Prize eligibilty

[andypat]

That is the clearest reasoning yet! I knew there was a reason i didnt need a mantlepiece.

[Arnold]

On balance it does seem that NeilC's suggestion of "the class you entered = the prize you win" is the most manageable one. Yes it may bring some "gaming" of the system, but that seems more of a problem of having too many age categories at small events. Fewer categories = fewer prize = fewer issues.

On the flipside graeme's example seems to need a PhD to sort out..

(Note I'm speaking as an M35 who entered M21 at the Southern Champs - I was fastest M35 on the course but didn't get the M35 trophy as I wanted to have a shot at winning M21! Entirely my decision thus entirely right for me not to get the trophy)

[andy]

That is the clearest reasoning yet! I knew there was a reason i didnt need a mantlepiece.

I don't have one because of the same reasoning...

[graeme]

But (answering the quiz almost nobody tried), you were the M21 Scottish Score Champion in 2010.

http://www.scottish-orienteering.org/so ... 1-nov-2010

graeme's example seems to need a PhD to sort out..

I haven't got one of those, but most road and hill races seem to manage.

[andy]

But (answering the quiz almost nobody tried), you were the M21 Scottish Score Champion in 2010.

This one always baffled me. I think M21/W21 should always be the fastest male/female regardless of class entered as it should be the 'open' class. I'd have been happier if Tom had got the 21 trophy!

[EddieH]

Most of the examples here are from the Scottish score, where a) virtually everyone is on the same course, b) the field is pretty tiny and c) the nature of score produces anomolies.

Perhaps it says more about that event than that there is really such a big problem in general events.

[graeme]

a) virtually everyone is on the same course,

I have a strong suspicion that many events are redesigned into a gazillion little courses just to avoid the issue.

Which brings us back to AndyC's elephant comment, by far the most useful on the thread.

most M21s would get nowhere near the front on M45. The 20 years experience of the top M45s far outweighs the extra running speed of an inexperienced navigator. And yet, in all quality events, we force new M21s onto the too-long longest course, or some derisory prizeless "short" class. Then we hand out trophies to the same-old same-old same old blokes and wonder why the 21s don't come back!

Expanding sports either have one or two courses, or like mountain marathons allow people to self-assess their appropriate level. Shorter courses at the KIMM are routinely won by younger teams, often orienteers, and every year we applaud their efforts. I train harder and can comfortably run for longer than, say, andypat. But we expect him to run for longer than me.

The fact that we can't even agree who won the race says something is badly wrong. A majorly new approach is needed.

[frog]

I agree and don't think it's a coincidence that my son gave up orienteering when he hit the M16 age when the course length rocketed. Add that to the demands of homework, other sports etc and you have to be fairly dedicated to stay in. He did M21V a few times but there were only a few in the class.
Doing the short course is seen by many as not properly competing and I suspect relaxing the age boundaries may retain younger non-elite level orienteers.
It may mean we lose some older orienteers though who like competing against others of their age, and the risk of losing current orienteers in the hope of maybe attracting younger ones probably isn't worth changing the structure for.
I'm not sure what my ideal orienteering course structure would be for cross country.
Possibly TD1-4 courses then TD5 of various lengths, choose which one you want, but not more lengths than necessary to allow for starting windows and ability.
That is just having colour coded courses for most events though, which is already what happens, and the big events have to fit in with international guidelines so are stuck as they are which leaves us not changing very much.

