"middle' or "short" what's your view?

[ifititches]

A theory snook up on me over last few weeks. Read on if interested.

International level O has increasingly clearly got 3 disciplines; classic (long) ; middle and sprint. (leaving trail O out of this thread, as bit below doesn’t relate to it)

would it be good for the sport if these disciplines were used as a selling point for higher participation at lower levels, and there was more specialisation in these disciplines? (appreciate occasional international O God(ess)wins all 3 regularly but these are few in number). Would more integration of these disciplines help reduce the view that elite orienteering is remote from the rest of the sport, by bringing international race distance terminology into everyday O talk?

This thought was stimulated by the discussions about TD5 adult long and short courses (+/- ranking thereof) which vivdly illustrated 2 points to me.

Firstly, there is currently a group who only drop to short courses if feel unable to run, however badly, on long courses. In my case this is doubtlessly partly due to having the unchallenged opinion that long was the only real O, and never have being sold the option of becoming a good “middle� distance competitor.

Secondly, there are a large number of extremely good and highly competitive orienteers who regularly train for and run “short “ courses because it’s their preferred running distance, which they enjoy and excel at. They may well be natural “middle “ O racers (as may some of those who slog round long because of a negative view of running short) The latter could be seen to akin to always running 10,000m on the track when actually you’re far better at 1,500!

To me, there’s a real, and challenging, paradox that we have “middle� as an international discipline, but those wishing to practise/specialise over that distance presumably at present construct their own training programmes, but mostly run classic/long distances when racing. Apart from national champs and day1 JK they may not be challenged regularly over very competitive “middle� distance races domestically

How about taking the plunge and renaming “short� adult TD5 races at C3 and above as “middle�, which is what they are in international O terms. Give full ranking points for “middle� (take away any link to “long� times) Challenge/encourage people to test their skill in both, and have a “middle� SHI as well as classic (don’t think we do at present).

Might bring more participation at C3 events too if some really competitive people were trying to run enough of both “long� and “middle� distance to stay top of the ranking tables for both disciplines, and, since the “middle� distance courses on some areas are easier to plan at TD5 than entire long course they might technically be more satisfying too.

Over to you....(to shoot down the idea, not me!)

[lilywhite]

Interesting idea. But I'd say, for domestic M21's, there's probably as many classic races as there are middle races. M21L courses (at your standard badge event) fall roughly half way between the 2 and therefore probably do a good enough job for finding out the best overall orienteer for the purpouses of the (unreliable anyway) ranking list.

Having a British Middle Distance Champs for all age classes is probably a good idea and would probably help to end a bit of the elite/non-elite divide (if it exists). But having middle and long courses in every class at every badge event (even if it is exactly the same course as what the short would be) would probably only result in even less competition on the long courses - which shouldn't be as long as Classic courses (at eg. BOC and JK).

I think.

[Gnitworp]

How about taking the plunge and renaming “short� adult TD5 races at C3 and above as “middle�, which is what they are in international O terms. Give full ranking points for “middle� (take away any link to “long� times) Challenge/encourage people to test their skill in both, and have a “middle� SHI as well as classic (don’t think we do at present).

Might bring more participation at C3 events too if some really competitive people were trying to run enough of both “long� and “middle� distance to stay top of the ranking tables for both disciplines, and, since the “middle� distance courses on some areas are easier to plan at TD5 than entire long course they might technically be more satisfying too.

Trouble is, holding 'long' and 'middle' distance races simultaneously dilutes the competition in both, and it's already 'dilute' enough with multiple age classes. Why not simply have more events offering only 'middle' distance races? Then you could have 2 sensible national ranking lists per age class if you wanted.

[Kitch]

So don't hold them simultaneously, use appropriate areas for appropriate disciplines.

over 10 years ago I was putting forward the idea that JK M21E should have a middle and a long race, partly because it reflects the requirement of International races but also importantly because we were all too often getting rubbish long courses on one of the days because the area was not up to it.

Note though that there is a difference between choosing to specialise in short or middle and lacking the fitness to enjoy a long course. I suspect the majority of short course competitors fall into the latter so don't see how getting everyone to run thier courses improves their experiance.

