M50?"]
Also: away from major champs, age classes share courses, e.g at SOLs, M55s share their course with M60, W18, M16, W40 etc...should they all have to change?

btw: where are you getting .82 and .77 from?

[andypat]

I was speaking to the same 'old' men last week about this and, as a slow M21, thought it'd be great if there were more events with less courses so I can get beaten by these guys as well as getting gubbed by fast 21s.

You must have enjoyed getting beat by Donald Petrie today Andy! And he doesnt even like urban. Still at least you beat Paul Frost....

[Paul Frost]

btw: where are you getting .82 and .77 from?

Page 11 of Appendix B: Course planning

I'm not advocating that anything should change, but am interested in the process and the potential ramifications of either course of action.

I am guessing that the ratios have been formulated based on historic winning times?
If that is true, then what happens if by the end of the year the M55L winning times are consistently 10mins (for example) shorter than predicted by the ratios?

I know that they can choose to run up if they want a longer run (some already do at smaller events), but if they want to stay in their official age group (which most seem to do at large events) it seems very likely that they will reduce the winning times based on the current ratios.
What happens then?

[mharky]

Regarding Graeme's point:
The guidelines are quite clear that black courses should be planned for a 67* minute winning time for an "elite" runner, regardless of whether these runners attend the race. If no elites go to the race then the winning time should be over 67 minutes. If a world-class runners turns up then it should be less than 67.

The only trouble with inconsistent fields on M21L is that the planners wont' have accurate feedback as to whether their courses were of the right length. Although it would be interesting to find out how much research planners put in to finding the speed and elite runner has previously run on the area (or very similar area), or if they engage in any post race analysis of black course length/winning times. In the past I have approached a planner to enquire about the course winning time. They were entirely unaware that their was a guideline winning time, and wasn't at all bothered by their categorical failure to meet this guidelines.

With regards to Paul Frost's suggestions; if an M55 thinks that their course is going to be too short/quick for them, they can run up. As can everyone, except for M21s. So I find it rather ridiculous to be discussing a minor tweaking of a veteran course because their are a handful of good runners moving up an age category. The ratios are used to standardise course winning times across races across the country. An elite runner should run 67 on any black course in any region. Similarly, an M55 of a given standard should expect to take a certain time (give or take particular terrain/technical nuances) on their course. They shouldn't come up to Scotland and have to run further because at this moment in time there are some rather good people in their age groups in that region.

*I'm not sure when it became 67 minutes in stead of 69. Only a minor change compared to the butchering of the JK relay.

[mharky]

Paul,

The only course to have a guideline winning time is M21L, so an M55 course cannot be 10 minutes too fast, rather 10 minutes faster than it has been in previous years due to an increase in standard. The ratios are course length, not EWT. So, if there were super-elite vets, of a higher relative standard than the elite M21s winning in 67 minutes, then they would less than perhaps you are used to, but this does no make the ratio wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean we should be changing it, especially since this is all based on "what if".

[mharky]

I'd like to point out that I am using the following guidelines, http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/events_guideline_b.pdf

Which have "effective Jan 2012" written at the top, compared to Paul's which are from last year. However BOF do make things confusing by switching between speed ratios and length ratios. I had never seen speed ratios until I clicked on Paul's link, I was previously only aware of the course length ratios

[greywolf]

greywolf wrote:btw: where are you getting .82 and .77 from?
Page 11 of Appendix B: Course planning

Those are speed ratios not course length ratios ...W10s may run at 0.73 of the speed of M21 (apparently...), but we don't give them courses 73% as long as M21E

[Paul Frost]

...The ratios are used to standardise course winning times across races across the country. An elite runner should run 67 on any black course in any region. Similarly, an M55 of a given standard should expect to take a certain time (give or take particular terrain/technical nuances) on their course. They shouldn't come up to Scotland and have to run further because at this moment in time there are some rather good people in their age groups in that region.

I did say that I didn't know if this was unique to Scotland.

I had assumed that if the ratio was based on the winning time and length of course for an M21 elite, the adjusted course length and winning time of every other age class is set based on historic results.
So if the fitness/speed of the current M55 age class is greater than it was last year the actual winning times will drop below those calculated using the historic ratios.
So will the ratios be updated based on the newer historic results or will the expected winning times be reduced?

So it's not just a matter of them thinking it's too short/quick, it's that they will change the historic results for that age class.

I'm not suggesting that the M55 age class is more important to fix, but started the discussion because I am one and am aware of the possible outcome. The fact that the M55 age class is one of the largest groups at most large orienteering events in the UK means the impact of change may be felt by a large number of people, so perhaps it is important.

As Mharky says, the courses should be planned based on an M21 elite turning up and so every course should be a ratio of that, not a ratio based on an unfit M21 that they think might turn up. That way course lengths and winning times should be standard across the country.

[Scott]

The only trouble with inconsistent fields on M21L is that the planners wont' have accurate feedback as to whether their courses were of the right length.

I know Graeme has suggested in the past that (for ordinary colour-coded events) we should instead specify a winning time for M40 on Brown (or something like that), and then define the Black course as some (longer) ratio of Brown, on the basis that it's usually easier to find previous results with a top M40 in than results with a top M21.

[greywolf]

If that is true, then what happens if by the end of the year the M55L winning times are consistently 10mins (for example) shorter than predicted by the ratios?

In practice winning times for a given course vary greatly between events (e.g. in my class Day 4 of the S6D was >40% longer than Day 2), often because as Mharky notes planners don't understand or use the ratios correctly. On balance they are more often much too short than too long - in fact if a planner does make the effort to look up historic results and do the calculations accordingly then they run the risk of getting an ill-informed slagging off in SCORE

Paul: the course length ratios are not adjusted on a year by year basis

[graeme]

Bit of a senior moment there on the 69/67 business. mharky's right of course, here's the current guideline ...

The Black course, if planned, would equate to the M21L course at an old style Regional Event, with an expected elite winning time of 67 minutes.

One has to have sympathy with the confusion of someone who didn't plan an old style Regional Event and doesn't know what an elite is (i.e. most people). Actually, I don't know what it means either, is it (ahem) "experienced" elites like me? punter-elites like Scott, average squad members, nearly-in-the-squad mharky, or world class GG? That gives you about half an hour ambiguity already. As Scott says, it seems bleedin' obvious that you'd set the winning time to suit your target audience on the biggest class , and scale from there (and if I said M40, that just shows how long ago I said it!).

The speed ratio has a history. I think (caveat: see above re. senior moments) this is the thing which was carefully researched many years ago. At that time BOF specified winning times for all classes. At some point they changed to length ratios, which were initially obtained from winning time and speed ratio, presumably as a service to planners who were criticised for not hitting every winning time on every course, no matter who showed up.

I also believe that more recent data shows exactly what Paul notes - "old men are getting quicker". In fact, M55 means "the people who used to be real elites" who are faster than their predecessors of the same age who never were elites. No surprise there.