What does it mean for a race to be in UKOL?

[Duncan]

Two things struck me when comparing two events from yesterday.

Firstly participation:

• EBOR's Level B event at Givendale in the UK Orienteering League: 279 runners
• LOC's Level C event at Stickle Pike: 368 runners! (so many that they ran out of maps on at least one course)

Secondly the terrain for the EBOR event and the LOC event. Ask yourself which looks more likely to provide a real orienteering challenge?

This does seem to question what it means for a race to be a UKOL? From this sample it seems it is neither guaranteed to be an event that will attract a large and quality entry, nor is it an necessarily an event with excellent terrain. I've no doubt the EBOR event had excellent organisation, and the forest was perfectly 'pleasant' (was it?). So maybe it is just that it will be a well organised event with peripheral bells and whistles (commentary?), and an opportunity to race against other people who care about UKOL standings. Is that as it should be?

[housewife]

Well we were tempted by the EBOR races but when we discovered the only thing they were prepared to offer our kids on Saturday was a 3k urban race (bit far for a 4 year old!) we headed to the lakes, which were sensational! No regrets there! We weren't the only family to chose the lakes for that reason.

[graeme]

which looks more likely to provide a real orienteering challenge?

Stickle Pike was a long race, so emphasised the physical challenge, while Givendale was a middle so would have been more technical.

Both would be equally challenging in their own way, though with level B status one should have more confidence in Givendale.

Do I win a lollipop?
Thought not.

[JennyJ]

If you want the UKOL to be the Lake District and Scotland orienteering league then that's fine but to be fair I have heard only good things about the courses from Ebor this weekend and they had a brand new map of Sunday's area etc. Orienteering is all about running in new places and being able to navigate in all different types of terrain isn't it? My first World Champs was in a forest full of brashings but it was still the World Champs. I guess with a League people can always choose which races they go to to count (don't ask me the rules of the UKOL though).

[awk]

A formal requirement of the UKOL is that it has a good geographical spread, and to use a variety of orienteering styles/types. A formally unstated aim, but one I've heard espoused, is to have a series of 'weekends' (or at least pairings of races) spread reasonably evenly throughout the year. As to quality criteria - I have no idea. The Veteran's Cup (one of the precursors to the UKOL) was fundamentally based on the major events (the various British Champs and the area champs) plus a selection of potentially good quality races to give a good geographical spread, but those ideas seem to have been put aside.

I suspect a strong contributor to Stickle Pike not being included was the lack of a paired race, and the fact that 5 of the 18 races in the League are already located in the Lakes - 3 days of the Northerns weekend and 2 days of the Lakes 5-day.

In terms of its position geographically and chronologically, the Ebor weekend makes some sense. In quality terms, those who attended Givendale are in a better position to judge; my course at Thirsk was, however, an excellent piece of planning - it'll have to be an outstanding effort for me to enjoy another urban race more this year.

[ba-ba]

I can contest that Stickle Pike was suitably technical enough with long and middle-distance style legs to fox all.
The vast majority of Lakeland events seem to be registered as level C, and are normally excellent and well worth a trip, even more so because you can get a fell run in on the other day in the weekend. Or even after the event.

[RichT]

Thanks for all of the kind comments about Stickle Pike.

Just to set the record straight Lakeland only tend to have 3 or 4 Level Cs in a year which support the excellent Cumbrian Galloppen series. The majority of events are Level D on Wednesday evenings and we have around 20 scheduled during the rest of the year, with a few (well 5) Level Bs (Northern Champs support events during UKOL weekend, Lakes 5 Days, etc) as well.

My understanding of UKOL is that once a month, with a wide geographical spread, supporting a variety of formats (Urban,Sprint,Middle,Long) then a competitor should be able to find a "major" event. My issue with this is the "something for everyone" approach. After pencilling in the JK & British Long Champs at the start of the year, all other events are on a distance/terrain/cost calculation.

And as I love traditional "O" but am no fan of Urban "O" then the number of events I'm prepared to travel to shrinks to a point where I may not attend enough qualification races for UKOL. And what does it mean anyway . . .

[Homer]

Haven't we had this discussion before?

I was one (of the few) attracted by UKOL points at Thirsk and Givendale. Both were well organised events with good maps and well planned courses. They deserved better attendances (although I'm not sure how many more cars they could have coped with).
As JennyJ says, orienteering is all about being able to navigate in all types of terrain. I personally much prefer Lakes terrain to N Yorks, but that's not the point. Sunday's area looks extremely unpromising on paper but with good planning (and an excellent map) made a perfectly valid Middle Distance race where any lapse in concentration was punished. It was just a shame the course passed through the car park twice...

The UKOL is devalued in my mind by such small attendances. 50 points for first of three at Givendale is surely of less value than 50 points for an overall win on Days 2 and 3 at the JK?

[Duncan]

The UKOL is devalued in my mind by such small attendances. 50 points for first of three at Givendale is surely of less value than 50 points for an overall win on Days 2 and 3 at the JK?

Maybe they should score it with 1 point for last place, and then increasing up the results list (with some gaps in the points allocation near the top). So that the bigger the field, the more points you get.

[graeme]

50 points for first of three at Givendale is surely of less value than 50 points for an overall win on Days 2 and 3 at the JK?

You can't do more than win!
On the other hand, the idea that a JK bronze medal is equivalent to coming last at Givendale is a bit silly. I can only imagine the fuss if the ranking list produced such an outcome...

[Gnitworp]

From 2002 to 2010 (before anybody knew about it ) the Masters Cup was based on ones best five (or six) ranking scores from a larger number of specified events.

[awk]

Whatever scoring system one uses, there will always be perceived anomalies. It is, after all, a lot easier to get a freak set of ranking points at an event like Givendale. Personally, I don't have a problem with anybody scoring higher than usual points at a league race I didn't attend - I could have been there if I had chosen to be.

As for the arguments about the JK: no event on the calendar is equivalent to the JK. I suspect even the British this year won't be - so maybe it's the JK that is the freak one, not Givendale. After all, in the only other UKOL weekend so far, the BNC wasn't exactly the biggest event of the year either. I competed in all but two UKOL races last year, and it was the JK that was most out of line when it came to my scores (bar a very weary Day 3 at the Six Day - which for me was and should remain a holiday event anyway).

The fixtures were published well in advance. Everybody knew the choices. The fact that a UKOL event only attracted that number, compared to a Level C event in the South West of the Lakes, perhaps says more about the promotion of the UKOL than anything else. It's not exactly been British Orienteering's greatest success in that respect - sadly, as the core idea is a good one.

[greywolf]

It is, after all, a lot easier to get a freak set of ranking points at an event like Givendale.

Why?
Almost all freak rankings scores are due either a) to incorrect BOF numbers being supplied or b) the inclusion of runners with very low previous ranking scores in the calculations (that's why it seems to happen more often at urban races)