Event structure review

[Oldman]

I am still frustrated by the concentration of the discussion on what I see as a minor aspect of the review: what colours to use and courses to offer.

The recommendations are much wider, and as I've said before, all these discussions would be more meaningful if we considered the purpose of our event structure. It's not just about satisfying a few dyed-in-the-wool fanatics but opening our sport to newcomers, the media and sponsors.

Think external not internal!

[Gnitworp]

NB This refers to Sean C's latest post

I wasn't suggesting all this wasn't desirable (probably essential for JK and British Champs), just that I wouldn't like to see a quality area excluded because of this requirement, e.g Angle Pike Tarns (Lakes 5 Day) and the 'remote finish' for some courses (inspired planning) at this year's Scottish 6 Days at Anagach

[awk]

all these discussions would be more meaningful if we considered the purpose of our event structure.

Fair point Oldman. Actually, this was pretty much the first thing we discussed: we felt that whilst the sport had been reasonably good at retaining older experienced people, we needed to try to make the structure more attractive to a broader spectrum, along the lines of the Federations stated objectives. We also felt that the structure needed to be sufficiently flexible to be adapted to specific needs, be it events aimed at a particular group, or a particular type of orienteering. Thus we tried to come up with a framework on which we felt retention and development could be grown.

On a different point, I have to say that I think SeanC, RichR and others are being somewhat unrealistic in insisting that events have to have assembly field finishes etc. for an event to be at standard (or even national) level. It might be fine for some of the longer courses to have a 'couple of crap controls' at the end, but for some of the shorter TD5 courses, that can be a significant proportion of the distance. I would certainly prefer an assembly field if at all possible, but as one of the planners of the Northern Champs on Attermire, we took a deliberate decision to have a remote finish so that we could maximise the quality of the experience and get as many people into the best terrain as possible: the feedback almost unanimously indicated that we made the right decision. The alternative would have been 800m or so of vicious and boring tussocks, representing 15-20% of some courses. And, as Gnitworp highlighted, the superb planning (and thus experience) at Anagach would have been ruined for many by insisting on an assembly field finish.

Of course, you may argue that neither area should have been used. However, it's not as if we're overladen with terrain in this country as it is, and both areas appeared to have provided much enjoyment for a lot of people.

[SeanC]

Its a nice debate because it illustrates a fundamental problem with the sport at the regional level. Out in the forest we want the best possible course, but back in the car park (or assembly field) we would like some other human beings to talk to. Although many of the current membership might be happy with this status quo, how many more orienteers would there be now if regional events had the buzz of the jk, or the friendliness of a local event?

Currently the sport has an excellent structure for ensuring course quality. The event structure review has the opportunity to extend this by introducing rules/guidance such as provision for club tents. I dont see why this cant be the norm for standard* events though I agree not necessarily next to the finish. In a situation where there is a conflict between assembly field location and planning for short TD5 courses, the controller could organise a good compromise.

*still finding it difficult not to type regional

[PKJ]

Hmm.. looking at the proposals, and the 6 pages of this thread, I find this a bit disappointing. Both the proposals and some of the comments on here seem to suffer from over-complexity, and of going into the details without the fact-based reasoning to establish the principles.

In my view, looking at AIRE C3+ Events this year, was there much added value in having age-classes at -
- the Baildon Moor Regional Event? (I'd say no)
- the Dales Weekend? (I'd say yes)
There would be others in the Baildon Moor category, but also a significant number (mainly 'appointment events' like SINS, White Rose..) in the Dales Weekend category, many more than we'd have under the proposals.

2 more comments -
Why will I, and many others from all round the country, soon be going to an appointment event at Blidworth Woods?
(50-point penalty to anyone answering 'quality of terrain'.)
Most of the comments here are from Nopesport regulars - any views from those who read but don't usually post?

[Vidalos]

Orienteering events always seem torn between the "experience" and the "competition". Some people go to be challenged by the course/terrain (as an individual) others go to compete against other people over a course (it doesnt matter what course) Some want to compete against people who are similar to them others to compete against the best.

