The November Classic thread got me thinking.
Why do clubs put on double header weekends? I presume to make their event(s) more attractive so that people are more likely to travel from further afield.
I quite fancy the November Classic. The New Forest is beautiful at this time of year and running there with a map is a real treat. However it's a long way from Springfield....
If there was another race on the Saturday then I might be more tempted to make the long drive. 'What about the Salisbury Urban race?' I hear you say. Well, it's not the New Forest and running around city streets doesn't appeal quite the same.
To me there are now two groups of orienteers in the UK: forest orienteers and urban orienteers. Admittedly there's a big cross-over between the two groups, but most people have a strong preference for one or the other. If clubs want to attract as many people as possible I suggest they would be better off combining either two urban races or two forest races rather than one of each.
What does anyone else think?
Double header weekends
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: Double header weekends
I agree about travelling further for a double-header. But for me it would have to be 2 forest races or else a special urban sprint area (eg medieval town or suchlike.
I think double-headers will become more common as travel becomes less socially acceptable.
Plenty of good 2 days races in Scotland - and quite a lot are 2 forest races... see you round
I think double-headers will become more common as travel becomes less socially acceptable.
Plenty of good 2 days races in Scotland - and quite a lot are 2 forest races... see you round
- Big Jon
- guru
- Posts: 1895
- Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Dess
Re: Double header weekends
I wonder if this is because the Salsbury Urban event was cancelled last year so events are being squeezed in a bit this year?
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Double header weekends
Homer wrote:To me there are now two groups of orienteers in the UK: forest orienteers and urban orienteers. Admittedly there's a big cross-over between the two groups, but most people have a strong preference for one or the other. If clubs want to attract as many people as possible I suggest they would be better off combining either two urban races or two forest races rather than one of each.
On the face of it, this is a sound argument. I do worry, however, that the overall group of orienteers in the UK is small, ageing, and declining in number. There are notable exceptions, but looking around it seems as though many clubs are struggling to resource events. The total number of volunteer bodies is reducing, but an even bigger issue I sense is that the number of experienced officials is declining even faster.
If your premise is correct (and I sense it broadly is), then to combine either two urban races or two forest races is to make such a weekend more attractive to one group, to the complete exclusion of the other. Not, perhaps, too big an issue if the opposite double-header could be staged within a reasonable period of time. But resources probably don't often allow this. And even if they do, it further adds to the division of orienteers into two separate groups. I'm sceptical that the total number is sustainable; each subset in isolation certainly is not.
The possible advantage of a mixed weekend, from an organising perspective, is that it's often easier to get volunteers to commit to a whole weekend than it is to get them to commit to two separate events at different times. Having one of each gives everyone something they like. Hopefully this means that everyone is reasonably happy, even though few will be ecstatic.
The advantage of having a mix of event types is the overall number of people they appeal to should be larger. But if we only choose to attend our ideal type of events, then will there be sufficient attendance at any events to enable our preferred type to be offered in the future? I've had more than one conversation over the last few months with seasoned orienteers bemoaning the reducing frequency of events- but at the same time stoutly refusing to contemplate attending anything on offer within the region that doesn't meet their personal definition of an ideal event. To me, this feels ultimately self-defeating.
Now, I think your point is more specifically about travelling a significant distance, and therefore making a significant investment in time and money for travelling and accommodation. It's entirely reasonable to assess whether what's on offer in such a scenario would give you value for that investment. But I do wonder if, regionally at least, orienteers need to be more open to supporting events that are not necessarily their first preference, to reduce the risk that it won't be long before there will be very little to attend at all? Undoubtedly a bigger issue in some areas than in others; but when the wall starts to crumble, how long until it collapses altogether?
And that's before we even start thinking about the increasing challenge and expense of securing permissions.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Double header weekends
If what your saying is
If people don't want to go to orienteering, then we need to find some others who do. Either clubs promoting regionals to their newer members or regionals becoming more low key and more local, and using publicity to get new orienteers to the event.
So going back to the double header weekends - maybe forget the serious orienteering on a Saturday. Instead offer an open training day in an unused corner of the area to be used the next day, and ideally a space for club barbeques or tents. Clubs or groups of clubs, maybe regions could meet up and do a bit of practicing and have some food and chats afterwards. This might appeal more to a new generation of orienteers than another event.
