Middle Distance Races

[graeme]

So, back from the Seaside Scramble (which was wonderful, thank you!) I'm more mystified than ever about middle distances. I had thought, after looking e.g. at WOC, controlling the FCC final, that it was basically a blue course with technical navigation, detail, route choice, change of pace etc.

But the British middle was more like a control picking exercise, requiring detailed navigation along the red line (or round the green) through physically and technically tough forest: negligible route choice, no legs of 3mins/500m or longer and unless I missed a trick, no change of pace before the (extended) run in.

The guidelines aren't very helpful - "emphasize the technical aspects" is what all planners should seek to do - what do people think a middle race should be like?

[Gnitworp]

I planned JK 2003 Day One (Hambleden) jointly with Colin Duckworth, we agreed every leg on every course!

M21E was 5.8km, 285m, 14 controls
Longest leg was 1.04km (much route choice, mainly off track)
2nd longest was 0.94km
Shortest was 0.09km
2nd shortest was 0.12km
There was one crossover and many direction changes.

[Duncan]

Short detailed legs are important, but longer route choices are also important and I agree it was lacking from Sunday's course. The change of pace is needed (e.g. having to switch back to detailed orienteering after a longer leg), as well as testing the different skills. However, what you don't want is a route choice leg where once you have made the route choice you can end up with a track run - that is not so bad in a 15km long, but is a waste in a middle.

Looking at recent Rules Group minutes it seems there is an action for them to come up with some guidelines for middle races. Dunno where this is at.

The IOF have some guidelines. See http://www.orienteering.org/i3/index.php?/iof2006/document_library/rules_and_guidelines/foot_orienteering and follow link to IOF Foot Orienteering Competition Rules 2007.pdf. It contains this:

"The Middle distance profile is technical. It takes place in a non-urban (mostly forested) environment with an emphasis on detailed navigation and where finding the controls constitute a challenge. It requires constant concentration on map reading with occasional shifts in running direction out from controls. The element of route choice is essential but should not be at the expense of technically demanding orienteering. The route in itself shall involve demanding navigation. The course shall require speed-shifts e.g. with legs through different types of vegetation."

[FatBoy]

The element of route choice is essential but should not be at the expense of technically demanding orienteering

What a brilliant piece of English. Following "essential" with "but"

[HOCOLITE]

Why not ask Thierry Georgiou?

[Kitch]

what do people think a middle race should be like?

would you also like to know where the controls will be ?

[JimB]

I agree with Duncan...mix in route choice, vary leg lengths and speed, but in a way that continually keeps the element of navigational stress...no easy nav sections!

The three disciplines, Sprint, Middle and Long, should give three different experiences, each emphasizing different skills. Ultra fast, emphasizing cleanness and flow (S), full-on technical navigation the whole time (M), route choice, endurance, pacing and variety (L). (Which makes an SML weekend more fun than a two classics weekend.)

[Gnitworp]

I agree with Duncan and Jim B, but don't see why you should necessarily be given an 'intellectual rest' on long legs in 'Long'. Long, boring track runs are bad in any orienteering race, and don't provide a sustained test of orienteering skills.

[JimB]

I agree with Duncan and Jim B, but don't see why you should necessarily be given an 'intellectual rest' on long legs in 'Long'. Long, boring track runs are bad in any orienteering race, and don't provide a sustained test of orienteering skills.

Ideally, but 3km long legs with route choice are hard to set without long trail sections. (Look at the most recent WOC...the long legs involve kilometers of trail running, with hundreds of meters between junctions. Not especially taxing navigation while on those trails. The key is having made the right route choice, which is what the orienteer is rewarded for. Compare to earlier legs, which not only involved detailed nav, but also demanded reading ahead to plan the route choice legs. The course, of course, is an excellent Long course.)

(I have run in some terrain that allowed long legs with mega route choice but few or no trails. But that's a bit rare. Lacking that option, it's better on a Long to have route choice and ultra long legs despite some longer trail sections. For Middle, it's better to have no long trail sections, despite less route choice or shorter legs.)

[Gnitworp]

Ideally, but 3km long legs with route choice are hard to set without long trail sections.

Go for 1 1/2 or or 2 km legs then, with detailed navigation on the fastest route?

Also, is one possibly race-result-determining decision based on one critical, perhaps impossible to conclusively solve conundrum resulting in a test of track running speed over a substantial proportion of the course, desirable?

[graeme]

would you also like to know where the controls will be ?

When I'm controller, as in the FCC final, yes I do find it helpful to know where the controls are .

Maybe it doesn't matter: as long as every leg has some fair navigational challenge, top orienteers will cope with whatever comes up; but I do find it worrying when people supposedly controlling these races don't know what they're doing.

[awk]

Lacking that option, it's better on a Long to have route choice and ultra long legs despite some longer trail sections.

Hmmm. One of the first things I was taught when learning to plan (and has often been reiterated since) is that a leg that offers a route choice but then offers no further navigational challenge once the choice has been made, is very poor planning. I have seen nothing anywhere that has made me think anything different.

Of course, offering choices between technically easy and difficult routes, or routes that offer some track but also a technical challenge, is a different matter.

[JimB]

Go for 1 1/2 or or 2 km legs then, with detailed navigation on the fastest route?

Yes. (Though detailed navigation on multiple routes would be better.)

Also, is one possibly race-result-determining decision based on one critical, perhaps impossible to conclusively solve conundrum resulting in a test of track running speed over a substantial proportion of the course, desirable?

Route choice is a key element of Longs (and desirable to have in Middles too). There should be two very long legs in a Long, and lots of route choice throughout, not just one leg. (See the WOC Long Final courses, which look excellent to me, and were well received I think.) As to whether route choice can ever be fair, that's another topic...

[JimB]

One of the first things I was taught when learning to plan [...] is that a leg that offers a route choice but then offers no further navigational challenge once the choice has been made, is very poor planning.

Well, what do you think of the most recent WOC Long courses?

[Gnitworp]

If you're thinking specifically of the 3 km leg (15-16) on the Mens WOC 2006 Final in Denmark, it's certainly an interesting leg, and the widely diverging routes taken by the 3 medallists on it produced very similar splits (less than 30 sec separating the 3 in 15 min +)

I think this leg was somewhat a product of the high density of tracks and extensive areas of 'walk' forest or worse, based on the theory that it's better to set one long TD3-4 leg than a succession of shorter ones. However, there are intervening detailed contour areas that the leg seems to bypass. Personally, I think I would have tried to break the leg into 3 or 4 sections, taking competitors into these detailed areas, forcing them to interpret the contour detail more often. Nevertheless, I agree that overall it's definitely a good 'Long' course, where route choice possiblities are exploited to the full, given the high track density that prevents setting many decent TD5 legs. Although, I think any 3km leg on this area would inevitably introduce a great deal of route choice, and is such route choice, that becomes increasingly 'unassessable' with increasing leg length, fair, and anyway, do we want it to be fair? As you say, that's another topic.