Middle Distance Races

[graeme]

Long, boring track runs are bad in any orienteering race, and don't provide a sustained test of orienteering skills.

It aint necessarily so..

At the BEOC middle on Loch Vaa we had a long track/field run (this was forced by the nature of the area, and mitigated by a spectator control). At the end of which competitors were piled into very fast but complex contour detail. This "boring track run" proved the crucial leg, with several top competitors (including the leader) blowing out through being unable to control speed. Others ran slower and spent time looking ahead.

I think it was Oyvin Thon who said "there's no such thing as a difficult control, only inappropriate speed". Whoever, its a great observation.

Graeme

[Patrick]

At the BEOC middle on Loch Vaa...

Best. Course. Ever.

Sorry, just thought it needed saying...

Patrick

[Gnitworp]

Yes, the famous maxim that every control should be at the start or finish of a good leg can be applied. The control at the end of this unavoidable leg was clearly at the start of a good leg.

So I agree, 'it ain't necessarily so', and I retract my sweeping statement, but contend, that as a matter of general principle, planners should seek to avoid setting 'long, boring track runs'.

(This is in response to Graeme's post. Patrick intervened while I was typing it)

[EddieH]

As controller of Graeme's Loch Vaa BEOC I can simply say that I needed NO input to the quality of is course whatsoever. I also thought that the WOC long last year looked awesome and made fantastic use of the area. Variety is the spice of O - particularly on a long course. (and I personally dislike running on tracks)

[awk]

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

See my other comments in the same post: on a quick look I don't see any leg where the route choice is the only element. On the long legs especially, there is also plenty of other elements, not least the micro-route choice along the way. Personally, I don't get much of a kick out of orienteering like that, but can see it as a good test of a certain style.

[JimB]

the 3 km leg (15-16) on the Mens WOC 2006 Final in Denmark [...]

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.

Based on the course setter's comments in OT, they were trying very determinedly and pointedly to set a (good) 3km leg, and find the best place to do that. (And the IOF format guidelines call for 2 or more long legs in a Long.)

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.

I'm sure that they selected this terrain for its route choice possibilities, over its technical detail (though I do thinks that it's challenging terrain). Compare with the Middle terrain, which has more detail. It's a WOC; they weren't compromising on terrain; the characteristics of the area are deliberate.

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.

For a Middle, sure. For a Long I disagree very strongly. This is exactly the distinction between Middle and Long, and losing the long legs loses the character, and a key element.

(This tendency is also the cause, I find, of a great sameness of courses...the classic local event Classic, with a great circle route of similar legs done at similar speed, inoffensive but little variety of challenge or pace. Cheez, not Roquefort or Brie. Thankfully JK was different, with wonderful route choice and change of pace. Coping with change and the unknown is a key joy of orienteering. Please, no more courses cut up neatly into bland digestible pieces! (Sorry if this got too opinionated.))[/img]