Demographics

[The Loofa]

Picking up SeanC's point in the Midland Champs thread, I collated some numbers from that and compared it to the 1983 Midland Champs on the same area.

last Sunday saw 751 competitive runs, but in 1983 there were 1,720. Such a change means comparing absolute numbers might not mean much. So I've chosen proportion of total instead

Age 10-18 22.8% (from 26.3%) - held up passably
Age 19-34 7.3% (from 34.7%) - ouch!
age 35-49 19.0% (from 29.8%)
age 50+ 50.9% (from 9.1%)

hmmmm!

[Gnitworp]

.... and I think then, 65+ were an unevolved species.

[King Penguin]

30 years on, and the bulge has moved up 30 years.
Suggests to me perhaps a significant proportion of those running last time have staying power, but the post-school age groups are not being replenished. Consistent with other comments.
Might be interesting to count the individuals in the 19-34 bracket last time who also ran this weekend.

[roadrunner]

The 50+ runners from 30 years ago will now be 80+, so it's unlikely that many are still taking part; nearly all the 19-34s and all the 35-49s will now be 50+, and it looks like their numbers are down by about 40%, which isn't a bad retention rate over that period (of course, there will be some people who took the sport up since 1983 and are now over 50). The juniors in 1983 will now be 40+, their numbers are down to about 1/3 which again isn't too bad considering. So the only problem seems to be that we aren't getting new competitors in the 21-35 age group (and that many juniors are not continuing).

[SeanC]

My impression is that the demographic gap used to be M/W21 10 years ago, now it is M/W21 to M/W40. Compare the numbers at the Midland Champs in M35 and 40 with M45 for example.

I think we have to face up to the fact that traditional forest orienteering events just aren't remotely appealing to post baby boomer generations. There are probably a lot of reasons for this:

- too technically difficult
- too unfriendly
- too physically difficult
- too uncool
- too serious
- too old
- too hard to get to
- too invisible
- not taken seriously as a sport

Orienteering seems to change at a glacial rate. Perhaps the changes needed to attract the under 45's contradict the needs of the over 45's? Perhaps it's the committees and structures that decide on things such as what age classes go in our championships?

The "championship" events are a good example of this and an uncontested womens premier course shows that the class structure designed for the demographics of 30 years ago needs to change. I'm betting it will be exactly the same in 5 years time though.

[drobin]

As one of those with 'staying power', I went instead (as it was nearer), to the WIM event in the New Forest. I doubt there was an alternative event in 1983 to go to.

[AndyC]

The 50+ runners from 30 years ago will now be 80+, so it's unlikely that many are still taking part;

I've just entered an over 80 year old for NATO into the CSC round at Slaley there are also four M75s entered and I expect that CLOK will enter a W80 (she ran in the MLN event last week and beat 11 soldiers)

[roadrunner]

My impression is that the demographic gap used to be M/W21 10 years ago, now it is M/W21 to M/W40. Compare the numbers at the Midland Champs in M35 and 40 with M45 for example.

I think we have to face up to the fact that traditional forest orienteering events just aren't remotely appealing to post baby boomer generations. There are probably a lot of reasons for this:

- too technically difficult
- too unfriendly
- too physically difficult
- too uncool
- too serious
- too old
- too hard to get to
- too invisible
- not taken seriously as a sport

I don't think it can be all of those. Events like Tough Guy seem to attract predominantly 20-35s, and they're certainly physically difficult, doesn't look especially easy to get to, and at £95 far more expensive than any (single) orienteering event. Maybe it's the "technically difficult", "unfriendly" and "serious" that are putting people off?

[RJ]

Yes, definitely, the sport is quite technically challenging for those coming into it for the first time. Juniors start with white, then yellow courses etc.... for good reason. Anyone who has been involved with the coaching at Club Nights and looking after adult novices will understand the nature of the challenge they meet. The last thing we need is the adult first timers to have an unpleasant exasperating experience with a map and a forest the first time they orienteer.

