Regional Junior Classes for Regional Champs Trophies

[Adventure Racer]

One issue I notice with M20 running the same course as M18 is that they don't get to share the same course as M35, but are on a shorter one (and 2 courses shorter than M21). Makes for a big difference between M20 and M21 (and a very empty course for M35/M40).

[mharky]

This is one of the reasons why our younger athletes do so poor, generally, internationally. Junior courses in this country are too short and too easy...

[guest]

This is one of the reasons why our younger athletes do so poor, generally, internationally. Junior courses in this country are too short and too easy...

I am just waiting to see the AWK response to this ...

[awk]

This is one of the reasons why our younger athletes do so poor, generally, internationally. Junior courses in this country are too short and too easy...

I am just waiting to see the AWK response to this ...

Simply, where's Mharky's evidence (a) that junior courses are too short and too easy and (b) that this is having an effect on international results?

On the other tack of Adventure Racer's point - the jump from JM5L to M21 is no more than that from M21S. Given how few M20s ever ran M20 when it was partnered with M35/40 (often none at all), I'd suggest that the removal of it was trivial.

[Rookie]

compare JM5L at Sutton Park at 7.5 km to M20L at the recent National being 11 km. Might be why there are more M/W20s on M/W21L (men's is 11.4 km) than JM/W5L

[awk]

compare JM5L at Sutton Park at 7.5 km to M20L at the recent National being 11 km. Might be why there are more M/W20s on M/W21L (men's is 11.4 km) than JM/W5L

As expected when the scheme was put together - that the better M/W20s would usually run the Open (i.e. M21L) at regional events. That was a deliberate move, not accidental (as discussed in the original proposals).

[Gross]

This is one of the reasons why our younger athletes do so poor, generally, internationally. Junior courses in this country are too short and too easy...

.

Code: Select all


I'd agree... evidence willl show itself over the summer. I'd say that in general GB athletes aren't fit enough or fast enough.... interesting to note that to some extent the GB senior squad has confiirmed this by placing time trials as part of i's selection policy for 2006..................



[Blanka]

Although there still are some issues I have with the JM/JW classes (mostly to do with the organisational hitches in the fact that many people don't know who is supposed to be awarded badges, and these are quite difficult to work out etc.), I would tend to agree with AWK in this case.

The junior athletes that are striving to run in JWOC and other international events should be running in the open class (M/W21L) at badge events to get their distance in, and as far as I can see many of them do anyway. This is because they are the group of juniors who should be self-motivated and looking for opportunities to further themselves. However visible they are (they are, after all, representing the country), they are only a minority of British juniors (including all the school juniors), so event structure shouldn't be devised according to their needs.

You cam compare it to the classes at BSOC or regional Schools' Champs: many regular orienteering juniors will find they will run 'down' a class (eg. a yellow when used to running orange or a white if used to running yellow normally) at such events to be competitive in their class, but we don't say we should increase the difficulty of all the courses because of that, do we?

As for the time trial, maybe it is something that the British Junior Squad management needs to consider introducing as part of the selection criteria if they think that would improve athletes' speed. (Such a criterion does exist for the Czech JWOC team, where men have to run 5km and women 3km below a certain time). But again, it is for those striving to be selected to work out how to improve their speed and how to fulfill such a criterion if it is introduced.

Blanka

[awk]

I'd agree... evidence willl show itself over the summer. I'd say that in general GB athletes aren't fit enough or fast enough.... interesting to note that to some extent the GB senior squad has confiirmed this by placing time trials as part of i's selection policy for 2006..................

Interesting Gordon, can you point me to where this is on web (if it is), or if nto there, put some details up? However, none of this surely has much relevance to junior course lengths. After all, anybody aiming to get into senior squad and achieve results at long distance either as senior or junior will surely be running M/W21L at regional events, and M/W20E at only the biggest races (are these all too short?).

[awk]

compare JM5L at Sutton Park at 7.5 km to M20L at the recent National being 11 km. Might be why there are more M/W20s on M/W21L (men's is 11.4 km) than JM/W5L

One of the problems with the measurement of course distances is that they are related to an expected M21L winning time. Whilst the M21L time on the day was about right (67 mins versus expected 68 mins), it would have been 10-15% quicker if, for instance, any of the top 3 at the Robin Hood Trophy had been there (or top 3 or so from the Rivelin district event). So whilst this result might suggest to the planner than s/he got it right, to me it looks as if the course was shorter than it probably needed to be - which has a knock on effect for every other course (especially as JM5L was already very slightly light on the ratio). Thus JM5L should have been around 9k.

It's also why I argued against course ratios when the scheme was put in place.

[King Penguin]

Simply, where's Mharky's evidence (a) that junior courses are too short and too easy and (b) that this is having an effect on international results?

Evidence (a) - at Sutton Park yesterday as many M20s ran up and did the M21L course as competed on their official JM5L course

[HOCOLITE]

M20's who are new to the sport ie uni students tend to run JM5L, but those who've run it for two years as M/W 18 are generally moving onto M21

[Gross]

Here in Lithuania the M/W 20 class only exists on paper... the course is generally combined with M/W 21. It's a system that works at the top end having produced 3 JWOC medallists in recent years.

[Rookie]

that sounds a good idea Gross, but it would go against the ageless class thing completely so would only work at National Events. I'd be happy to run the M21L course at nationals but have a seperate M20 class. Guess this fits the other thread on M35L, why not have one course but with the three classes on it?

Winner from any age wins but have a "prize" for first 20 and 35

[awk]

Evidence (a) - at Sutton Park yesterday as many M20s ran up and did the M21L course as competed on their official JM5L course

No it isn't! That simply shows that the scheme is working as intended in that those M20s ready to run M21L are doing so, and those who are not are running the junior classes. As stated above, it was always the intention, and stated as such in the original papers, that top M20s would run open, rather than having yet another (shorter) class specifically for them. This was in line with comments from elite athletes and coaches, that the best juniors should be racing in the open, not in junior specific classes.

Here in Lithuania the M/W 20 class only exists on paper... the course is generally combined with M/W 21. It's a system that works at the top end having produced 3 JWOC medallists in recent years.

Sounds good to me - if there are sufficient to justify splitting a class on the same course off. Rookie's suggestion "Winner from any age wins but have a "prize" for first 20 and 35" would probably fit the British situation better.

that sounds a good idea Gross, but it would go against the ageless class thing

Not really, as long as M20s are still eligible to run junior classes for those who want/need to, as quite a few do. In fact it might emphasise the progression better than now.