[AndyC]

Basking in the glow of graeme's kind words; I'll re-enter the topic.
One aspect that I was trying to point out that numbers in M/W21 are low because either we don't recruit or we lose them from the sport -something which is much more important to sort out than "who gets what trophy". There are a limited number of elites and after that they're all going to be beaten by top vets (and often by non-top vets) because they don't have the experience or ability if the course is a true test of orienteering rather than running.
I'll suggest an answer for consideration -award trophies by course only with a criteria that no-one younger than/older than X years is eligible on each course ("older than" is to protect juniors only)-then give the male trophy to the first man and the female trophy to the first woman. If she beats him -well done but trophies don't change her's just has more prestige to it. People then run the course they want to (I wouldn't normally be eligible on that basis but I'd enjoy myself)
If you want to award junior trophies (and I would) do so - and on each course that a junior runs on (yes you might want to prevent an M10 walking round "Black" in 5 hours in order to get a trophy). If you have awards available and want to acknowledge older runners who didn't win the course do so (but use a jury and admit to being subjective when you compare Joe's run on course 7 with Bill's on course 8 often it will be obvious that the faster time on a longer course wins but it it isn't you could always award two or special mention or just fudge)

[NeilC]

Expanding sports either have one or two courses, or like mountain marathons allow people to self-assess their appropriate level.

When badge events disappeared we ran the SE Galoppen like that: prizes (well certificates) for the winners of each of the colour courses. Several senior committee members were not happy and with the recent change of coodinator the old argument that it's unfair for an M21to compete against a W70 on Short Green won, and so back to age classes.

In contrast our club league (http://www.vuggles.plus.com/results/st.htm)still remains ageless with certificates for the top three in each course plus the odd extra one for top supervet on Blue etc. The league is thriving with competition between individuals of quite different age classes an important factor.

[Ali Wood]

Despite what mharky says, most M21s would get nowhere near the front on M45.

Mmmm... not borne out by the rankings.... , which are admittedly a pile of poo but not that far out.
Maybe you meant many M21s ?

[mharky]

Despite what Graeme said, that is not what I actually said.

I made it quite clear that the hypothetical peak of the pyramid would be M21, which it is. That is why anyone can run M21.

I made it quite clear that, in reality, experience and training history are the contributors to ability, not absolute age.

The point I was making is that the best anyone could possibly be is in the 21 age class, and therefore that should always been considered the top of the pile.

You should be able to orienteer with very limited mistakes by the time you are a 21, if you have orienteered since a young age and trained properly. So, by the time you move into the veteran classes, your own technical ability should be pretty stable. Your potential physical ability will start to decrease. That is why progressively older classes are progressively lower down on the "prize winning" order, and you can only run-up a class against "better" people, not down against "weaker".

Reality is very different, but what if we actually had a popular sport with lots of competition, people starting young and staying with it. Then it would make sense. The problem isn't the system, it's the lack of people in the system that make it possible for people to run up 4 classes and still win.

[mharky]

The peak of the pyramid is M/W21, you seem to be talking about the widest part of the pyramid.

[seabird]

Ali

Even within your own club you might notice that we actually have a wealth of 21s participating - many of them fairly new to orienteering.

Whereas the 21s who grew up in orienteering families are by and large successful in your beloved technical Lakes events, the newcomers, which is a group we should be strongly encouraging, are gaining their O enthusiasm and flourishing in the urban races and local (less technically demanding) cross country races that they can get to more easily.

To be quite frank I am pleased that they are only slowly coming round to participating in the Cross Country Age Class competitions, with all the problems that this discussion is highlighting.

It may take longer for them to develop their cross country skills than with your and my generation due to the increasing reluctance/lack of resources of their generation to use car transport to get to the more remote areas.

[Glucosamine]

It may mean we lose some older orienteers though who like competing against others of their age, and the risk of losing current orienteers in the hope of maybe attracting younger ones probably isn't worth changing the structure for.

As one who has to accept that he is now one of those older orienteers and who would indeed rather compete against like codgers more often, I'm grateful that the East Anglian league still nominates courses for ages - albeit allowing running up or down with an appropriate weighting. Not wanting to drive the distances generally involved in getting to TD5 areas (and age-group competition), I do find myself wondering if I am part of the demographic to be sacrificed. At least Parkrun still offers me a WAVA score on the published results for me to be obsessive about ...

As to "prizes", I thought it was a plus for orienteering that we usually avoid the consumerism involved in physical prizes for most (with juniors perhaps a sensible exception). But perhaps with Christmas coming uo that is a Bah-Humbug moment.