MICRO O in WOC 2006 for Middle

[Guest]

The problem is that, whilst it's relatively easy to show runners coming into a control, punching it and then leaving it, it's difficult to show how they got there and what they're doing next ... the average viewer gets little or no sense of the navigational side of the sport at all.

Hence the use of GPS tracking and maps on screens - then orienteering is easily explained (with good editing). And sprint races in parks cities can be ideal for this, giving good visibilty of whole legs.

[quote]
This is exactly what Micr-O can do as it clearly demonstrates that reading the map is crucial to punching the right control.
[\quote]

But orienteering is not (or was not) meant to be a sport where the main challenge is to punch the right control (with other trick controls around). This is simply a gimmick.
It really is going to be difficult to ensure that this is fair ... eg perfect maps, issues with timing of penalty etc, etc. And all for what .. a (very slim) chance that some people might think it is then a top sport. Sounds more like changing to a bl****dy treasure hunt to me.

And as previously mentioned how on earth can this be set to happen at WOC with so limited trials.
Totally agree with Mark C that the tv issue may be missing the point regarding how best to attract sponsors etc, and the possible gains we'll make from it.
But I still think that our present format can be shown on tv with sensible cameras and editing.

[fish]

sorry that was me again....
fish

[Guest88]

Human nature...people enjoy watching people...up, close and personal when they watch sport...someone flicking through the satellite channels looking for some easy watching might flick on to the micr-o and think this looks interesting...what are these people doing?

If they flick on to some rather dry and academic route choice analysis map thing, they will likely flick off again fairly quickly.

Now the IOF have been talking to some TV companies, and the executives at the TV companies are saying the thing that they think will provide a draw / add some excitement on tv/ gain an audience is micr-o.

And I can see why:
- Get to see the athletes doing some map-reading up, close and personal - not just running in or out of a control
- Exciting - the outcome of the race can be changed as we are watching the runner make decisions on the screen - sounds much more exciting to me than watching someone run in/out of a control.
- Micr-o is a cheap option per minute of footage- simply put out the controls and roll the cameras - with a small audience such as orienteering the cost of the footage is paramount. I can imagine that the route choice / gps footage would cost substantially more per minute.
- The athletes will be moving slower through that section so easy for the cameraman to get some nice footage of them.
- Another problem for the TV companies when filming a live event is awkward gaps - how do you keep the viewer glued to your channel and not resume flicking activities. If each athlete takes 2 minutes to get through the micr-o section then you have something to keep the viewer glued to the screen as most of the time there will be an athlete negotiating that section. None of these pictures of an empty forest with a commentator saying "some runner is expected in 40 seconds.........(10 second gap).........some runner is expected in 30 seconds"

Of course once you have courted the TV companies and built up a bit of an audience, maybe it is possible to persuade them to throw a few minutes of the route choice thing in as well to see if it takes off - but you can't just go to the TV companies and tell them this is what they are going to film...it doesn't work like that.

[fish]

guest88 - interesting thoughts, and I guess the idea of showing route choice etc could be a little bit dry. I think my perspective might have been biased to what was interesting for already attracted orienteers.
The big question is then is it worth changing the sport (at a world champs level) to attract x new people. It is then obviously dependent on how many x is. Here my pessimistic nature takes over again and says we're not about to attract many people to the sport through this means!
Some other comments - looking at the nordics Micr O it was not in one detailed area, but in fact during the end of a normal looking course - would require many cameras to do it that way. how do the tv companies really know enough about the sport to say micr-o is the thing that will draw in the punters - my guess (and I may be wrong) is someone outside has suggested it. If this is what tv companies want surely it has to be used at a number of none world chaps events first and seen if it works both as a competition and for tv, before throwing into the world champs.

So i now see some benefits - for tv- of micr O, but I'm still definitely in the 'anti' camp!!
If i'm honest I just don't think we're ever going to have the media coverage that is needed to justify this sort of change to the sport.

fish

[awk]

I just think it's a pity that we've just about managed to establish three distinct styles of orienteering, each with their own unique characteristics and all gaining credibility, when one of them (to my mind one of the more interesting) is being messed around again by the addition of something that is so unproven and of a completely different nature. A bit like suggesting that we really need to liven the marathon up, so let's get Paula Radcliffe to stop in the middle of the Olympics/World champs and carry out a set of sprints or pressups.

It doesn't help that I'm not convinced by the TV argument. Very few sports get meaningful coverage, those that do see TV as much as a malign influence as a positive one, and I'm just a bit sad that it's apparently being held up as the holy grail to the extent that we are prepared to bastardise the sport so much.

