Why shorter courses as we get older?

[Adventure Racer]

Nearly added this on to the "Regional Junior Classes" thread, as it follows on from points on there, but thought I'd break with tradition and start a new thread rather than go wildly off topic.

Just wondering why as an M35 I'm no longer considered capable of running as far as an M21? The prevailing theory as I understood it is that our endurance improves as we get older - this is certainly what I've seen, as I find longer distances a lot easier now with years of training than I did in my mid twenties, and also as seen in adventure racing where there are people winning races well into their forties. I'm guessing Awk is going to tell me I should just run up, but strangely I fancy running my championship class, and I'm not quite sure why M35L should somehow be of a lower standard than it could be. I appreciate that as people do get older than I am that maybe they don't want to run so far, but surely this is only really the case when you get past your mid forties, if then - I think a lot of M40s would be perfectly happy still running an M21 length course for instance.

[Tatty]

This might apply for M35/40, but would it apply further up and where would you make the cut off? Can't see many M50+ wanting to run M21 (apart from Colin Dickson). Not everyone has the chance to put in the training required to run the longer distances.

[tendon]

Its an inclusive, rather than exclusive, sport, and while some M35s will continue to be competitive with the M21s, I suspect there is a general falling away within the age band. The option of running up is always there but how many M35s maintain their position at the head of the M21 field - very few.

Perhaps you need a British Long-O Championship - sort out the young guns and give oldies a chance?

[awk]

I'm guessing Awk is going to tell me I should just run up, but strangely I fancy running my championship class, and I'm not quite sure why M35L should somehow be of a lower standard than it could be.

Well, actually, no I'm not, at least not directly. It has always struck me that orienteering is somewhat quirky starting the 'vets' at 35 rather than the more common 40.

However, I think you miss the point a bit, as illustrated by your use of the phrase 'lower standard'. In absolute terms, the standard is lower in M35 because most of the best orienteers aren't running M35, but M21. The distance makes absolutely no difference - if so, then the standard in a medium distance race is lower than a long distance, the standard in a 1500m track race is lower than in the 10,000m.

I don't think creating longer distances creates any sort of high standard or bigger challenge, just different. What does raise standards is creating better competition, and there are two many piddley little classes, barely differentiated in age, at regional events to help do that.

I also think that to raise standards, we need a greater variety of race distances - not just events where the 'premier' class is almost always a longer distance race. I was really pleased to see that the first day of the Tamar Triple is a 'Medium' distance regional event. Equally more 'long distance' regional events too.

So - less classes, more variety. Same old story really. Don't know whether that would satisfy you though AR, but then running one's "championship" class at regional events is a bit of a misnomer anyway, with only the oldies (like my age group and older) tending to really stick to age class.

[Steve]

Just wondering why as an M35 I'm no longer considered capable of running as far as an M21?

I agree, to an extent. I think the winning times for the older ages groups ought to be the same as for younger groups. Ok, physical potential drops off with age and the courses will get (a bit) shorter, but as we get older we are forced to run not only less far in age class courses, but also for less time. Surely it is only our ability to run fast that dimishes with age, not our ability to run far. Short courses are available for those unable to put the training in.

[Gross]

So at BOC, JK etc etc you would have the M80's out running for an estimated winning time of 85 to 90 mins?????

[HOCOLITE]

AR one thing you miss is that some people come to orienteering in the 35-40 age range and not all have been distance running. Some are fall outs from football etc, therefore they might be put off by the M21 distance because if you remove M35L you'd presumably remove M35S as well. As M21S is far enough for a number of 21's it would be really off putting for unexperienced 38 year olds.

[NeilC]

[quote="Steve"
I think the winning times for the older ages groups ought to be the same as for younger groups.[/quote]

So how much quicker are the older groups? At National Event I the gold badge times for M20/M21/M35 and M40 were all between 88-92 mins. At Clumber Park gold badge times only really started dropping off at M60+

[graeme]

I'm guessing Awk is going to tell me I should just run up,

Well, actually, no I'm not,

I will then. If you orienteer for the fun of it, and you want to run the distance of the open class, you should. If you dont want to run that far, there are age-group and short classes available.

