Prize eligibilty

[frog]

I think prizes are good, the problem with orienteering prizegivings is they take too long and can happen too late for many with the spread out start times.
The not finding out how well you have done until you get home is one of the negatives of orienteering.

[DeerTick]

The not finding out how well you have done until you get home is one of the negatives of orienteering.

That's what I like about orienteering. My memory (of my previous incarnation as an orienteer) is of a brown envelope one/three weeks later with mistakes. Nowadays: get home, shower, results, Winsplits. Just the job!

AP

[AndyC]

On another thread someone is complaining about chasing starts -they are intended to establish the prize winners as the line is crossed -can't win sometimes!

[graeme]

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 ?

There are 344 ranked M21s, of whom only 26 are rated ahead of the top-3 M45s.
I'll stick with "most".

mharky: I agree with everything you said.
the comment I was referring to was So I guess I should be able to enter M45 at the JK then? That's what it sounds like you are saying..
Indeed, but (I think) andyC wasn't talking about the very best M21s at the top events. So despite the existence of some events where some people "shouldn't" enter, at most events most M21s could compete evenly and fairly alongside top M45s.
Certainly more fairly than expecting them to compete with elite athletes at their physical peak with 20 years experience behind them.

[Ali Wood]

There are 344 ranked M21s, of whom only 26 are rated ahead of the top-3 M45s.
I'll stick with "most".

I sort of stand corrected, BUT maybe the ranking statistics point to the paucity of numbers on M21, rather than that they are not much faster than M45s. Especially when you consider the age range, 15 years spread for M21 and 5 for M45. You'd expect 3 times as many M21s; you've actually got less than half as many M21s (344) as M45s (746).
Admittedly I'm nearly old enough to father an M45 , but when I see how fast the good M21s run (and sometimes navigate...) it reminds me of my M21 days and how the muscles now will just not twitch fast enough!!

[awk]

One of the things I enjoy about most urban races is that the classes are broader. OK, it's been harder for the past couple of years as a top end M50 competing with younger M40s, but it's still been good to measure against them, and have my own race within a race. Even better have been those races (for instance, most of the Yorkshire Urban League), where we've been on the same course as the M21s, competing against those same M21s seabird refers to (most are now getting the measure of me, but it's been fun trying to stem the tide!). Course lengths have been sufficiently sensible that we've all had decent races (although one or two could have been a bit longer). I'm thus if anything in two minds what to do next year moving up to M55/Supervets, where we run a separate, shorter, course, separated off - not as appealing in that aspect.

[andypat]

I train harder and can comfortably run for longer than, say, andypat.

Yeah - but when you run out of jelly babies I'll still have my onboard reserves!

[Homer]

Reading this thread reinforces my opinion that it is time to consider scrapping alternate veteran classes, ie the 35, 45, 55, 65 and 75's.
This would leave M/W21, 40, 50, 60, 70 and 80. This would reflect the position in other sports that I am aware of.

The only reason I can think of for 5 year age classes is the pressure of numbers on courses. This is only likely to be a problem at the JK, so just keep the 5 year classes there.

[AAH]

Reading this thread reinforces my opinion that it is time to consider scrapping alternate veteran classes, ie the 35, 45, 55, 65 and 75's.

Sounds good. As the demographics change it would be good to have a fundamental rethink about competition structures. Most people want a good race against people of a similar level of ability. Most people enjoy racing against a lot of other people. It’s hard to care so much about a race with 4 people in it as a race with 40+.

Age group competition is healthy from about 45 upwards. M/W35 is now essentially pointless and the low participation is spreading into M/W40 (13 people with 6 ranking scores went into M40 this year! 13 about to go up into M40, 29 leaving going up to M45).

One of the most alarming issues is the collapse of M21L. 15 years ago (e.g. memorable JK 1997) there were 200 M21Ls at the JK, now entries have fallen off a cliff. There are about the same number of people capable of championship standard (maybe 50 or so at any given time) but a fraction the number of middle level 21 age group orienteers. M21s who would once have entered M21L might feel that they have to enter M21E to be involved in a proper competition. What is the point of M21L at the Scottish Champs? (2 competitors in 2012).

And on 18 and 20 there is again a fairly pointless splitting of competitors into 3 classes, few of which have many competitors.

The sport could do with adapting to changing demographics and trying to ensure people can run in meaningful competitions. One of the good things about urban is indeed that it has fewer courses and therefore more people to run against.

For regional championships (at least Scottish, Northern etc.) it might be more interesting to have a single open race for M20-40 with a lot of people running on it, a single short option and 21E.

So, yes, it’s good to be able to allocate age group based prizes, but except at big events there just isn’t the depth to do so every 5 years. More fun to have courses with a lot of competition.

Would be interesting to see an event with courses split not by age but by ranking score some time.

[SeanC]

I think I'm right in saying that at level C events (which covers many former badge events) clubs can do whatever they like, and possibly even at level B events where the requirement is to produce results by age class, but I don't think the rules say what the age classes should be. That leaves only a few events where BOF have specific rules about those events and you need the full catastrophe of age classes.

So what's holding you back? It's not BOF. why not put a red line through the traditional badge or colour coded event your club has been holding since the Permian period and do something completely different ?

[Big Jon]

In Scotland the Scottish-O-League covers basically all the "Badge" events and local leagues cover the level C events with a generous scattering of level D's and club coaching sessions to fill in gaps. This works (pretty) well here so probably doesn't need changing, however I can believe this format doesn't work elsewhere.

[King Penguin]

There does not have to be (and rarely is) a separate course for each 5-year age class.
Results can be produced by course as well as age class, so in this case it is possible to have it both ways - just put e.g. M55 on same course as M50.

[SeanC]

At events that don't have an age based competition, why do we insist on recording the age anyway? Lots of people don't like to be asked their age and there's the added overload on beginners of explaining the age class structure in addition to all the other stuff they have to remember.