. I do agree, but then again if people are only going orienteering out of charity to support another club that doesn't seem sustainable."there are going to be less events, so orienteers need to be less sniffy about where they go to if they want regular orienteering"
If people don't want to go to orienteering, then we need to find some others who do. Either clubs promoting regionals to their newer members or regionals becoming more low key and more local, and using publicity to get new orienteers to the event.
So going back to the double header weekends - maybe forget the serious orienteering on a Saturday. Instead offer an open training day in an unused corner of the area to be used the next day, and ideally a space for club barbeques or tents. Clubs or groups of clubs, maybe regions could meet up and do a bit of practicing and have some food and chats afterwards. This might appeal more to a new generation of orienteers than another event.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Double header weekends
SeanC wrote:If what your saying is. I do agree, but then again if people are only going orienteering out of charity to support another club that doesn't seem sustainable."there are going to be less events, so orienteers need to be less sniffy about where they go to if they want regular orienteering"
I agree. I was aiming more for 'supporting the sport as a stakeholder in the spirit of mutual benefit instead of as a consumer' than for 'acting out of charity'. But your framing is probably more realistic.
As for your proposed solution, I think this neatly sums up the underlying problem. Orienteering desperately needs a new participant pipeline. But what appeals to newcomers is very different to what appeals to established orienteers- the gap being bigger for Orienteering than most other sports. If focus is placed on attracting newcomers, the alienation of established orienteers will likely accelerate, and there won't be enough people left to provide an offer for newcomers. But focus on optimising the offer to established orienteers, and it's the more accessible, locally based events that won't happen.
That's not criticising your suggestions. In fact, I strongly agree that these are the sorts of things needed. I also think that things like competitive pairs classes would make a massive difference. But such things would likely be perceived negatively by a large proportion of established orienteers. Something of a catch-22.
Debates on attracting newcomers are generally separate from consideration of event offers. In my view, they are intrinsically linked, and the sport has to develop a more holistic mindset if it is to be sustainable.
Ideally, BOF would be focussed on identifying what works. Proper evaluation of the various club led development initiatives would be a start, separating the localised and generalisable factors to help share meaningful learning rather than unconnected anecdotes. And similar work to identify effective ways of meeting the needs of both established orienteers and newcomers for the good of the sport. One can hope, but on current evidence there is no expectation.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Double header weekends
I certainly agree with homer that double-headers are good for people will to drive halfway across the country.
Just back from Tankersley (Thanks, homer & SYO), a weekend much enhanced for me by being able to pick off the Carlisle urban all the way. I can't cope with terrain any more, so a weekend just running on roads and tracks was perfect
It was to have run on Tankersley before. I'm not here to shout "unfair" - that's just the way of things. But it did make me wonder why we're so reluctant to put our double-headers on the same area. It would make organising/permissions planning etc so much easier.
But there's also an issue hosted at by others that, if we structure the sport for the benefit of those of us willing to travel large distances, it will be to the disbenefit of "local" orienteers. I'd rather go to a double header down in Sheffield than a single race, but here in Edinburgh I'd rather have an event each week. And there isn't really the volunteer resource to go round. Tricky.
I don't see any rule against allowing this, and its normal in small events around here. Doesn't seem to have made much difference...
Just back from Tankersley (Thanks, homer & SYO), a weekend much enhanced for me by being able to pick off the Carlisle urban all the way. I can't cope with terrain any more, so a weekend just running on roads and tracks was perfect
It was to have run on Tankersley before. I'm not here to shout "unfair" - that's just the way of things. But it did make me wonder why we're so reluctant to put our double-headers on the same area. It would make organising/permissions planning etc so much easier.
But there's also an issue hosted at by others that, if we structure the sport for the benefit of those of us willing to travel large distances, it will be to the disbenefit of "local" orienteers. I'd rather go to a double header down in Sheffield than a single race, but here in Edinburgh I'd rather have an event each week. And there isn't really the volunteer resource to go round. Tricky.
I also think that things like competitive pairs classes would make a massive difference.
I don't see any rule against allowing this, and its normal in small events around here. Doesn't seem to have made much difference...
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Double header weekends
I'm with others in not finding urban events particularly attractive - and they certainly don't encourage me to travel.
My immediate reaction was the opposite - there is no point in putting on a double header if encouraging people to travel becomes less acceptable. Unless the argument is that two nearby events on one weekend followed by a completely fallow weekend would reduce the overall travel requirement, compared to one event each weekend? Not sure that is a direction we want to encourage for the development of the sport.
