Junior Badge Scheme (again!)

[gross2004]

Follow the above link & it takes you to things that don't exist. Like Colour Coded events & Badge Events????

Didn't BOF launch thier new website last September (2003)???? After postponing it from March because it wasn't ready???

[Jene]

where was that????
i spent ages (well......10 mins) looking on the bof site for that and didnt manage to find it

andi still dont get it.....so according to that info, on a national event, i should be doin 0.45 of what the M21L's are doing but i cant see where it specifies anything about the length at all

[gross2004]

Jene............. you can't specify length... but you can indicate the ratio of course based on M21L. You know the preffered estimated winning time for M21L and the planner plans a course to that level.... now on flat scabby easy Southern English terrain ( ) that might give you 15km in which case your course would be whatever ratio of 15km.... on the otherhand the course could be on some steep scabby mingin Southern Scottish plantation and only allow 10km to get the required winning time...............

[Rookie]

i think the reason boys have JM5s was so M14s could do td5 if they wanted without having to make the massive jump of distance to M16 (JM5m) but for girls the 14/16 (JW4/JW5s)gap wasn't so big so it wasn't a problem

its best to look at JW5s as more JW5m i suppose

[awk]

That's pretty much it Rookie. The JM5S class distance was completely new, designed to address the common complaints of (1) the shortest TD5 course available to boys being the M16s (equivalent to JM5M), and yet quite a few younger ones ready to run the technical difficulty if not the distance, and (2) the equally common complaint of there not being a short enough course for those older boys who for whatever reason were not ready to run M16+ distances, but still wanted the technical challenge.

There simply weren't the same complaints about the women's classes, not surprising really given that there weren't the same (to my mind unnecessary!) huge jumps in distance in the junior women's classes.

There was no point adding a third course at the longer end of the JW classes either - the next distance up from JW5L is W21L. If you're ready to run the distance, then you're ready to run W21L, as many juniors have proven.

[Jene]

well, i think, if they have it on the lads, they should with the womens courses as well......the jump from JW5S to JW5L is alot bigger than any other jumps on the girls course...and is similar to the JM4 --> JM5S jump, but what with everyone now running up i've been doing JW5L all autumn in an attempt to be ready to fcc n all that rubbish in april but find 7km a little bit too far, but 4k isnt newhere long enough....so maybe they should have the JW5M...i know i'd of used it all this autumn / winter if it had been an official course.

[awk]

They only have it on the the lads, because there's a bigger overall jump to make from the S classes. The jump from JM5S to JM5M is exactly the same as JW5S to JW5L.

the jump from JW5S to JW5L is alot bigger than any other jumps on the girls course...and is similar to the JM4 --> JM5S jump

.....which is the same as the JW4 --> JW5S jump, which means that JW5S to JW5L can't be a lot bigger than any other jumps on the girls courses. (Later edit: having said that, I don't think the jump is similar - just that the argument is illogical).

There's only a jump from 4k to 7k if the planner has got the ratios wrong - certainly possible, but not a reason to change the scheme itself.

[Jene]

no no no no no


ok ,look at a recent event
JW2 -2.4
JW3 -2.5
JW4 -2.8
JW5S -3.7
JW5L -5.8

suddenly JW5L is 2km longer than the short course.....and their saying this aint a jump....
i no i def noticed it.....not just the length but also in the sudden increase in controls....from having 10, 12 , 14....im suddenly getting 20 or 22 controls sometimes

[bendover]

would you prefer 2km further with the same number of controls?

[Guest]

JW5 Short course = 3.7 km.
JW5 Long course = 5.8km.

The Guidelines show that the course ratios should be 0.39 and 0.56 respectively, so in this case the Short course is too short and the Long course too long.

As someone stated earlier, the problem is with the planners, not the guidelines. If the planners stuck to the guidelines then you would get the courses you want.

It's about time competitors started complaining to the planner when the courses they produce are wrong. How about demanding your money back if the course isn't what it was supposed to be ? That might make a few clubs think a bit more about what their planners were up to !

[awk]

As Guest highlighted, this underlines my point: there's a problem with the planning, not the scheme. On the other hand....

suddenly JW5L is 2km longer than the short course.....and their saying this aint a jump....i no i def noticed it.....not just the length but also in the sudden increase in controls....from having 10, 12 , 14....im suddenly getting 20 or 22 controls sometimes

Of course there is a jump, and it should be noticeable. That's the whole point. If there wasn't one, what would be the point of having separate courses? It should be almost exactly the same sort of jump one gets at every district event: Green to Blue. On this occasion, the jump does look overlong (over 50%), but please don't assume that it should be insignificant. The answer is NOT to throw in yet another, almost certainly uncompetitive, class, but to ensure that the courses are better aligned.

I'm sceptical about complaining to planners. Even if they learn, it'll be a while before they plan again. That's why I posted the contact for Event Operations - they're the crowd who need to do something about guidelines not being matched nationally.

[Godders]

3.7km, 5.8km, ratios 0.39 and 0.56. That makes the shorter course only 300m shorter than the ratios suggest.

As a planner I'd be perfectly happy with that. I'd far rather plan a technical challenging course that is 300m shorter than it should be than get the course length spot on and have a less challenging course.

Then there are the issues of the sort of terrain the courses go through. As soon as one goes through some green / deep heather that the other doesn't then the ratios start to be meaningless.

There can also be restrictions on planning that you don't know about - OOB areas that aren't on the map but that the planner has been asked to avoid. Sure they could be mentioned in the final details but do we really need an explanation for everything.

Planners commit far worse crimes - putting the controls in the wrong place being top of the list.

[gross2004]

Oh Mr Godfree... you are soooooooooo wrong As a grade 1 controller and IOF Elite Advisor I can confirm that by far the most important thing is to get the ratios right It doesn't matter if a planner misjudges the speed of the elite on the terrain as long as the ratios are right Why, you should even have the finish in the middle of the forest somewhere rather than get the distances wrong by having it in a finish field where people can watch

And controls in the right place???? Why??? You know & I know that most maps are c**p and most orienteers wouldn't know a control was in the wrong place or not

But being serious...... Mr G is right.... it's much more important to run with a decent map round a course that is technically accurate and the controls are out....... rather than worry about a bit of distance here or there.

[awk]

I've long had my doubts about the validity of course ratios (my original proposals used guide distances), but that's what we've got to help ensure that not only are courses right absolutely, but also give the correct progression. On this occasion they are well out: the jump is 20% bigger than it should be. If it's a one-off because of planning issues, then fine, but the broader problem suggested by Jene and others is that this is a regular occurrence.