Longer Courses

[gross2007]

[quote="NeilC
Naturally agree completely, however how many regional/badge event courses are planned by joining togther controls used on other courses? .[/quote]

Joining the dots is the sign of a poor planner & should never be done. In theory ALL courses should get the same thought & input. When I plan I'll plan the two top M/W courses first in a clean forest (i.e. no controls), then the basic kiddies courses, then something halway in between (maybe my course) and then work from there.

I've seen too often planners who select (say) 60 control sites first & then fit the courses around those....

[graeme]

While I agree about "joining the dots", excesive numbers of controls dont help anyone either.
An low-work alternative is to plan a really good course with the best legs you can, and have a cutoff to produce a shorter really good course. Not only does it save work, but it also
means everyone gets the best legs. And if you're splitting the green into green+short green the numbers running the legs dont change.

If there is a demand for a short green TD5 course, then events on those areas which are really of TD5 difficulty can offer one. However, please don't impose this requirement on the 95% plus of colour coded events which aren't.

This misses the point. Those 95% already have a short course at the highest possible TD level. The "imposition" is the LG course at events where a short TD5 would be more appropriate.

[NeilC]

"Short green" is probably needed to fill a hole, although on many UK areas it would be the same as light green anyway.

Except for the fact that too many planners/controllers/competitors mistakenly expect Light Green to be easier than Green even on TD4 terrain.

[Guest]

Graeme wrote : The "imposition" is the LG course at events where a short TD5 would be more appropriate.

The Light Green course also provides the progression up the technical dificulty ladder for the juniors. What are they supposed to do if the choice is Orange or a TD5 course ?

[graeme]

Red. Or TD5 depending on taste.
i.e. the same as they did before LG was invented and when we had a lot more juniors progressing into seniors.
Of course, you can put on infinitely finely differentiated courses, but as it stands most LG course competitors are there for the distance not the TD.

[FatBoy]

If you're having an event in an area of high orienteer density (e.g. West Midlands) then why not ease congestion and have a course between blue and green?

Trouble is the west midlands has this daft west midlands league thing - a bit like the individual gallopen competitions in other regions but done as a club team.

I knew somebody would come up with the league thing and it's a valid point. But surely most WM district events have very well or over subscribed green and blue courses? Get together and all put on a Turquoise(?!) course? Doesn't mean other regions have to. In the age of the internet one can advertise in advance what colours are to be put on.

Graeme - I can say as a junior who progressed from Orange direct to Green in the pre-LG era that it's a massive step - one that if I wasn't put in the car each week and driven to do a green I would've probably quit the sport. It took me from 11 to 13 to cope with running Green and by 15 I was running Brown. I feel LG is an important step for juniors.

That said I think we should have red courses even if mostly they get no competitors.