I also wonder if the presence of the Salisbury race contributed to the demise of the VHI weekend? I guess the individual race was intended for the November Classic (also in doubt until recently, which wouldn't have helped). But finding someone to put on a forest relay, the economics of which are doubtful at the best of times, must be doubly hard if some of the non-VHI competitors who might make it worthwhile are being attracted by an urban event instead.
Big Jon wrote:... I think double-headers will become more common as travel becomes less socially acceptable...
My immediate reaction was the opposite - there is no point in putting on a double header if encouraging people to travel becomes less acceptable. Unless the argument is that two nearby events on one weekend followed by a completely fallow weekend would reduce the overall travel requirement, compared to one event each weekend? Not sure that is a direction we want to encourage for the development of the sport.
I also wonder if the presence of the Salisbury race contributed to the demise of the VHI weekend? I guess the individual race was intended for the November Classic (also in doubt until recently, which wouldn't have helped). But finding someone to put on a forest relay, the economics of which are doubtful at the best of times, must be doubly hard if some of the non-VHI competitors who might make it worthwhile are being attracted by an urban event instead.
- Snail
- diehard
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:37 pm
Re: Double header weekends
graeme wrote:I also think that things like competitive pairs classes would make a massive difference.
I don't see any rule against allowing this, and its normal in small events around here. Doesn't seem to have made much difference...
Interesting. Personally, I've never seen it offered. I've seen plenty of 'newcomers can take part in pairs or small groups', and such participants shoehorned into results lists. But it's always implied that 'if you want to do it properly' (regional/national competitions, rankings, etc) then it's an individual sport. Anecdotally, many people who like the sound of orienteering are put off by the individual nature of participation.
But if you have data on it being actively offered (as opposed to 'accommodated'), and that data suggests little impact, then I will have to file this one in the overflowing folder of 'decent-enough-sounding-ideas that aren't supported by the evidence'. Though if only at small events, it might be another example of the separation of development activities and offers for established orienteers that, in my view, is part of the problem we appear to be facing. Not questioning your experience- genuinely interested in what's been attempted, and what the result has been.
- spitalfields
- orange
- Posts: 132
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 1:54 pm
Re: Double header weekends
With running in pairs or groups, surely 98% of orienteers don't mind, unless that pair was to start winning, which is probably unlikely since running in pairs makes sense for casual half a dozen times a year orienteers and relative newbie but more challenging for the expert orienteer.
The problem you are describing spitalfields is that our communication doesn't encourage it. The leagues, entries, event details, results etc are all written with individuals in mind, so a newbie could assume that running in a group isn't allowed, or at least not the done thing.
The same is true of being a club member. Lots of newbies assume membership is compulsary.
I always add this sentence to our Facebook event details.
I think it helps and where we've had a big turnout of newbies, over half go in groups. Event details are where you want to clearly encourage running in groups. I think national/regional competition rules are less of a problem.
The other thing we are doing in my club, and neighbouring club DFOK, is charging more for groups (they get a map each for their cash). Not only is this explicitly encouraging running in groups, but we're generating more income as well. Racesignup supports this quite well. Other entry systems not so well, but it's still possible.
Website event details are a problem in general and another area that can easily be improved. When people write them, I get the feeling they are talking to the average audience member, which roughly translates to an M60 called Dave who has been orienteering for 30 years and is probably in the top 5% fitness for his age group in the UK. Dave doesn't need much of a 'sell'. Event details can be easily improved if written with the newbie and less experienced orienteer in mind. It might even encourage more Daves to go if event details talk about attractive pre and post event options, options for less keen or non competing partners etc.
The problem you are describing spitalfields is that our communication doesn't encourage it. The leagues, entries, event details, results etc are all written with individuals in mind, so a newbie could assume that running in a group isn't allowed, or at least not the done thing.
The same is true of being a club member. Lots of newbies assume membership is compulsary.
I always add this sentence to our Facebook event details.
You don't have to be a member of an orienteering club and you can run on your own or in a group.
I think it helps and where we've had a big turnout of newbies, over half go in groups. Event details are where you want to clearly encourage running in groups. I think national/regional competition rules are less of a problem.
The other thing we are doing in my club, and neighbouring club DFOK, is charging more for groups (they get a map each for their cash). Not only is this explicitly encouraging running in groups, but we're generating more income as well. Racesignup supports this quite well. Other entry systems not so well, but it's still possible.