[Carnage Head]

...there are a large number of extremely good and highly competitive orienteers who regularly train for and run “short “ courses because it’s their preferred running distance, which they enjoy and excel at. They may well be natural “middle “ O racers (as may some of those who slog round long because of a negative view of running short) The latter could be seen to akin to always running 10,000m on the track when actually you’re far better at 1,500!

Whilst not 'extremely good' I do regularly run 'short' courses because it's a distance I enjoy and do better at than 'long' courses. So, I support your suggestion.

However, whilst your suggestion may not dilute overall entries it may certainly split entries from the best runners into the two categories, leaving many non-specialists (ie those who don't have a preference between long and middle) confused as to which distance to enter. Not sure how to counter this.

One move which could be made to facilitate the decision of 'non-specialists', would be to only count the best four results of the previous twelve months in the ranking list. This would enable those who wanted to have a crack at ranking well in both M21L and M21M to have a reasonable attempt at doing so. This may indeed be a beneficial suggestion to apply to the current ranking list anyway, as it would allow runners who are based abroad or who are tied down by other commitments, a chance to get ranked, rather than attempting to extrapolate from four or five results to see where they 'could' have come.

Another point: if there was a well respected M21M category, then M21V could be renamed M21S, and that could take over the mantle of the 'practice' distance.

Finally, would national and regional (if there are any) sprint events, eg BSOC, become M21M ranking events, or even the part of the 'renamed' M21S event list? Or would they be left them off altogether? I was disappointed (if not surprised) that my OK BSOC result did not contribute to my paltry M21S rank...!

[Becks]

I'd definitely be up for a greater mixture of disciplines, but as the others have said, a fudging of the two would surely only reduce quality. Over here there's middle races every other weekend, and it's really refreshing not to have to slog round a long course every weekend! (This may be a reflection on my fitness in terrain at the moment as opposed to anything else). I see Craney's point about there being few "real" classics, but running a shorter course than a classic and a middle are two quite different things I think? Middles can really use smaller areas to the max, as seen at Rowney Warren, and it's be good to see a few more creep into the fixtures.

[Neil M35]

Having 'Middle' regional events makes sense to an M21 runner - a lot of areas don't support a decent M21 course at 10k but you could get a good 5k course. Trouble is if you reduce everybody else proportionately there is not much course left for the older classes - the long/middle distinction only makes sense if the long course is quite long in the first place.

On a related note, why do the results of the recent UK Cup middle races at Rowney and Fonthill appear in M21L rankings and not M21S rankings - is it because the L/S distinction is nothing to do with the length of the course but rather the perceived standard of the competitors?

[Carnage Head]

On a related note, why do the results of the recent UK Cup middle races at Rowney and Fonthill appear in M21L rankings and not M21S rankings - is it because the L/S distinction is nothing to do with the length of the course but rather the perceived standard of the competitors?

I reckon so. I think that this, and the non-appearance of BSOC placings on any ranking list, support the idea of the creation of a respected 'short'/'middle' ranking list, perhaps with four (or even three) results to count.

Any thoughts?

[NeilC]

Having 'Middle' regional events makes sense to an M21 runner - a lot of areas don't support a decent M21 course at 10k but you could get a good 5k course. Trouble is if you reduce everybody else proportionately there is not much course left for the older classes - the long/middle distinction only makes sense if the long course is quite long in the first place.

The long/middle distinction should hold true for all lengths. However there will be plenty on "money-worth" types who would complain. Although by all accounts Rowney was a great event there still seemed to be less locals there than one one sees at local SOG or MADO events. A brave club therefore to put on a middle-distance regional event.

On a related note, why do the results of the recent UK Cup middle races at Rowney and Fonthill appear in M21L rankings and not M21S rankings - is it because the L/S distinction is nothing to do with the length of the course but rather the perceived standard of the competitors?

More a case, I suspect, of the (multi-day)entries system having to offer Short course entries for the middle race when they were effectively meaningless.