Personally I feel that if Orienteering is a sport and not a just pastime/leisure activity then its the provision of competition that should be focussed on with this review. People who just want the experience can just choose whatever course they as an individual want to do 9so long as they get a pretty good idea of what they are going to get from the description.

So I'm not sure whether the proposals are more aimed at ensuring the person gets the expected experience or the expected competition, does that make sense?

[awk]

In my view, looking at AIRE C3+ Events this year, was there much added value in having age-classes at -
- the Baildon Moor Regional Event? (I'd say no)
- the Dales Weekend? (I'd say yes)

For Baildon I'd agree, for Dales Weekend only partially. Firstly one has to remember that Day 1 was the Northern Champs, so it would have age classes anyway. As for Day 2 and the overall weekend - some age classes generated some good competition, some pretty much none at all. You were lucky being in one of the most populated classes.

But even then, the quality of competition was even better if you looked at the course, not at the age classes (after all, the top M50 should have also been 2nd on M45). However, if you are still stuck on age class competition even after looking at that, then the proposed system allows for age classes to be allocated to courses, so that if one wants to award (for instance) a Dales Trophy to age class categories, one can do so. However, they are simply sub-classes WITHIN the bigger category, namely the colour course (just as you will find in most other types of races), and anyone can run and be competitive on the course.

So I'm not sure whether the proposals are more aimed at ensuring the person gets the expected experience or the expected competition, does that make sense?

Yes it does. The answer is that both are important aims, but given that the current guidelines are pretty good at defining the experience now, the more important one was to improve competition (without compromising experience). Personally, I think the experience is improved by improving competition anyway.

[SJC]

the quality of competition was even better if you looked at the course, not at the age classes

So does this mean that we could achieve the same objective by simply publishing Regional Event results by course rather than by class. Much easier than trying to merge two fundamentally different types of event (ability based vs age based).

[jab]

Most of the comments here are from Nopesport regulars - any views from those who read but don't usually post?

Reader, not a frequent poster that's me. So here goes:

I am disappointed by the loss of the junior badge system. A single colour standard that you either achieve or don't seems a bit crude compared to bronze, silver and gold badges. Achieving these standards has been a big motivating factor for my children. (Note, this has nothing to do with physically claiming the badges, which we actually do very rarely, but moving from silver to gold was seen as a major achievement in the children's eyes). I suspect that the colour coded standards will be too easily achieved by some and too hard for others.

It seems likely that juniors and seniors will more frequently compete on the same courses under the new scheme. (In fact the only time that my son will compete against his peers is if we consume a lot of diesel and drive him to other regional championships). But only over 18s will be ranked - what happens if a course is won by someone who is not eligible for ranking points themselves?

It's great that entry on the day should be at every standard event (no, I really don't like that name but surely that can be tweaked as can the names of the courses). But here's a plea for pre-entry to still be readily available too. I really like to be able to pre-enter events, know my start time, work out how much time I need to get to the start and plan my Sunday accordingly. I like the fact that some regional events now allow us to pre-enter colour coded classes if we want to. I am less keen on turning up to events where I spend a lot of time queuing at registration or at the start. I also like to be able to ask for a late start in advance if I need it and know that the start times won't be full or ask for an early start without having to make sure I'm first in the queue at registration.
If we are trying to fit orienteering in with other time-critical activities, we find that pre-entry makes it easier. (No, I'm not anti-social. I do enjoy the fact that at holiday events we have plenty of time to chat and linger. But certainly during term-time we need to fit orienteering in round other interests as well.) And yes, I do realise that the opportunity to choose a start time and the very existence of split starts, which I so greatly appreciate, are anathema to other people. That's why I usually lurk not post.

[graeme]

the quality of competition was even better if you looked at the course, not at the age classes

So does this mean that we could achieve the same objective by simply publishing Regional Event results by course rather than by class.

No, because you'd still be in the situation where an M21 beginner would be labelled non-competitive unless they were willing to run the course intended for the likes of Jon Musgrave . Which means at the moment the high-profile events where we could best showcase the sport as an exciting competitive pastime are deeply adult-novice-unfriendly. I'd like to back this opinion up with evidence from M/W21 novices, but open clubs don't seem to have any of them, except peoples boy/girlfriends.