Website event details are a problem in general and another area that can easily be improved. When people write them, I get the feeling they are talking to the average audience member, which roughly translates to an M60 called Dave who has been orienteering for 30 years and is probably in the top 5% fitness for his age group in the UK. Dave doesn't need much of a 'sell'. Event details can be easily improved if written with the newbie and less experienced orienteer in mind. It might even encourage more Daves to go if event details talk about attractive pre and post event options, options for less keen or non competing partners etc.
- SeanC
- god
- Posts: 2251
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46 pm
- Location: Kent
Re: Double header weekends
spitalfields wrote:Not questioning your experience- genuinely interested in what's been attempted, and what the result has been.
To be fair, its there but we haven't promoted it, far less set up a "pairs" category. Normally its people - not just juniors - who are a little nervous about going out on their own, so one person is doing the nav, the other is a safety net.
Long ago, my first ever event, I ran as a "pair", shadowed by an experienced orienteer. 5 mins later we'd won the white course and I had the confidence to try something harder. I suspect doing this nowadays would have me labelled as a bad person because as a 21 year old obviously I should have been doing a 10km TD5 course.
Competing as pairs is the norm in mountain marathons, and although people mutter about "safety" the reality is it doesn't detract from the challenge, and some company is nice in a 5-6 hour race. But I think most people would find it a distraction to have to discuss legs of 3-4 minutes with a partner.
So, absolutely, we should allow pairs to run competitively! I don't think you'll get much takeup, but that may be the wrong measure. I never ran as a pair since that first event, but without that initial positive experience maybe my 1000+ runs as an individual would never have happened.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Double header weekends
Snail wrote:I'm with others in not finding urban events particularly attractive - and they certainly don't encourage me to travel.
From another perspective, I'm more likely to travel for an urban, almost certainly easier to travel to without a car, and can combine with doing something else to make the trip worthwhile, and the facilities at the race venue are usually much better than a few tents and portaloos.
If there's a terrain event linked, I'm much more likely to do it than if it was the terrain event alone. I think if clubs want to attract (more) people covering all bases is necessary, which a mixed double weekend does.
- Len
- white
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 5:19 pm
Re: Double header weekends
Here in Norwich we are hosting our city race on Sunday October 31st. We thought we might benefit from the fact that the Cambridge City race is on the saturday, and people might come to East Anglia for an urban double header.
So far, the plan doesn't seem to be working. Cambridge currently has 281 entries, while Norwich has 80.
As an orienteer/runner myself, I am aware of the contradiction in the fact that I do travel for orienteering double headers, but would never dream of doing running races on consecutive days.
My personal preference is a weekend with one forest and one urban race. I like both. I know I'm much better at urban races, but enjoy being in the forest more.
So far, the plan doesn't seem to be working. Cambridge currently has 281 entries, while Norwich has 80.
As an orienteer/runner myself, I am aware of the contradiction in the fact that I do travel for orienteering double headers, but would never dream of doing running races on consecutive days.
My personal preference is a weekend with one forest and one urban race. I like both. I know I'm much better at urban races, but enjoy being in the forest more.
- Norni
- string
- Posts: 13
- Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 1:25 pm
Re: Double header weekends
Norwich is a long was from most places. Having been just once I can confirm it was an excellent area for an urban event, which I thoroughly enjoyed and was glad I made the long trek. On that occasion the previous day was an urban event in Oxford.
Can't make it this time.
Can't make it this time.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: notloB
Re: Double header weekends
Norni wrote:Here in Norwich we are hosting our city race on Sunday October 31st. We thought we might benefit from the fact that the Cambridge City race is on the saturday, and people might come to East Anglia for an urban double header.
So far, the plan doesn't seem to be working. Cambridge currently has 281 entries, while Norwich has 80.
As an orienteer/runner myself, I am aware of the contradiction in the fact that I do travel for orienteering double headers, but would never dream of doing running races on consecutive days.
My personal preference is a weekend with one forest and one urban race. I like both. I know I'm much better at urban races, but enjoy being in the forest more.
Cambridge is right next to the M11. Easy access across country via the M6 and A14.
Norwich is several hours further, down single carriageway roads. Nightmare getting back on a Sunday afternoon. Just isnt worth the travel.
- MrD
- white
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2019 11:29 pm
19 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests