Junior Badge Scheme (again!)

[Mrs H.]

There is no need to publish the ages of people in the ageless classes. If they were up to running in the A classes they would be. It will be very clear to them how well they are doing compared and no one else needs to know. It's all about providing stepping stones up to the required level for everyone - and it has the added benefit of giving the less competative out there a course of their choice which they know they will enjoy - hopefully keeping them in touch with the sport at regional level.

It's simple - keep the A classes, drop the B classes and introduce a 4 tier ageless class - you don't need level 5 'cos that would be up to age standard anyway.

[helen]

spot on Mrs H!!

[Becks]

I may be wrong, and anyone on the Development Committee is welcome to correct me, but I don't think that a return to aged classes is on the cards here. This review is more about refining what we already have. I do quite like the idea of aged classes with a colour coded/Tech difficulty classes to back these up, but this would require another overhaul to the way people approach events, and is it not just an overcomplication?

I know the whole idea of ageless is to not really publish people's ages, but would the best refinement in the current system just to be to publish people's ages in the ageless classes? Or is this not good enough?

This is all sounding just more and more like slightly different ways of approaching the same thing to me. Maybe I've just spent too much time here today!

[Jo]

Ok after reading all this I've kind of changed my mind. I don't really see the problem with the ageless systems. It can be a bit confusing but for selection races we are told which course to run and other events it's not really important so just run the course that is the right TD for you and then if you can't decide L,M or S just look at what kind of distance you want to run.

[awk]

What I had originally envisaged was something along the lines of:

District events: colour courses as now.
Regional events: JM/JW colour classes (e.g. JM White), to provide easier matching, but greater emphasis on competition based on ability.
National events: JM/JW classes, with single age classes allocated to them (e.g. M12 run on JM3).

So, basically, Mrs H.'s model would apply at National Events, not regional, which are the link.

The labels JM1 etc were used because during the consultation process before finalising proposals, a significant juniors objected to JM White etc.

Do bear in mind that the JM/JW classes are not unrelated to age: if you are above a certain age, once you have reached a standard you have to move on - only those not ready to move on are allowed to compete.

In terms of badges, I reckoned on one badge scheme: 1 star award available at District events, 2 and 1 star at Regional, 3 star at National, 2 start roughly equivalent to current Gold.

Regards, Andrew

[Lumpy Lycra]

OK Becks, if you're refinining the current system - two points.

1. publish age / DOB in results so people can do their own "aged" results mentally.

2. sort out the J/W5 badge times. Under the current system, someone who has just turned 14 can have their gold badge target based on the minutes per k of a top M/W20 - which is why Championship standard is easier than Gold for M/W16 = JM/W5S.

(and an aside - making juniors older than their years while making adults younger is good psychology, but it's easy to forget that on average only 25% of M/W16s are actually 16....)

[Guest]

National events: JM/JW classes, with single age classes allocated to them (e.g. M12 run on JM3).

I know, lets call it the M12 class !

[J.Tullster]

Surely for national events it would be better to stick with age classes. Having all the allocated JM/W stuff would create more confusion. National events are usually big enough to support age classes, and often have colour coded courses too, so if there were newcomers there, then they would be able to run these.

Also AWK said:

Do bear in mind that the JM/JW classes are not unrelated to age: if you are above a certain age, once you have reached a standard you have to move on - only those not ready to move on are allowed to compete.

I don't see the point of forcing the juniors to move on a class. 1) This would take a fair bit of keeping track of and 2) When they feel they are ready to move on they most likely will, probably when they win or are placed in a course, and this might be after they reached their "gold standard" or whatever. If I was a newcomer and entered a class only to have someone say no, sorry, you achieved a gold standard on this date, I'd be like, what's this all about?

[awk]

I know, lets call it the M12 class !

Your facetious response shows you've completely missed the point, given that it's not just M12s who run JM3.

There are two scenarios: JM3s listed as one race, with M12s specifically identified (just as most other running sports do when more than one class runs in a race), and M12 Championship etc. calculated on M12s, or as orienteering more usually does, list as 2 separate classes.

Personally, I'd rather see the latter (after all, the M12s are subset of JM3, not a separate class), but I suspect I'm in a minority - not an uncommon occurrence.