[drobin]

9 courses: Long, Medium and Short. Hard, Medium and Easy. KISS. Oh, and bring back Regional Champiohships.

[PKJ]

On re-reading, my previous post is more negative than I'd really intended. There's a lot of good stuff in the proposals - my disappointment is about how far and how fast, not about the direction of travel. If the proposed changes are too great, are they likely to be adopted?

I'm certainly not 'stuck on age-class competition', though you can have this without having all of the current 57* classes (* may have lost count). But, should the average grumpy-old-or-oldish-person-in-the-car-park be weaned-off more gradually?

[awk]

I am disappointed by the loss of the junior badge system. A single colour standard that you either achieve or don't seems a bit crude compared to bronze, silver and gold badges.

Jab, you raise some important points. Just because we propose a colour based scheme, doesn't mean that the colour standard need be continued, nor that a junior badge scheme can't be developed to run under the scheme in a similar way to the way the current JM/JW badge scheme runs. Strictly speaking junior competition was outside our remit, although of course our proposals will ultimately have a significant impact. None of those in the review group would want to see junior competition negatively impacted. My own belief is that this scheme shouldn't, but does need Junior Competitions (presumably) to review how things fit in.

It seems likely that juniors and seniors will more frequently compete on the same courses under the new scheme. (In fact the only time that my son will compete against his peers is if we consume a lot of diesel and drive him to other regional championships).

I don't think juniors/seniors will compete on the same courses significantly more often than currently. JM/JW5 juniors already compete on the same courses as senior L/S age classes. Lower TD juniors are already competing on the same courses as the LG/O/Y/W colour courses and W21N. If by peers, you are referring to age-peers, then your son is already strictly speaking not competing against them at regional events: the JM/JW system is ability based. However, in practice, there is plenty of competition between age-peers, something that, as a parent myself, I'm fully aware of!

But only over 18s will be ranked - what happens if a course is won by someone who is not eligible for ranking points themselves?

Then, I suspect, they won't be included. However, I hope that the ranking scheme for under-18s will be reconsidered: my M16 son would love to be included! That again will presumably be up to Junior Competitions.

On pre-entries, I'm sure that they will still have a prominent role. After all, they aren't compulsory now; they are there because clubs want them there.

[RJ]

After several days of reading the various postings I am beginning to question more closely what it is all about....

In Cumbria we have a brilliant colour coded event structure with very good attendances. We stage several quality 'badge' events and get good attendances. Most of the competitors are 'local' with a percentage travelling into the LD for the quality terrain. We have increasing membership within the Cumbrian clubs, with strong active clubs, and have a new club recently formed. We have strong school links/development, and a very 'healthy' number of juniors. All of this is very much a 'regional' thing.... and I am sure there are other regions that have similar positive situations.

So why do we need to go for change. We have a perfectly adequate structure now. What incentive is there to 'maul' something that is working. Yes, provide S/M/L Orange and Green courses as an enhancement.... I feel this is definite shortcoming in the present setup. Otherwise.... leave alone!!!!

[DM]

I also think the proposed new colour scheme is too complex (personally I'm happy with the current scheme, perhaps add black at the top end and be clearer on the definition (technical level) of the colours in the middle), but like the idea of a single ranking list for ALL competitors, including juniors. I appreciate junior ranking were removed a few years ago as it was not thought "appropriate".

Jab commented on the badge scheme and the motivational effect, we have children who are keen to know if they got gold time and as with Jab don't always get the badge, it's getting the gold times that count. Including juniors in the single rankings list will show just where they stand against everyone else and importantly, motivate them. Forget this rubbish about not pushing them too hard, they push themselves!

RJ, coming from MDOC we are in the same region as you (1h 45m away, about the same as crossing the Lakes East to West) and try to get to as many Gallopen events as we can. 2 reasons, the quality of the areas and the number of people per course. I think you are unique in England having such a range and number of areas that can be used.