Course length ratios, what to use?

[ianandmonika]

At Newborough Welsh Championships(!) M65, is per BOF guidelines for small Level B events, on green together with M85 and W50 to W70. But the course is only 3.8k, compared with the Scottish 6 Days duned areas at 5.1 to 6.1 k for M65. The course combination is not right. M65s are really going to think twice about incurring travel and accomodation costs to run 3.8k at a Level B Championship event. M65 should have been on blue. M65 on Rishworth Moor last weekend (a much more physical area than Newborough) was green at 5k. It's this inconsistency in courses that is an issue. For a Level B championship on dunes M65 3.8k is just wrong.

[Simon E]

...and basing it on the time taken by someone who didn't turn up on a course that doesn't exist is simpler because ... ?

... it is the least worst of the various options.

You need to have an absolute reference point (the nominal elite winning time for Black) to avoid the problem of predicting who will turn up on the day.

It might possibly have been clearer to specify a nominal elite winning time for Brown, since this is much more likely to be one of the courses that is put on. This just gives Black a CLR of greater than 1.

[NeilC]

...and basing it on the time taken by someone who didn't turn up on a course that doesn't exist is simpler because ... ?

It's like theoretical physics where our understanding of the universe has been based on particles that no one has ever seen and may not exist anyway.

[SJC]

It's this inconsistency in courses that is an issue. For a Level B championship on dunes M65 3.8k is just wrong.

The Black course for M21 is 9.7 km which should have an expected elite winning time of 67 minutes. This means that either:

a) The area is so difficult that even a top elite competitor would struggle to run at 7 minutes per km.
or:
b) All the courses are too short.

I suspect it is the latter.

[mikey]

At Newborough Welsh Championships(!) M65, is per BOF guidelines for small Level B events, on green together with M85 and W50 to W70. But the course is only 3.8k, compared with the Scottish 6 Days duned areas at 5.1 to 6.1 k for M65. The course combination is not right. M65s are really going to think twice about incurring travel and accomodation costs to run 3.8k at a Level B Championship event. M65 should have been on blue. M65 on Rishworth Moor last weekend (a much more physical area than Newborough) was green at 5k. It's this inconsistency in courses that is an issue. For a Level B championship on dunes M65 3.8k is just wrong.

It will be interesting to see the M50/55 winning times with the course @5.2k. The jump between brown and blue seems large and I am surprised there is no short brown.

[Paul Frost]

from:events_appendix_b_2013.pdf
4. Running Speed ratios
4.1 In order to obtain appropriate course lengths the running speed ratios for the different age classes need to be known. The table below shows the figures used in calculating the course length ratios for Long distance races in the 2011 Competition Rules:

That table gives a mid-point/average of 0.80 for the 5 male age classes that would normally run a Blue at a level C event, but the events_guideline_b.pdf says that Blue should use a ratio of 0.56. I'm ignoring the fact that there is no Brown course, and accept that if any faster age class runs it they will in effect get a short run. I would hope that they would also accept that will be the result.
But for the genuine normal Blue course runners I would like to give them what they would normally expect in terms of distance and estimated winning time.

It depends how long you want the competitors to take. If you want the M21 runners to run their course in 70 minutes but the M50s to be out for 55 mins then the 0.56 may work. If you want them to be out for the same length of time then use the 0.8.

This is the crux of the issue, the different ratios are for 2 scenarios, shouldn't there be a guideline that says which is the normal/standard method to be used?
Should the EWT be a gradually decreasing time as people get older, or should everyone (near the top of their age class/course, performance wise) expect to take about 67 minutes to complete their course?

[NeilC]

The relative running speed table is useful if a planner wants to go "off piste" and plan something other than a colour based event. If you want to plan a local age class championships where all the winners take the same time then use this table.

However if you want to plan courses with names that people recognise (Blue, Green etc) then use the guideline since it will help ensure that people who normally run a particular colour will know what they are getting.

[Arnold]

I think the two ratios are complementary not contradicting.
Say your (theoretical) black course is 10K for a 67m winning time. (This would be a tough area).

Then your blue course is 5.6K (0.56)
Which an Elite man would win in 38mins (0.56*67)
But because the normal runners shouldn't be elites they will run 25% slower (0.80) and will thus take about 46mins to win it.
(On a personal note that sounds a bit short so I think 0.56 is too low)

Or as graeme suggest you could just wing it on Loch Vaa as it should be rather predictable (and fast), so say:
Brown 10K
Blue 7.5K
Green 5K
Light Green 4K, Orange 3.5K, Yellow 2.5K, White 2K
(or maybe even 10% longer than that)

[DJM]

At Newborough Welsh Championships(!) M65, is per BOF guidelines for small Level B events, on green together with M85 and W50 to W70. But the course is only 3.8k, compared with the Scottish 6 Days duned areas at 5.1 to 6.1 k for M65. The course combination is not right. M65s are really going to think twice about incurring travel and accomodation costs to run 3.8k at a Level B Championship event. M65 should have been on blue. M65 on Rishworth Moor last weekend (a much more physical area than Newborough) was green at 5k. It's this inconsistency in courses that is an issue. For a Level B championship on dunes M65 3.8k is just wrong.

I have some responsibility for this as I wrote the Welsh Championships Guideline a couple of years ago (see http://www.welshorienteering.org.uk/Documents/WelshChampsLong.pdf).

The major difference between the Welsh Champs and, say, the Scottish 6 Day, is one of scale. The 6 Day has an entry of thousands requiring dozens of courses, the Welsh Champs has an entry of around 200 (increased to 300 this time), needing only a handful of courses.

So, whereas the 6 Day can provide a suite of courses with gradually reducing lengths (and where M65 gets the "right" length for them), we have to group a large number of classes into each course in Wales. In doing so, we based the course structure on that of table in #3.4 of BOF Event Guideline B which has, e.g. Blue at CLR = 0.56 and Green at 0.39 - there is necessarily a huge step change between the two.

M65 would normally have a CLR of 0.45, somewhere between the two colours, and would be placed on Short Blue were there to be one. Blue is some 24% longer than Short Blue, and Green is 13% shorter, so logic dictates that Green matches the requirements of M65 better then does Blue.

So, yes, I myself will have to join the ranks of those who will get a shorter course than normal despite preferring something longer. With hindsight, the larger than expected entry could have led to an extra course being planned, but this would not have been anticipated when the planning was started.

Yes, I know it's an Area Championships and expectations should be higher, but the reality is that WOA is a tiny Association with limited resources and events have to be staged accordingly.

[afterthought]

Oh dear I have found these posts on course lengths, guidelines and history interesting.

I wonder if quick reading the table in the http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/images/uploaded/downloads/events_guideline_b.pdf showing example lengths leads us astray.

It says, for example, blue 5.5-7.5km, and green 3.5-5.0km.

From that, with the quick reading, one might guess that the shorter length applies on some maps, and the longer on some, and most are spread in between.

Earlier posts explain how it is recommended to work. Work out how far someone in the top-5 of the UK rankings can go in 67 minutes, and make green 0.39 of that, and blue 0.56 of that.

It seems that our top-5 orienteer generally runs at 5-5.5 mins/km. So they do 12.2 - 13.4km in their 67 minutes.

For example, picking data from serious courses at this year's Scottish 6-days:
Loch of Boath World Ranking Event (Middle Distance) 32 minutes for 6.175km with 205m of climb,
(5.2 mins/km)
Lossie: 52 mins for 9.9km 80m climb, (5.25 mins/km)
Culbin: 60 mins for 10.8km 105m climb, (5.55 mins/km)
Roseisle: 48 mins for 8.85km 380m climb, (5.4 mins/km).

