Linked to “middle or short�post on discussion, but also to Didsco’s post on “building in rest� I’ve been thinking about difficulties posed by training for/competing in 3 (or 4 including relays) distances during major championships. I’ll be airing these thoughts through other channels, but would also be fascinated by nope-readers’ insights.
I am in total awe and admiration of our GB elite orienteers and their dedication to the sport, especially since they often double up over distances, or sometimes run all 3(+ relay). Seems to me to be similar to trying to run (with qualifiers) an 800m heat and final, a steeplechase heat and final and a 10,000m heat and final all over a 10d period,or alternatively doing a decathlon/pentathlon (athletics analogies are because it’s the other sport I’m involved in)
If, at junior coaching sessions, we are hoping to prepare juniors for the best possible chance of later success at senior international level (as part of LTAD process), the current selection process can be confusing. Yes, orienteers want to maximise their chances of getting any kind of international selection, and there’s a (valid) point of view that says that the best orienteers will win any of these disciplines with ease and should be allowed to compete in all three, but isn’t there at least as strong a case for encouraging people to specialise in the discipline that best suits them, and design their training, including their rest and peaks around a less complex series of targets?
It would reduce the problems of trying to “peak� for a big variety of races over very short period of time,allow the building in of “rest� and also reduce the psychological burden of a big “miss� or dq early in a more complex event sequence. Also, with my other hat on, I would say that the viruses that people often catch on the plane on the way over to major events might not decimate teams to the same extent if a larger team were involved in the races in such a stressful programme.
Are there finances to allow for bigger teams does lack of money demand doubling up?
What do other coaches think about this and how do they shape their coaching around it? Do you just go for enjoyment/understanding of the sport and its psychology, improving techniques in general, encouraging distance training, and hoping that some juniors will be able to race at speed too?
How do the next generation of internationals view the specialisation of orienteering disciplines? Would you put your “international�eggs in one basket? Has anyone actaully got a technique for 'peaking" for all 3 disciplines + relay? (apart from Simone)
specialist O distances; how best to prepare for the future?
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
- ifititches
- blue
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:15 pm
- Location: just SW of greatest track junction in UK, I think.....
a couple of thoughts on what you say:
the comparison to athletics is flawed: the training a 800m runner does is wildly different to that of a 10,000m runner however the training a 5000m runner does is pretty similar to 10,000m and even marathon - the equivalents of a 12 min sprnt, 30 min middle and 90 min classic fitness.
secondly orienteering is orienteering is orienteering, and anyone who is World Class at one discipline is highly likely to be pretty good at the others, i guess the exception is non-forest based sprint races.
also with regard to taking bigger teams to internationals there are rules limiting the overall size of teams for more major internationals, eg 7 with 3 running each discipline for WOC, i think it is 7 with 6 in each for WC - certainly for EOC.
i like your way of thinking though, good ideas come from discussions like this
-m
the comparison to athletics is flawed: the training a 800m runner does is wildly different to that of a 10,000m runner however the training a 5000m runner does is pretty similar to 10,000m and even marathon - the equivalents of a 12 min sprnt, 30 min middle and 90 min classic fitness.
secondly orienteering is orienteering is orienteering, and anyone who is World Class at one discipline is highly likely to be pretty good at the others, i guess the exception is non-forest based sprint races.
also with regard to taking bigger teams to internationals there are rules limiting the overall size of teams for more major internationals, eg 7 with 3 running each discipline for WOC, i think it is 7 with 6 in each for WC - certainly for EOC.
i like your way of thinking though, good ideas come from discussions like this
-m
-
rocky - [nope] cartel
- Posts: 2747
- Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 1:28 pm
- Location: SW
thanks Rocky, and apols about my ignorance on selection rules. I'd like to see more coaching discussions on here, because it's rare to get together much with others if not involved in tours or at coaching conference.
given that insight into the number of runners that can be taken, do you think that's the best way of running the international competitions now they're so much more diverse? Because to me the problem of overload of racing remains the same....and if I was an international, wanting to be a champion, I'd like to be up against as many top people in my best discipline as possible.
I didn't say 5000m though, I wrote steeplechase, because that seemed more analogous to me, as it's sometimes 1500m runners moving up, and sometimes long-distance moving down........Agree the 1500 and 5/10,000 training very different though (although again, the most talented can do them all)
given that insight into the number of runners that can be taken, do you think that's the best way of running the international competitions now they're so much more diverse? Because to me the problem of overload of racing remains the same....and if I was an international, wanting to be a champion, I'd like to be up against as many top people in my best discipline as possible.
I didn't say 5000m though, I wrote steeplechase, because that seemed more analogous to me, as it's sometimes 1500m runners moving up, and sometimes long-distance moving down........Agree the 1500 and 5/10,000 training very different though (although again, the most talented can do them all)
- ifititches
- blue
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:15 pm
- Location: just SW of greatest track junction in UK, I think.....
ifititches has got some good ideas, I'm a very big believer in allowing athletes to specialize.
With respect to Rocky some of his points don't really stand up
1. Rocky suggests 5000m, 10000m, and marathon training is 'prettý' similar.
Yes the basic training for these events are 'pretty' similar, but when it comes down to the finer quality training each athlete does then these events are very different, especially for anybody who wants to be the best, and perform at their best.
The whole point with specializing is to perform at your very best at the race best suited to you, which means a very focused and specific training program.
2. Rocky says:
..."orienteering is orienteering is orienteering, and anyone who is World Class at one discipline is highly likely to be pretty good at the others, i guess the exception is non-forest based sprint races"
Yes, but 'pretty good' is not good enough. Concentrate on the discipline which best suits you, form the training both physical and technical training around this and you'll get the best results you ever could.
The technical/tactical demands and style of all orienteering disciplines (long, middle, sprint, night, relay etc) are different, and these differences need to be respected in any athletes training program
With respect to Rocky some of his points don't really stand up
1. Rocky suggests 5000m, 10000m, and marathon training is 'prettý' similar.
Yes the basic training for these events are 'pretty' similar, but when it comes down to the finer quality training each athlete does then these events are very different, especially for anybody who wants to be the best, and perform at their best.
The whole point with specializing is to perform at your very best at the race best suited to you, which means a very focused and specific training program.
2. Rocky says:
..."orienteering is orienteering is orienteering, and anyone who is World Class at one discipline is highly likely to be pretty good at the others, i guess the exception is non-forest based sprint races"
Yes, but 'pretty good' is not good enough. Concentrate on the discipline which best suits you, form the training both physical and technical training around this and you'll get the best results you ever could.
The technical/tactical demands and style of all orienteering disciplines (long, middle, sprint, night, relay etc) are different, and these differences need to be respected in any athletes training program
- DIDSCO
- brown
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 12:02 pm
- Location: H?o Ghetto
LTAD is Long Term Athlete Development.
The specialisation debate is not restricted to just Orienteering.
Wild Water racing (canoeing) has the same issue. "Classics" are a sinle run, usually of around 20 mins, whilst "Sprint" is 2 runs of around 2 mins each. A factor of 10 difference, so like comparing 800m with 10,000m.
Good paddlers tend to be good at both, as like orienteering technique and experience count for a lot. However, you cannot expect someone to peak and be the best in the world both aerobically and anaerobically in the same weekend. WWR World Champs allows for a max. of 6 men and 6 women, with 4 of each doing the Classic and 4 of each doing the Sprint. However, the constraining factor in the UK is usually whether the budget and logistics will stretch to the sending of a full team.
Interesting how different sports arrive at broadly the same outcome - a team structure which allows (in theory) for some specialists in each length of event and some generalists doing more than one.
Personally, I belive that for the best results at world level you have to allow people to specialise and select separately for each distance if at all possible. Some people are naturally sprinters and lack endurance whilst others have the endurance but can't sprint. I seem to recall Daley Thompson's results were significantly different in 100m and 1500m, and he's probably the best true all-round athlete we've ever had.
The specialisation debate is not restricted to just Orienteering.
Wild Water racing (canoeing) has the same issue. "Classics" are a sinle run, usually of around 20 mins, whilst "Sprint" is 2 runs of around 2 mins each. A factor of 10 difference, so like comparing 800m with 10,000m.
Good paddlers tend to be good at both, as like orienteering technique and experience count for a lot. However, you cannot expect someone to peak and be the best in the world both aerobically and anaerobically in the same weekend. WWR World Champs allows for a max. of 6 men and 6 women, with 4 of each doing the Classic and 4 of each doing the Sprint. However, the constraining factor in the UK is usually whether the budget and logistics will stretch to the sending of a full team.
Interesting how different sports arrive at broadly the same outcome - a team structure which allows (in theory) for some specialists in each length of event and some generalists doing more than one.
Personally, I belive that for the best results at world level you have to allow people to specialise and select separately for each distance if at all possible. Some people are naturally sprinters and lack endurance whilst others have the endurance but can't sprint. I seem to recall Daley Thompson's results were significantly different in 100m and 1500m, and he's probably the best true all-round athlete we've ever had.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
LTAD is Long Term Athlete Development.
The specialisation debate is not restricted to just Orienteering.
Wild Water racing (canoeing) has the same issue. "Classics" are a sinle run, usually of around 20 mins, whilst "Sprint" is 2 runs of around 2 mins each. A factor of 10 difference, so like comparing 800m with 10,000m.
Good paddlers tend to be good at both, as like orienteering technique and experience count for a lot. However, you cannot expect someone to peak and be the best in the world both aerobically and anaerobically in the same weekend. WWR World Champs allows for a max. of 6 men and 6 women, with 4 of each doing the Classic and 4 of each doing the Sprint. However, the constraining factor in the UK is usually whether the budget and logistics will stretch to the sending of a full team.
Interesting how different sports arrive at broadly the same outcome - a team structure which allows (in theory) for some specialists in each length of event and some generalists doing more than one.
Personally, I belive that for the best results at world level you have to allow people to specialise and select separately for each distance if at all possible. Some people are naturally sprinters and lack endurance whilst others have the endurance but can't sprint. I seem to recall Daley Thompson's results were significantly different in 100m and 1500m, and he's probably the best true all-round athlete we've ever had.
The specialisation debate is not restricted to just Orienteering.
Wild Water racing (canoeing) has the same issue. "Classics" are a sinle run, usually of around 20 mins, whilst "Sprint" is 2 runs of around 2 mins each. A factor of 10 difference, so like comparing 800m with 10,000m.
Good paddlers tend to be good at both, as like orienteering technique and experience count for a lot. However, you cannot expect someone to peak and be the best in the world both aerobically and anaerobically in the same weekend. WWR World Champs allows for a max. of 6 men and 6 women, with 4 of each doing the Classic and 4 of each doing the Sprint. However, the constraining factor in the UK is usually whether the budget and logistics will stretch to the sending of a full team.
Interesting how different sports arrive at broadly the same outcome - a team structure which allows (in theory) for some specialists in each length of event and some generalists doing more than one.
Personally, I belive that for the best results at world level you have to allow people to specialise and select separately for each distance if at all possible. Some people are naturally sprinters and lack endurance whilst others have the endurance but can't sprint. I seem to recall Daley Thompson's results were significantly different in 100m and 1500m, and he's probably the best true all-round athlete we've ever had.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
maybe time to start another coaching thread to outline what the LTAD process is in O and how it's felt for those who've been through it? But no time for that tonight....
back to the thread, last year I read Steve Redgrave's autobiography and one of the things that fascinated me was how rowers were moved around in events to play to their strengths, which were not necessarily their original preferences, and then adapted their rowing to that event more specifically. And, of course, the team was greater than any one individual.
back to the thread, last year I read Steve Redgrave's autobiography and one of the things that fascinated me was how rowers were moved around in events to play to their strengths, which were not necessarily their original preferences, and then adapted their rowing to that event more specifically. And, of course, the team was greater than any one individual.
- ifititches
- blue
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:15 pm
- Location: just SW of greatest track junction in UK, I think.....
Errrr that would be nowhere
not without LTAF.
One year there is money for athletes the next there's nothing the next there is TASS funding for this segment, and not for that, soon there will be something else for some other classification of athletes based on some restrictive criteria or other.
And rowing is essentially a team effort - which orienteering is not.
THe Steve Redgrave hype is a bit misleading, he is always cited as the winner of 5 gold medals, when in fact he has been a member of 5 gold medal winning teams.
not without LTAF.
One year there is money for athletes the next there's nothing the next there is TASS funding for this segment, and not for that, soon there will be something else for some other classification of athletes based on some restrictive criteria or other.
And rowing is essentially a team effort - which orienteering is not.