Yes - do experiment, but try and get things a bit better worked out before it's incorporated at a world championship, particularly when it so affects what what we've already got. Sprint-O was less of an issue because it was an add on (an excellent one at that, as was Short, then Medium).

It would also enable more concentration on getting more Sprint and Medium distance races onto national calendars: there are still far too many bog standard regular distance events (but that's a different issue perhaps!).

I have to say I'm probably biased - was I the only person who actually find the Micro-O rather yawn provoking, feeling it gave no concept of how good elite orienteers are.

[voice of sweden]

in sweden there are not lots of micro (O) events. neither is there lots of TV coverage. in fact i don't think there has been any orienteering live on television in the last 2 and a half years (at least). They do tend to show highlights of some important races (ie swedish champs, world champs) a couple of times a year in the sports news.

also, i can't imagine the average sven public being any more interested in watching it than your man in england.

"interestingly", it says here: http://www.alternativet.nu/alternativet.asp?id=3254 that the classic will also be shown live in norway. you can also see that the swedes don't sound too delighted with the idea either.

I am guessing that the IOF's obsession with TV coverage has rather more to do with their ambition to gain olympic status, for which a TV-friendly nature is obligatory for all new sports.
according to me, this is a fairly bad attitude problem by the IOC that can only be encouraged by the IOF's response.

[Guest]

Is TV really the best way to get sponsorship?

This reminds me of Bill Hicks' sales pitch to the network execs for his tv show.

"... will there be titty?"
"... uh, sure."
"these titties; what will they do?"
"... uh ... jiggle?"
"You're a @%!$&$ genius son, where you been all my life?"

Anyway, got to go, the Beach Volleyballs just come on.

[graeme]

Over the last year, I've tried asking many of our top elite athletes who the world champion(s) are - and they don't know either.

Not even the Women's?

Nope, not even the womens. I'm guessing from your smiley you think that the answer was Luder - Luder - Luder , which rather proves my point that nobody knows.

Graeme

PS I just looked it up - it was Karolina Hojsgaard (long) and Hanne Staff (middle), and if you're feeling pedantic Yvette Baker (short) since that hasn't been contested since she won.

[Guest88]

But vastly more people know that Jamie Stevenson was world champion in the sprint distance a couple of years ago than were ever aware of who the world champions in the old days were.....and he got on the TV......

[graeme]

No, vastly more people knew who the old world champions were.

If you mean "More people in the country of the winner" you're probably right, but that's a very parochial measure of the impact of a world championship.

Graeme

[Guest88]

Yes I meant more people in this country yes...if you have 3 disciplines per year rather than 1 discipline every 2 years then you will get British winners on average 6 times more often - so on average the amount of knowledge and publicity of world champions in Britain would increase.

I could apply the same argument to any other country.

You are right, that if you have only 1 classic champion every 2 years and that is all, then it is very hard to become a world champion - and that acquires a kudos that is much less now.....but I don't think this is so important that you can abolish the sprint and middle distance that a lot people think are fantastic.

[mr chris]

Micro-O (or however it should be spelt) will have the same problem as any other version of orienteering to be televised. A large proportion of the general public have no idea as to the aim of orienteering*. Any other sport on TV (eg. football, athletics, cricket, rowing) is well known, as are many of the skills employed. We know (at least vaguely) what each team, or player, is trying to do.

This would need to be resolved whatever form of orienteering was to be televised.

* Eg. I was once asked if i carried a spare pair of boots, and how big my rucsac i had to carry was and how much safety gear I had to carry in the aforementioned bag!! They were very surprised when I told them we run.

Also surely one of the aims of televising the sport is to attract new participants. If they saw a micro-O and thought "Hey that looks interesting, let's give it a go", they would go to an event and find a traditional orienteering course, nothing like what they would have seen on TV and would probably be feeling confused, if not slightly cheated.

[Guest]

http://www.suunnistus.info/sf/browser/s ... ubdir=blog

[OCM45]

Within that link there is some good argument and a great spoof picture:
http://www.orientering.nu/ovrigt/humor/micro.html

[harry]

The Scandi countries might be choffing the Micro-O because they understand biathlon but I'm not sure it will make much sense to any other viewer - but they won't see it anyway as I understand this is a Norweigen TV company pulling for Micro-O (and more importantly injecting the cash). If Micro-O is televised anywhere else it will make a complicated sport even more so, will rnadom tv browsers stop long enough to understand what a control description is?

Anyway in response to how this will effect British athletes, if it is in WOC next year we will be doing it a LOT. Something new and a chance to jump ahead of the game. -that's secondhand info but from Dave Peel originally.

ps. Ukraine WOC 2007 is going to be very interesting. Not too sure how well Micro-O will work in the flatish, subtle contour fast-as-f*, morraine Middle (& relay) terrain out here though.