And for longer races, also serious courses :
JK day 3: 95 mins for 17.9km 310m climb, (5.3 mins/km).
British: 94 mins for 17km, 580m climb, (5.52 mins/km).

For a faster area:
SHI in the New Forest in 2010: 81 mins for 17.1km (4.75 mins/km).

These athletes are slower only in exceptional conditions -
Coulmony & Belivat: 103 mins for 17.1km 490m, (6.0 mins/km).

So,
Green should be 0.39x(12.2-13.4) = 4.75-5.2km.
Blue should be 0.56x(12.2-13.4) = 6.8-7.5km.

That is green and blue should normally be in the top third of the quoted ranges.

A bit more if flat and fast. Less only in exceptional conditions - but I guess it is a courageous planner who puts the green course through the northern part of Coulmony at a level C event - so I wonder if this ever really applies.

But, sometimes a nice course works out and its length isn't a close match to the above ranges. Say it is 6km. Fair labelling would suggest it is "short blue", but for obvious reasons it is much better to call it "blue".

And if you do set a 3.8 km course at Newborough, I think it is almost certainly more correctly labelled "short green" than green, but I can quite understand it being labelled "green".

It is like women's clothing sizes. You sell more if people fit into a smaller size. You sell more courses if people are doing longer labels.

[mharky]

Nice of you to use fast areas in your data set to make the top M21s look good, but what about Trossachs?

[EddieH]

I find discussing the details of course lengths slightly amusing as it doesn't take much looking at results to establsh that the same colour course is planned over a massive range of nominal times so no-one can reasonably use the guidelines to anticipate what they are actually going to get.

In Scotland as a general rule short brown at a SOL is substantially longer than brown at the vast majority of level C events.

Courses length ratios are a big bonus for hard pressed planners who don't have a huge amountof time (or the will to compute all the variables). However when they are used consistently they will cnsistently cause short winning times in classes such as M60 because we run proportionately nearer to the elite in that terrain, whereas on tough areas they will consistently produce longer winning times in M60 and very long winning times in W70 because as we get older the terrain slows us down more.

I am happy to live with it becase it gives variety, although BOC winning times below 50 minutes are not my preference.

[ianandmonika]

Surely you have a BO guideline, then you look at the event status and the area. Is it a one off event or a two day event - if the former courses can be a bit longer than for the latter? Is it a prime area and are people travelling a distance to it? what are competitors' likely expectations? New Forest/Clumber are flat and fast; Newborough, Pembrey, Culbin are fast dunes but a bit slower because of technicality; Loch Vaa probably a bit slower still; Trossachs rather slower. Older competitors, particularly after 70/75 (with exceptions!!), are relatively slower in physically tough areas. A bit of common sense is needed.

Returning to M65 on green at Newborough, BOF guideline needs looking at. People are running faster and M65s fit more logically with courses on blue (ideally should be short blue). To put M65s on same course as W80s just does not make sense. So the guideline needs a review. Specifically regarding Newborough, a fast area, the courses generally do look short. M21 on black at 9.7k sets the standard for the other courses - given the last time I ran there was in 2001 as M50, when course was 7.8k/265m, black does look a bit short.

[MIE]

Returning to M65 on green at Newborough, BOF guideline needs looking at. People are running faster and M65s fit more logically with courses on blue (ideally should be short blue). To put M65s on same course as W80s just does not make sense. So the guideline needs a review. Specifically regarding Newborough, a fast area, the courses generally do look short. M21 on black at 9.7k sets the standard for the other courses - given the last time I ran there was in 2001 as M50, when course was 7.8k/265m, black does look a bit short.

I'm not going to Newborough.
I have, however, on more than one occassion, looked at courses lengths at events
I have attended and thought "those lengths/height gains look a bit short/long" and
wondered if the planner had it right. In the majority of cases (even on areas I thought I
knew well) the planners were closer to right than wrong. If the planner/controller are
right in this case then perhaps you will let us all know

[ianandmonika]

Will do after event - even though trying to switch from green to blue.