THe Steve Redgrave hype is a bit misleading, he is always cited as the winner of 5 gold medals, when in fact he has been a member of 5 gold medal winning teams.
If you could run forever ......
-
Kitch - god
- Posts: 2434
- Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 2:09 pm
- Location: embada
The funding issue is the same for anything that's centrally funded. In the NHS it's whatever is flavour of the month, usually because of press hype building up public expectations, and just as the NHS responds to that the money is withdrawn and goes eleswhere!
If a sport has major sponsorship, a private income through a wealthy benefactor or Trust funds of some sort I guess it might get away from that system, but don't think that's going to happen either!
From what I remember of the SR book (it got a bit repetitive due to so MANY olympics), funding (lackof) issues featured a lot. but the specialisation bit I was thinking of was being directed by a coach away from his own aim of single sculling into various other combinations, and even changing the side he rowed on at one point. Presumably some of this was because someone spotted that there was greater medal potential
from doing that, and the sport had enough disciplines in it to take into account rowers' individual strengths.
But in the different O distances i'm not sure what we are saying at present. Just because middle and sprint may have been introduced to improve interest in the sport/ media friendliness, it's inevitable they'll develop into specialisms in their own right, and may bring people into the sport who wouldn't consider the "classic" to be the holy grail of O. Should we be anticipating/encouraging/supporting that move in our competition and coaching, because I'm sure it will happen if the sport survives the CRB checking process!
If a sport has major sponsorship, a private income through a wealthy benefactor or Trust funds of some sort I guess it might get away from that system, but don't think that's going to happen either!
From what I remember of the SR book (it got a bit repetitive due to so MANY olympics), funding (lackof) issues featured a lot. but the specialisation bit I was thinking of was being directed by a coach away from his own aim of single sculling into various other combinations, and even changing the side he rowed on at one point. Presumably some of this was because someone spotted that there was greater medal potential
from doing that, and the sport had enough disciplines in it to take into account rowers' individual strengths.
But in the different O distances i'm not sure what we are saying at present. Just because middle and sprint may have been introduced to improve interest in the sport/ media friendliness, it's inevitable they'll develop into specialisms in their own right, and may bring people into the sport who wouldn't consider the "classic" to be the holy grail of O. Should we be anticipating/encouraging/supporting that move in our competition and coaching, because I'm sure it will happen if the sport survives the CRB checking process!
- ifititches
- blue
- Posts: 400
- Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 9:15 pm
- Location: just SW of greatest track junction in UK, I think.....
But the evidence is that the same people are on top at all distances, whether your name is Simone, Heather, Emil or Jamie?
Orienteering is more complex than running in circles round a track and the winners are decided by navigational decisions on the day more than running speed.
Is it not final preparation for the different events - looking at old maps, rehearsing route choices and training in equivalent terrain in advance that is key. This is not about the whole training programme but the fine tuning before the racing.
Orienteering is more complex than running in circles round a track and the winners are decided by navigational decisions on the day more than running speed.
Is it not final preparation for the different events - looking at old maps, rehearsing route choices and training in equivalent terrain in advance that is key. This is not about the whole training programme but the fine tuning before the racing.
- Bill
- off string
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 10:43 pm
But some do specialise surely Tierry Georgiou is a case in question. Yes he can do all well but definitely specialises. I believe the youngsters find sprint the easiest to specialise in early on and maybe over their career graduate to the longer distances.
Diets and fitness are no good if you can't read the map.
-
HOCOLITE - addict
- Posts: 1274
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 8:42 pm
- Location: Down the Ag suppliers
a month and a half on and this discussion has also returned on the main forum. but i've only just read it here.
While I think specialisation is important, I'd be very very wary about pushing specialisation on juniors (where the thread started). I think for the best chances long term, we need to develop juniors with skills to succeed across the board, e.g., techinques suited to park-like sprint, the ability to navigate in very detailed areas, and the sense to pick the right lines on longer legs required in classics. Not to mention the mental skills to cope with big races.
While I think specialisation is important, I'd be very very wary about pushing specialisation on juniors (where the thread started). I think for the best chances long term, we need to develop juniors with skills to succeed across the board, e.g., techinques suited to park-like sprint, the ability to navigate in very detailed areas, and the sense to pick the right lines on longer legs required in classics. Not to mention the mental skills to cope with big races.
- fish
- orange
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 12:31 pm
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests