Event structure review

[Gnitworp]

So the bulk of the competition is going to be at this level... ability based structure. However, competitors are going to want to compete in age classes as well. We must maintain a decent structure here. Having only six or so top quality events a year just isn't enough.

Yes, speaking only for M60's, there are a lot of us that want to compete against each other on the same course as often as possible (some of us, every time we turn out). Doesn't matter what you call it, provided we all enter it!

By the way, we quite like embarrassing M55's as well

[SeanC]

This is the crux of the problem. M40+ often like age class based events as there are sufficient competitors to make it a meaningful competition, but for most M35- and women, colour coded events provide a better competition.

We can have our cake and eat it by recommending which colour different ages should run, ie just like a compass sport cup event. Event software magic could then produce class based results as well as course based results. If any M60's wanted to run outside of their recommendation (either too long or too short) then thats fine, they wouldnt be non competitive but would just not appear on the age class results.

[SJC]

Lots of good ideas here, and it seems that the course titles need to reflect two things,the technical difficulty, and the length. Length is always a problem as it varies so much depending on the terrain, hence why time is generally a better indicator rather than length in km.

So, select five colours, which don't confuse those already in the sport, so I would go for White, Yellow, Orange, Green, Brown.
Then put the estimated winning time after it.

Given that White and Yellow need to be consistent from one event to another maybe they don't need a number.
ut, there could be an Orange 25 and an Orange 50 (equates to current Orange and Red).
Green 30 would be the same as Light Green.
Then on a technical area Brown 30, Brown 50, Brown 70, equating to the current Green, Blue and Brown courses.
On the non-technical areas (most of England) there wouldn't be any Brown courses, but there would be a Green 50 and Green 70.

[FatBoy]

One thing I should've added is that clubs should publish in advance which courses will be on offer. One can then choose to go to an event or not (or a different event) based on what's on offer. I would far rather see a club accept that a "Brown" course isn't possible without too much repetition, and only run the event up to "Blue" (Brown 50?).

[Rich R]

I like the sound of 'Super National Events/Regional championship' but I'm not so sure about the amalgamation of District and Regional Events. I understand the principal; all too often I've been to regionals that are very low key and smaller than many District Events I've been to. I do think though that a certain amount of Regionals should be kept. Maybe a strict criteria should be set by BOF and clubs have to display that they meet them (i.e. run in and assembly in the same place, good terrain, quality maps, traders, maybe even commentary and prizes - the things that define the better events), as I think this is where Regional events are failing.

[Mrs H]

SJC, Fatboy - I think you are getting close to a workable system there but a couple of things.
The number differentiation is fair enough but probably not best described as winning times because of the profile differences of the people on each course - will the brown 30 really be won in 30 minutes by one of the oldies running it - that means it may only be 2km long It'd better be descibed as some kind of ratio - a combination of height and climb - in relationship with the other courses of the same TD.

also - can we not call them brown - black is so much sexier (in any sport)

[Gnitworp]

I do think though that a certain amount of Regionals should be kept. Maybe a strict criteria should be set by BOF and clubs have to display that they meet them (i.e. run in and assembly in the same place, -------------

You don't always get 'quality' courses if you insist on this.

[Snail]

We are about to perform some serious surgery on our sport....

I not sure that we are. In essence all that is being suggested is that we change the names of the courses offered at (current) Level 3 and 4 events to introduce some consistency.

Under the proposals clubs can still, if they want to:
- get fixtures protection for (on average) one event per annum;
- offer / insist on pre-entry;
- for pre-entries say 'if you are in age-class x then, unless you request something different, by default we will put you on course y';
- show results with a age class ranking in addition to a course ranking;
- set a premium entry price relative to other 'standard' events, to cover things such as costs of a new map or provision of extra facilities.

If all clubs operate one event a year in this way (which seems quite likely, particularly for 'named' events) then the effect will be something very akin to the current system.

[EddieH]

Some other countries have colour coded courses (USA, Canada?) - but they usually mean something totally different to the UK system.

How about an IOF-agreed system covering both TD and length / winning time, so that when entering an overseas event you know what to expect!

We've managed to achieve it with maps and control descriptions - why not courses?

We're a long way off that Snail. In Finland this year I entered M55L only to find that L means short! (The website was otherwise in perfect English).

[Rich R]

I do think though that a certain amount of Regionals should be kept. Maybe a strict criteria should be set by BOF and clubs have to display that they meet them (i.e. run in and assembly in the same place, -------------

You don't always get 'quality' courses if you insist on this.

But it help to get a quality event and you need it for the big event feel. For the sake of one or two crap controls at the end of a course its worth it. Even the biggest of events occasionally have rubbish legs to get into an assembly area.

[SeanC]

I am with RichR on this one gnitworp. One of the problems with course guidelines and the controller model is that they put the course quality as the no 1 priority. But what would make most people get up early and travel 100 miles for an event? Yes the course quality is very important, but for many the atmosphere, meeting other competitors, socialising etc is more important. The latter aspect needs the most attention in orienteering and is holding back the sports development. For a new orienteer moving up from the local event standard why would they travel 100 miles to speak to no-one?

Personally I think the event guidelines should include a requirement for an assembly field for club tents. Then the potential for meaningful club competition around "standard" events is released. For example the south east league could be replaced with a league based on matches between two clubs. Clubs could pitch their tents next to their competing club, have their own prizegiving, competitors could meet and gossip, share sandwiches, maybe even a sausage roll... Am I dreaming? I dont see why it isnt possible.

[Mrs H]

That would fit in very nicely with the subject of my next CompassSport article

[Kitch]

I think sausage rolls is taking things a bit far !

[Gross]

Personally I think the event guidelines should include a requirement for an assembly field for club tents.

BOF has signed up for the Lebinitz Convention & it includes requirements (for major / meaningful events) that include the quality of arena etc etc.

[SeanC]

would there be any harm in reproducing this in the new guidelines with something specific and measureable?

How about

"A standard* event must have a suitable assembly field with sufficient space for 15 club tents. It must be within 200 metres of the finish or the car park"

If the event cant meet the requirement then it doesnt reach standard status.

* hoping a better name will appear.