If you want to be an M35 champion, then you have to run the M35 championship course which may not play to your strengths. Of course, M21 *is* your championship class as well: win it and you're the champion.

Why more age classes than other sports? Once upon a time, numbers were so large that artificial class divisions were needed to keep reasonable length start lists (anyone else remember M21A3?). Not sure why now.

Graeme

[Adventure Racer]

Hmm, lots of points to respond to:

This might apply for M35/40, but would it apply further up and where would you make the cut off?

I'd not suggest that M60s or even M50s should be running M21 length courses, but the top M55s were only out for just over 40 minutes yesterday, and the one I know would certainly rather run further than that. I know all the courses were on the short side yesterday, but wouldn't a general lengthening of all the older courses (if not to M21 length) be reasonable?

To some extent I agree with Awk that the M35 class is a bit strange. I'd be perfectly happy running the M21, but then there is an M35 class, with a trophy available yesterday, and somebody's got to win it. Since I've just about got to the point now when if I have a good run I can be competitive I thought I might as well run in class. I think you've missed the point a bit though, because the question surely is if the M35 class is a lower standard because the top people run up, why is it that people run up? If the M35 course was the same as the M21 course then presumably given the chance to measure themselves the top M35s would just run M35 - in reply to tendon, I'm not actually suggesting that we get rid of M35 so that they are forced to compete with M21, just that the courses should be the same.

AR one thing you miss is that some people come to orienteering in the 35-40 age range and not all have been distance running. Some are fall outs from football etc, therefore they might be put off by the M21 distance because if you remove M35L you'd presumably remove M35S as well. As M21S is far enough for a number of 21's it would be really off putting for unexperienced 38 year olds.

Very good point - one I sometimes forget (I might have started O in my 30s, but obviously did have the distance running background). The answer to which is to align M35 with M21 as suggested above, but keep M35S the same distance it is now, so that the potential progression is M35S, M21S, M35L. Does that work?

Oh, and had there not been a trophy available yesterday, or had I not thought I had a chance of winning it, I would have just run up with the distances on offer, as I believe did several M35s who presumably didn't expect to be in with a chance of winning.

[FatBoy]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Graeme, although I disagree with your conclusion. We have had all these age classes to cope with the numbers at bigger events, so why do we need them now? Perhaps more to the point, why do we need so many regional events? The classes in question at the race in question - M35L and M21L had a total of 21 people on them. Hardly any justification for 2 courses, or 2 classes, or to have to make a decision whether you try to compete for the "open" trophy or the correct one for your age. People running up instantly devaules winning the age class trophy, but I don't blame those who do it - it just begs the question why do we have seperate age classes?

Aside from the very largest events I would like to see a range of courses on offer, which tend to be consistent from race to race in length, winning times etc - we could maybe colour code them to make it easy to remember which course you do We'd need blacks and perhaps a short green at the bigger ones though.

[Gross]

If you look at the results from Sutton Park yesterday then the M35 winner would have finished around 20% behind the winner of M21. On a full length classic race that makes the M35 out for around 110 minutes assuming the extra time doesn't create tireness & mistakes.... I'm no scientist but from experience there will be a big physical / physiological difference / requirement between the winner and the M35.

Interesting to note on the question of 'running up' it's never really happened in Scotland with the strong M21 all moving up through the age classes together & staying together for the competition & competitivness (Look at M45... Dean, Tullie, Coombs, Barret, Petrie etc)

[HOCOLITE]

Well AR what do you say to that
Gross did you look at the M40 results then. Leader 10 minutes ahead of anyone else with fastest min/K of all courses

[FatBoy]

Gross - to quote yourself you're talking b******s.

1) Sutton Park is not a big enough sample to base your argument on.
2) Third place on M21L was an M40.
3) Only 4 out of 12 on M21L were actually M21.
4) Winners of M40L-M60L inclusive all ran faster mins/km than M35L (sorry AR!)
5) Two of the most regular people who run up to M21L are both Scottish (adopted Scottish at least) - Graeme and JonX [edit: Add one Mr Kitchen to that list]

[Rich]

That extra 2km was through very tough terrain!