[Guest]

The discussion here doesn't seem too far removed from yet another BOF experiment on Regional Events - ageless classes for adults - as seen at the White Rose.

There are only two types of orienteering competition : Age based and Ability based.

BOC, JK, National Events, Scottish 6 day, etc. are entirely age based and provide top level competition for everyone.

District Events are entirely ability based and allow people to acquire orientering skills at their own pace.

The Regional Events are becoming a complete mess.
Ability based for children unless it happens to be an FCC race, a Regional Championships, or any other event with trophies to hand out where ability goes out of the window and age is all that matters. Age based for adults unless it is the White Rose or any other experimental event which no-one seems to understand yet.

Someone in BOF has to decide if Regional events are Age Based events, in which case lets return them to what Badge events used to be, or Ability Based events in which case they should do away with the pretence and start calling them Colour Coded events. We don't need all this JMW5LS rubbish. Surely two types of event is enough.

How about some direction from the top ?

[awk]

OK Becks, if you're refinining the current system - two points.

1. publish age / DOB in results so people can do their own "aged" results mentally.

This is already part of BOF recommendations. Trouble is, organisers/planners/controllers don't always take note of them.

2. sort out the J/W5 badge times. Under the current system, someone who has just turned 14 can have their gold badge target based on the minutes per k of a top M/W20 - which is why Championship standard is easier than Gold for M/W16 = JM/W5S.

This misunderstnads the system, understandably so. The gold time for the JM5 classes IS based on the M21s, but only because it gives a more consistent result than the vagaries of junior competition. The JM5 Gold speed is however set at 20% slower than M21 Gold (which is coincidentally the same as M21 Silver speed). This is because research over some period of time showed that the top M16s orienteer approximately 20% slower than the top M21s. In other words, JM5 Gold has been set at about M16 Gold speed (in the belief based on survey returns that M18/20 Gold standard runners are by then usually pursuing other targets).

I haven't checked 0007, but in the past the only times that M16 Championship has been slower than JM5 Gold is when the winners of M16 haven't exactly set the world alight with their speed. I'll look at 0007 later to see what's happened there.

Regards, Andrew

[cj]

As a W20 I like the system as it allows me to choose between JW5L or W21 depending on what I feel like with a certainty of good competition in either. When W20 courses are available most people run up leaving two or three people doing W20. Also, doing JW5L doesn't feel like running down, It's more of a nice relief from pretending to be an adult.

I understand why people who've only just started using the system find it complicated but in the north west, where it's been being used for a while I reckon most people have got the hang of it now. Lets get some northern opinion on here.

[Lumpy Lycra]

Awk - does this apply to JW5?

The gold time for the JM5 classes IS based on the M21s, but only because it gives a more consistent result than the vagaries of junior competition. The JM5 Gold speed is however set at 20% slower than M21 Gold

because the one and only time I looked at badge standards under the new system was Sherwood Pines, Feb 2003, where JW5S standards were based on JW5L minutes per k with no adjustment.

And Fiona / Mhairi et al were just too damn fast to be a realistic measure for a 14 year old relative newcomer! (And actually the rest of JW5S, including some top juniors)

[*Carol*]

it took FOREVER to find this on the bof webshite, and its only a 2003 draft of the rules (which is after the event lumpy is talking about)

1.3.4 To calculate base times at badge events for JM5 and JW5 classes the M21L (W21L for JW5) badge base time is used. This is converted to mins per km, and multiplied by 1.2*. For each class, this figure is multiplied by that class’s distance to give the class’s base time. (*The average amount that an M/W16 is slower compared to an M/W21).

if these rules were applied at sherwood, the gold etc awards look a lot more reasonable and you dont have lots of disappointed juniors getting a bronze when theyve done what would usually be enough to be a gold!

does this not ask the question: why cant you apply the old award calculationsto (and those STLL used for JWM 1-4) to each individual JMW5 course?! or have i missed the point?

[Brizzle]

Surely for national events it would be better to stick with age classes.

I agree with this it would be pointless to have JM/JW classes at the national events as there is always enough people to run each class and I don't think encouraging newcomers should be a concern at national standard.