The sport is great fun however.... we all know that. What is needed is a 'fun' level of event.... informal and on easy terrain, easily accessible, with regular opportunity to try it. Those clubs that have low key informal event series are increasing their membership because there is a definite route into the more difficult and challenging 'forest event'.

If we had twenty times the number of level D events around the country, and we marketed them strongly, we would attract membership. These events, however, must be designed to keep the current club membership involved at the same time! Requires care to get it right! But there are clubs that have solved this situation.

[Red Adder]

It was ever thus with newbee adults. I remember colleague coming to an event about 30 years ago. He was fit (fringe of being an international as a Junior), interested in maps - seemed like a good potential orienteer. At his first event he did OK but I, who had been pretty much alienated by school sport and still not especially fit, stuffed him. We never saw him again sadly. We still don't seem to know how to attract and retain the M21-40 group, manage their expectation of progress and help them develop their skills.

[Red Adder]

I'd happily do away with the multiple age groups. Leave the Juniors as now but then have x21-x40 as Seniors, c40 - x60 (or 65) as Vets, x60 (or 65) + Super-Vets. I would also leave the colour coding as now as it is an effective way of differentiating length and technical challenge.

[AndyC]

I may have said this before but I joined the sport as an adult close to 30 and enjoyed it well initially but I found I couldn't make the leap from Orange to Green- a significant increase in both physical and technical challenge (and I've spoken with others who had the same issue) I felt alienated by the "you're only doing Orange" I got all the time and my orienteering activity declined.
I got drawn back after Light Green had appeared and that gave me a course I could manage and a chance to bridge up to green.
The advent of Short Green and more coaching now makes that bridge much easier -what we have to avoid is making an adult newcomer feel "puny" if he can only do TD2/3/4 and offer assistance to understand ways to find TD5 controls and routes.
We are in better shape to progress beginners now so maybe we can get those young adults back if we can just get them to try the sport!

[madmike]

I'd happily do away with the multiple age groups. Leave the Juniors as now but then have x21-x40 as Seniors, c40 - x60 (or 65) as Vets, x60 (or 65) + Super-Vets. I would also leave the colour coding as now as it is an effective way of differentiating length and technical challenge.

Hmm could disincentivise people currnetly towards the top of their 5 year age band, particularly those asked to run against some one 25 years younger. One size does not fit all.

At smaller events yes.

At larger events no.

I planned a small event here on Sat and we used following classes:

M/W12
M/W16
M/WA
M/WB
M/W40
M/W60
Beginners

That worked well for that event with 110 runners. Other bigger events here sometimes use 10 year age classes and national type events use 5 years. In fact at the Florence weekend last year I ran M40-50 on Sat and M45-50 on Sun.

Also Downunder a few years back they had 5 year age classes for long courses but with short courses in 15 year bands - an idea worth exploring maybe?

I agree with your idea in broad principle but one size does not fit all and we need to be as inclusive as possible and not piss people off by giving a competitve M65 no chance of winning against a 39 year old. You are almost advocating having Gnitworp and Ravinous in the same class - and as good an orienteer as Gnitworp is he may be slightly overmatched in that case.

[SeanC]

Many of you seem to be making the same mistake. The mistake perpetuated by the dreaded colour coded system. This mistake is assuming that the ultimate aim of an adult beginner should be to compete in TD4 and TD5 courses.

Why should this be so? Why can't adults of any experience levels be able to turn up to any event and be offered a course with a technical difficulty level that they enjoy, rather then the technical difficulty level that we have decided is good for them?

I know clubs like SLOW offer trail challenges, and my own club offers simple score courses with mostly TD1-3 standard controls, but at 90% of events it's TD4 or 5 only, unless you want to do children's courses.

[King Penguin]

Surely not TD5 entirely at 90% of events in England ?
Many venues struggle to get above TD4, or even TD3.