'Ageless junior classes'??

[rororosie]

a hot topic on the bof agenda at the moment...what do you all think?

[J.Tullster]

It's been a 'hot topic' here before as well.

http://www.nopesport.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2306

[Dids co]

"Ageless classes" was probably the most stupid phukode change BOF has ever made, and thats saying something considering the rest of the stuff they've done/(or not done) to encourage junior participation.

[Guest]

Agreed. Why not send them an e-mail with a link to comments that have been/are being made on here?

[Guest]

Well actually our family really like them and they work very well for us . After intial scepticism they have allowed our not very keen daughter to stay at a level that is appropriate and encouraged our keen son to try courses that would otherwise be "too old" for him. Somehow it was easier to for him to give JM4 a go aged 10 than it wold have been to enter M14A.
Are we really the only family who are in favour?

[Guest]

No your certainly not the only family in favour of them, our daughter too has been allowed to stay at level 3 for longer than would have been acceptable on the old system. She is now becoming proficient at level 4, and more important than that enjoying the sport, being allowed to progress at her own speed.

My son also now keen, was certainly not so when forced at 14 to choose between a course at level 4 but way longer than he could cope with or a much too easy and short level 3 course. He rarely orienteered at this time. He now has a choice between 5S, 5M and 5L and regularly chooses L being strong enough to do so.

If this ageless system gets scrapped the length of the boys courses must be given serious consideration.

[Guest]

Ageless junior classes give my brothers and sisters who do very little orienteering a chance to run competitivly and the rest of us an excuse to take them to multidays so that we can get a run!!

[RJ]

Without taking sides in the debate I have noticed that most of the comments in this thread and the previous extensive debate were from established orienteers by and large.

My point would be that we should keep in mind the hundreds of new juniors that we all hope are going to join the sport from all the schools' initiatives. They will all be at different levels of ability, and will have spent their time running white/yellow courses. They will continue to run at that level for quite a while. So, we make sure the structure rewards them as they progress and gives them realisitic goals to aim at.

However, at some stage there has to be a transition to age classes. Should that just be at National events?

We need HUNDREDS more District events every year to cater for all these school children, and all the family/adults that will come along with them; and in fact a strong local event set of events underneath. That structure must be ability based, which of course the colour coded system employs.

Do we need Regional events? Is this the best place for the ageless course structure? Seems like a logical progression to me.

[Blanka]

However, at some stage there has to be a transition to age classes. Should that just be at National events?

I think that Mrs H's idea (see previous discussion as linked to above) of having the JM/W's replacing B classes whilst keeping A classes was the best of the lot.

New juniors can move through the JM/W's at their gradual pace without feeling they're running 'down' to a B class, being competitive at whatever level they're happy to run at. When they get competent enough, the can run the A classes, which will be there for the established orienteers.

On a slightly different note, the person doing entries for our Badge event in January said that new people were more confused by the system, not knowing which course to enter!

Cheers,

Blanka

[Guest]

...and if you are, for example, a 16 year old running M/WJ3 or 4 then you often know that there are 12/14 year olds beating you and some clubs even publish year of births on the start lists. This is no different than running a B and knowing it's the same course as the A on the year below.
Stick to one thing we understand - AGE CLASSES.

[RJ]

G wrote

that ageless classes have helped bring juniors into the sport

I consider this thinking is the wrong way round. Youngsters are coming into the sport, and are going to join in increasing numbers from all the schools' efforts. They will have an age and ability spread. I think we should make our system sensitive to that. I'm not arguing that we do or don't meet those needs. But I'm saying that we should plan for them.

[Migsy]

Essay alert! I've hinted at this before, but hell I'll repeat myself, even if it means sounding like a stuck record.

I think the age class system per se is pants. Why? To be frank, I'm not very good. I enjoy the sport, came to it at uni, but up until uni had no history of distance running. Green courses are the right length and difficulty for me. I enjoy at the end of the course chatting to those on the same course who are a similar speed, be they 16 or 60. So what happens when I go to the big national events, the show pieces of the national sport? I plod round a M21S that is too long for me, don't really enjoy it as all I see is people going past me. At the end there is no-one of a similar speed to chat to. Admittedly the M21V is ideal for me, but personally I'd rather not be on a course that has so much stigma attached to it. Like it or no, 99% will take the pi** for you being on that course. And most national events don't have this course anyway.

The age class system seems to me to generate a sense of insularity and cliquiness. It seems to augment if anything the isolation of newcomers and the less good. What's wrong with me wanting to race people of my standard at a national event? Typically the right course for me is the W21S or the M18S / M45S, but as a 27 year old male I can't get on these courses! Why is it OK to run up a course, but not OK to run down a course?

I think it would be quite healthy and social for the sport to mix the ages and get a greater range of people talking at the end of a run. It's not hugely appealing at the end of a run which you felt was good to be talked in to feeling as though you what you've just done was pointless and quite crap. This is me as a confident and secure adult posting this, if I were a teenager in a similar predicament, I'd probably just sculk into the shadows and leave the sport - even if I did actually enjoy orienteering. Hence, not only a junior level, but also at senior level, I reckon there should be an ageless system. If it wasn't for the fact that I'm stubborn, the age system would have already discouraged me from the sport (which I really enjoy).

As an alternative, I thought the 9 course system proposed for the White Rose sounded sensible, it is always possible to construct age rankings within these courses. I don't know if it worked, but it sounded ideal to me.

I've got a feeling someone will soon post an answer telling me how wrong I am, but I don't care. To me, the age class system is a mess. It's too restrictive for what is already a minority sport. Over and above that, at every event the controller gets slammed for a few courses being too long, too short, la de dah de dah ... Why have so many courses, when it can be so much simpler? Fewer courses with mixed age and gender categories, and you run in the right course for you. Easy.

[P2B]

I agree 100% with Migsy regarding his view on the adult age class system. My husband is new to orienteering and can run a green. Like Migsy, M21s is too long for him and finds it demoralising. W21s would be the perfect course for him and then he has me and my female friends to race against, which as a beginner is perfect for him. M21v had only one person on it at National 1 (I think). Where's the fun in that? We're all competative to a greater extent by the time we're moving on to Regional and National events.

If BOF are intending to keep the new junior ageless system, why not introduce it across the adult age ranges too? I think the system at the White Rose last year (ignoring computer problems with working out competative classes) worked well.

I think people are afraid that ageless competitions will result in a dumbing down of high profile events to the same as a District where you can choose your course. This is rubbish. Those people who want to run in their 'correct' class can do so, just as the juniors can who want to be considered for selection.

I think I'll log off now, to avoid the verbal beating I am expecting...

[Migsy]

I think I'll log off now, to avoid the verbal beating I am expecting...

Err, that's what I was expecting actually, pleasantly suprised I got someone who agreed with me. Thanks P2B!

[awk]

I also agree 100% with you Migsy.

It also continues to amaze me that if I want a decent competition I need to go to district events. Class sizes at almost all regional events and many national events are too small to generate any sense of real competition, and anyway most people I compete against are not men aged between 45 and 49, but people of my ability, who are spread across both genders and a far wider age range. Green/Blue courses provide much better competition and far more interest.

Coupled with some hefty entry fees (and a whole load of other issues that we've encountered at regional/national events), we are increasingly looking for compensating attractions to offset the unattractiveness of age class competition at events, and have started getting far more choosy.