[Neil M35]

Having 'Middle' regional events makes sense to an M21 runner - a lot of areas don't support a decent M21 course at 10k but you could get a good 5k course. Trouble is if you reduce everybody else proportionately there is not much course left for the older classes - the long/middle distinction only makes sense if the long course is quite long in the first place.

The long/middle distinction should hold true for all lengths. However there will be plenty on "money-worth" types who would complain. Although by all accounts Rowney was a great event there still seemed to be less locals there than one one sees at local SOG or MADO events. A brave club therefore to put on a middle-distance regional event.

Perhaps I didn't really say what I meant. Given an area where constraints on the area make the optimum course length 6k, an M21 would be happier to run a middle race, but an M60 would probably prefer to do a long race (both courses being about 6k). As you say, orienteers like to get their moneys worth.

I would happily run any course length if there was a guaranteed level of competition - from this point of view merging classes rather than splitting them up makes more sense. Even UK Cup races on quality areas struggle to attract big numbers, and the average regional M35L field is about 6 people.

[Neil M35]

On a related note, why do the results of the recent UK Cup middle races at Rowney and Fonthill appear in M21L rankings and not M21S rankings - is it because the L/S distinction is nothing to do with the length of the course but rather the perceived standard of the competitors?

More a case, I suspect, of the (multi-day)entries system having to offer Short course entries for the middle race when they were effectively meaningless.

This comment made no sense to me so I ignored it earlier. I will attempt to clarify. The results from the middle races at Rowney and Fonthill have been added to the BOF Ranking List as L course results even though the length of the course was shorter than most S courses. This suggests that as far as the ranking list is concerned, L and S are standards of competitors and not lengths of course. I suspect that most people consider this to be the case anyway, I am just pointing it out.

[Marco Polo]

This comment made no sense to me so I ignored it earlier. I will attempt to clarify. The results from the middle races at Rowney and Fonthill have been added to the BOF Ranking List as L course results even though the length of the course was shorter than most S courses. This suggests that as far as the ranking list is concerned, L and S are standards of competitors and not lengths of course. I suspect that most people consider this to be the case anyway, I am just pointing it out.[/quote]

I suspect there are clear guidelines on this as only 21e, 40l and 55l age classes are ranked (open, senior, veteran?)- not the full set of age groups. I see it as being a full length middle race (or the longest available course on the day) so appropriate to rank as L or elite.
I suspect the British sprints will be ranked the same way (not in M21V)

Mark

[bendover]

australia - 'M21Sledge'

a category put on at every big race in oz - basically an open to allcomers middle distance race. get rid of M/W18, 20, 21, 35, 40, 45 S classes and just have one open race for everybody. then just have class winners within the one course - so you can still be the M45s champion, but you're also running against a load of other runners aswell.

1 minute start intervals.... quality!

then any elite who just wants to run middle distance races has always got a decent/big field to race against...

[awk]

For me, Rowney Warren, a C3, simply confirmed my antipathy to the current ranking scheme: a top notch event, far better than 90%+ C3s and C2s I've attended in the past years, but not a ranking event.

The sooner we get away from this straitjacket, and encourage a greater variety of events, with more competitive classes, the better. And, as other posters have suggested, that doesn't mean renaming the M45B (oh sorry, M45S), M45M, but putting on more Middle distance and sprint races etc, and please not getting bogged down in multifarious classes.

Rowney may have seen fewer locals than one might have expected, but you have to run with these things and let them buil momentum. Not every event needs 500 or so to be successful, so it's not a problem if an event 'only' gets say 100-200 if (a) that's been budgetted for, and (b) classes are merged into more meaningful categories to maximise competition for thos runners.

At present, the most competitive races I'm getting are local sprint races on Wednesday evenings, not national events. It shouldn't be the case, but it is.

[Gross]

[quote="ifititches"
l
How about taking the plunge and renaming “short� adult TD5 races at C3 and above as “middle�, which is what they are in international O terms. Give full ranking points for “middle� (take away any link to “long� times) Challenge/encourage people to test their skill in both, and have a “middle� SHI as well as classic (don’t think we do at present).
[/quote]


To my mind the S classes are simply short versions of the long & are prepared and planned as such... Middle in it's true form needs different skills in planning the competitions..................