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

[ifititches]

OK Gross (bowing to a true expert!) in that case would competitions be enhanced if the "short" courses became "true form middle " courses. And can you elaborate on that for the masses, because I would love to know more, without having to go away and look up every technical IOF detail!

Suspect a "true form" middle would give an equal orienteering challenge to those currently running short, and might tempt some of those down from long who are not really enjoying it, but have been told/believe that short is a cop out. Also, as in my original post, it brings the terminolgy of international and higher level regional+ events into line, which might be good for image of the sport. (just throwing around ideas here)

Should have made clear in my original post that I realise there are some age groups that are very sparsely populated already, but I'm in the older middle bulge , which is not.

[NeilC]

OK Gross (bowing to a true expert!) in that case would competitions be enhanced if the "short" courses became "true form middle " courses. And can you elaborate on that for the masses, because I would love to know more, without having to go away and look up every technical IOF detail!

Suspect a "true form" middle would give an equal orienteering challenge to those currently running short, and might tempt some of those down from long who are not really enjoying it, but have been told/believe that short is a cop out. Also, as in my original post, it brings the terminolgy of international and higher level regional+ events into line, which might be good for image of the sport. (just throwing around ideas here)

Should have made clear in my original post that I realise there are some age groups that are very sparsely populated already, but I'm in the older middle bulge , which is not.

Except of course that many S courses at regional events are also L courses for another class.

[graeme]

"True" middle races and UK "Short" courses are totally different. Middle is primarily a race, the other aims to provide a pleasurable orienteering experience for those not wishing to run as far as the age-based system says they should. UK-short course are currently just the same as long courses for older orienteers (presumed less fit).

The difference lies in what is a "significant time loss". It is much shorter for a middle race than a short race. Similarly, middle races should never be a test of endurance, while short courses may be.

For example...

A leg which is extremely technical along the straight line, but has a trivial path route available which would take 30sec longer. For a middle race such a leg is OK - 30sec is a significant time loss an racers will go straight. For a UK short course it isn't - its just TD2.

or...

A leg with a massive catching feature just 50m beyond the control - again unacceptable for a UK short course but OK for middle.

(of course, ideally the middle race wouldn't have the easy options either, and in many UK areas its hard to avoid setting legs like those above)

[ratleikur]

I am one of those who seem to get a slagging off regularly on this forum ie someone who prefers long courses. When I'm not orienteering (which is more and more of the time as I get increasingly disillusioned with the sport) I do long-o, mountain marathon and ultramarathon races. I have no objection to adding middle distance races to the schedules, except that I suspect it will just result in a further decrease in the number of long courses. Many people on this forum seem to feel that orienteering must be one of two things - either head to head competitive racing or recreational exercise - there is another side to it ie those of us who simply like to test ourselves and our ability to navigate, maintain running speed and endurance over long distances. One of the main competitors for potential O'participants is adventure racing - which involves competing over several hours - yet orienteering seems to be on a trend of ever shortening races. Over the last few years I've felt that 21L courses have got easier and shorter. Classic distance only exists as part of the UK cup - and for JK and BEOC selection requires you to run a significant number of the other UK cup races ie short/sprint/middle races. Why? - the elite runners at top marathons aren't required to do an 800m to qualify. The reason I gave up elite orienteering was being forced to run shorter distance races that I hated simply to be allowed to do the occasional classic distance. If introducing middle distance to mainstream orienteering, why not add classic distance races aswell - ones which are open to anyone. This could be added in a similar way as suggested for the middle ie just a mens and womens race with class winners within the course.

[awk]

I am one of those who seem to get a slagging off regularly on this forum ie someone who prefers long courses. ....I have no objection to adding middle distance races to the schedules, except that I suspect it will just result in a further decrease in the number of long courses.

I think what your post illustrates is that there is a greater need for variety in the sport: there is too much of the same thing, namely events which try to satisfy all, and as a result don't.

I'm one who would like to see more sprint and middle distance. But I'd like to see more long distance as well: I'm not fit enough to enjoy mountain marathons at present, but one of my highlights of last year was the MerOC Long-O at Formby. I'd be at the Cannock event this coming weekend but for family pressure to be elsewhere (sometimes you have to give way!).

So - more events more specifically targeted. You won't find everybody at everything, would probably find a greater proportion of smaller events, but I suspect one would find more people orienteering overall.

[Kitch]

ratleikur makes the point about M21L getting shorter and shorter. The same is true of M21E, rarely is an elite course won in 90 minutes these days, usually more like 80. Rarely are the courses as long as they have been in the past. BOC 14.2km, JK 14.4, Scottish 13.1. All too short for a 90+ minute winning time, these areas could have handled a couple of extra kilometers, so why the short courses?

Maybe because of course planning guidelines, other courses are based on M21 length and because other age classes lack the fitness and don't want to be out too long then M21 gets shortened to accomodate them.

Time to look at the ratios ?

The UK Cup may to some extent be responsible for diluting the perception of what is expected of a long race in Britain. UK Cup introduced many middle and sprint races to the cometitive scene - a good thing given the demands of International competition. But with that perhaps has come the idea that any length of course will do so shorter 'Long' races have become accepted and now the norm.

Maybe it is time to re-visit guidelines.

Could it be worth BOF asking the orienteering public what they would like from their courses ?

Some want competition some want re-creation.

We put enough effort in to numerous courses at events that there is probably something for everyone already, just the silly system of age classes means people may not do the course they would enjoy the most.

And maybe, just maybe if we did away with age classes and long/short and brought in differing technical difficulties we would have a path for newcomers to enjoy developing their skills.

Oh blimey - the colour coded system !!

[ifititches]

I'm enjoying reading these, and realised that Mike Hamilton's questions are also partly being addressed in this thread too. Again, I'm not trying to be nihilistic, just turning ideas over to see whether they could run..

I can see the point of view that classic-length courses are short on the ground,(oops, no pun intended!) even though electronic punching should have made it more feasible to put longer courses on areas that wouldn't accommodate them before. Perhaps the re-growth of Long-O courses will partly address that, especially if those who want the longer distances communicate that to planners and support the events when they happen. Nothing breeds more of the same quicker than a well-supported event!

But I think people also leave the sport at the point that they don't have the time to put in the mileage in training to leave them feeling satisfied on long courses, or they find that their physiology isn't actually suited to long-distance running (and that may have nothing to do with fitness).

I think having regular, good, competitive age specific middle distance courses, with appropriately tailored training and none of the "only for the unfit" comments that are doled out to the short courses might be more attractive to those who quit for that reason, as might sprint for people with different physiology again. But I can understand, from the technical post above, that we're not talking currently exchangable concepts here, and also that it might leave regular "short" course competitors unsatisfied

I still think that getting away from L/S and (perhaps) introducing classic, middle and sprint more for everyone might actually reduce the perception that elite orienteers are distant from the sport. (I don't think they are, but clearly it's come through as an issue worth mentioning for some)

Colour-coded events don't actually have the same problems. Always competition to be had at the distance of your choice (except for classic, which misses out again!) And, they have the advantage of being more often within critical 10-20 km radius of home! (critical for me anyway, who has a lot of weekends on-call!)

oops, crosse dposting with Kitch's, but too late to modify now