Event structure review

[Mrs H]

RJ you are sounding a teensy weensy bit "let them eat cake"-ish Obviously if the present system doesn't work well in your area - with abundant great terrain and close to several significant conurbations of people willing to travel that little bit then it should have been scrapped years ago.

The truth of the matter is that the new system will be virtually identical to the old for you. You will still have your well attended local events, your popular colour-coded (smaller standard) events and your hotly contested badge (larger standard events) - you can even display your copious results in age classes and as you are already keen to promelgate EOD where will the difference lie - lets face it people will still be prepared to pay what they are already paying for events of the quality you are offering.

What's in a name?

But for the rest of us this could provide a way for us to marshall our existing resources in a way we can retain our existing members (particularly the youngsters as they move into adulthood) and encourage new people to the sport that it is both inclusive and as competative - or not - as they want it to be. Arn't you always telling us it's aboput getting more people into the sport (well actually it's about more than that - it's about getting them up through the sport too!)

Jab, I see no reason why all those things you mentioned - gold time, split starts, pre-entries should not be on offer - particulrly at the bigger events (and perhaps having them on offer will help to make events bigger anyway)

[graeme]

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... leave alone!!!!

I can't believe how complacent you are!

None of the CumbriaGaloppen brown courses this year were won by M21s
The leader is M45, the most likely winner is another M45 ... and so it goes on.
That's the outcome after 10 years of what you call a working system
If we're going to have a sport at all in 20 years time, we have to do better.

Unfortunately, the people for whom the system works well often don't care about 20 years time.

[Angry Haggis]

None of the CumbriaGaloppen brown courses this year were won by M21s
The leader is M45, the most likely winner is another M45 ... and so it goes on.

If you are looking for a race format which is popular with the M21s, have a look at the results list from the SLOW Trail Challenge Half-Marathon.

[Gross]

If you are looking for a race format which is popular with the M21s, have a look at the results list from the SLOW Trail Challenge Half-Marathon.

that's not orienteering though:)

[Angry Haggis]

If you are looking for a race format which is popular with the M21s, have a look at the results list from the SLOW Trail Challenge Half-Marathon.

that's not orienteering though:)

Well, it is... just with a mass start, TD3, and good marketing in non-orienteering circles!

The course (actually the 10km one, the HM had a map-change so isn't on RouteGadget.)

But seriously, I would argue that the trail challenge format is just a valid format for orienteering as our "classic" race format, with the advantage that it's unusually popular with the M/W21s. Sure, it's "easy" but it's still navigation, decision making on-the-run, running with an O-map. Same too for the Warwick City Race tomorrow. The City Race and Trail Challenge formats are two orienteering formats which I think it is fair to say have seen real growth in the last couple of years, and I think they have definite potential for further promoting the sport.

I'm of the opinion that promoting and expanding these formats nationwide will do the sport much more good than tinkering with the classic format. Sure it might in the eyes of some dilute what "proper", "traditional" orienteering is - but perhaps that's what progress and development is in the eyes of those that are in their comfort zone already?

[NeilC]

I'm of the opinion that promoting and expanding these formats nationwide will do the sport much more good than tinkering with the classic format. Sure it might in the eyes of some dilute what "proper", "traditional" orienteering is - but perhaps that's what progress and development is in the eyes of those that are in their comfort zone already?

And doing both might do the sport even more good.

[RJ]

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... leave alone!!!!

I can't believe how complacent you are!

Steadyon... no need to be rude. We recognised there was a problem ages ago, and have been working to do something about it. In fact probably long before you got involved with this problem and probably before Mrs H got involved in O. It has been a long process, but the clubs in Cumbria have expanding membership, are very active, and have very strong junior participation.

None of the CumbriaGaloppen brown courses this year were won by M21s
The leader is M45, the most likely winner is another M45 ... and so it goes on.
That's the outcome after 10 years of what you call a working system
If we're going to have a sport at all in 20 years time, we have to do better.

Yes, you're right. But then the M18s can make a mess of many of the M45's chances. The Green and Blue have many M/W14-18 competitors very much in contention. It is fair to say that over the years we have exported a couple of hundred M/W18s, who have gone on to Uni.... and I suppose, on to careers, families, travel and other things that have held their attention. Before we go changing the structure perhaps we should ask those 21s why they don't continue to orienteer. Perhaps they don't care for the aged, bearded, over bearing, lycra wearing majority in the sport..... maybe not..... perhaps they are too busy making a career. Anyway, it would help if a few of them could manage to post on here. After all, they were all very competent orienteers, so why don't they continue. It is still the same sport!

Unfortunately, the people for whom the system works well often don't care about 20 years time.

I do hope that isn't a personal dig, because I object very strongly if it is. I would say..... The people who care make the system work well, making sure there is a future.

Our recent mini series of evening events has had eighty odd participants at them. Surprise, surprise, over half of those taking part were juniors. Oh yes, we do have an answer for the long term. Very much so.... we are looking after our current membership.... and.... trying to introduce those newcomers into the sport. Many clubs are doing exactly the same. Just be clear graeme that you have a cast iron case for change, and not just a gut feeling that a few fancy new colours will bring the M/W21s flooding in.

[awk]

The thing is RJ, that this event restructuring is not aimed at bringing M21s flooding in. As you and I know, no amount of event restructuring would do that without a lot of other work. What the aim is (or at least one of them) is to provide a simpler, more flexible structure than we currently have, so that clubs can then better individually tailor programmes in their own areas, and then perhaps get the M21s flooding in, if that is their target group.

As has already been pointed out, none of what we propose will prevent you continuing your development programme pretty much in the way you have done previously, if that is the way you see forward, but it will also better enable others to go down the routes that they perceive work as well. The only real stricture you would have is that you would be required to enable anybody on a course to be competitive, rather than just limiting it to particular classes.

In the meantime, as you yourself touch on, it doesn't matter how many M/W18s we produce if the drop out carries on the way it does. I don't think these proposals will solve that by any means, but they are a tool to help.

[RJ]

What the aim is (or at least one of them) is to provide a simpler, more flexible structure than we currently have, so that clubs can then better individually tailor programmes in their own areas......

That sounds OK. Clubs are the starting point for everything.... it is clubs that put the events on.... and provide the competition. Now, I would suggest that the event structure for the clubs is the C5, the local informal event. That is the vehicle that can be used to get to the target, local audience. The District and the 'badge' event are very much the next layer of approach and not for the newcomer.

The informal events can have any format, any competitive structure..... just be completely flexible. They can be park races, sprints, middle distance events.... anything at all. Just so long as new people come along and try what is on offer. Take the orienteering to the population centres, get them taking part, and introduce them to the standard form in due course.

How about insisting that a club that wishes to hold a 'badge' event must have an informal event structure running of at least ten events (which will, currently, be a large number of clubs anyway). In a couple of years time, however, you are still going to have the same old areas being used.... the same potential for disappointment when the orienteering fails to live up to expectations. I have always said that as a sport we simply don't put on enough events. Clubs should have a comprehensive set of local informal events giving the opportunity for existing members to meet, socialise and for newcomers to join in. Many clubs do, just not enough of them. Just as you can go down the park to kick a football around anytime you want, so orienteering should be available far more readily.... small, local areas providing simple, easy to stage events. Keep it all simple and easy to manage.

[Ed]

None of the CumbriaGaloppen brown courses this year were won by M21s
The leader is M45, the most likely winner is another M45 ... and so it goes on.

Maybe that reflects the fact that any Cumbrian wishing to go to university, or even start a career in the majority of branches, is pretty much forced to leave the area, and that most of them don't go back very quickly due to the high cost / low wage structures and restricted job opportunities. I don't have any stats to hand, but it wouldn't surprise me if the age structures of Cumbrian orienteering weren't simply to some extent reflecting the age structures of Cumbria.

Which isn't to say that the Cumbrian clubs don't need to look to see if they have a problem!

Ed (Cumbrian M21 in exile)

[AndyO]

Like most posters here, I support the generality of the proposals. I do agree with a point made earlier that the 11 month embargo on using an area for a Standard event or above might be hard in some areas, but I do not agree with embargos for longer than a month anyway, particularly given some of the environmental restrictions we face in the North of Scotland.

I would like to see a simpler course choice structure, using TD levels (I don't care what we call them as long as we can understand them and explain the grading to newcomers). TD1 and 2 need one course each; TD3 a short and a long; TD4 and 5 a short, medium and long. Short courses would aim for a winning time around 30 mins, medium around 40 mins, and long 50 mins. Where the event requires, and terrain permits, an extra-long or ultra course at TD5 should be offered with a winning time of 60+mins. 11 courses max which would allow good choice for all ages and abilities.

I do like the idea of a star rating for events according to facilities available as Mrs H describes, as that would let runners see what they are getting for their money - on top of the courses available that is...

[awk]

I can only agree RJ - lots of local and highly varied styles of events are definitely the key. One of the reasons why we only wanted three levels, was to put more emphasis on the local level. But I also think that the routes up from there have to be open and accessible. Even the current S classes at regional events can be a pretty daunting prospect to somebody moving up from the C4/C5 structure, especially when there are only half a dozen in your class and you are likely to be last. Which is part of the thinking behind the proposals (the other is to help encourage more variety).

I have to say, even from an experienced orienteer's perspective, the advent of so many interesting non-standard events has been one of the prime reasons for my recovering enjoyment and interest in the sport. Not only have we attended some superb examples of these events in the past year or so (e.g. Lincolnshire Bomber, Oxford, York, Scarborough, Aire Long-O, Planet Fear Ultrasprint, Aire sprint race series etc.) but they've made the other races even more enjoyable by leavening what would otherwise have been sometimes fairly mundane fare.

I think it was Swat that noticed Aire had as many 21s to the Long-O (total entry just over 100) he planned as the Northern Champs (total entry c.850). Tomorrow's Warwick race has attracted twice as many M/W21s as Attermire with an entry only just over a quarter the size (21s are almost 20% of the entry). I'm sure that one way to help get those 21s back in (or at least retain a higher proportion) is this greater variety and, as you say, taking the races closer to centres of population.

[adaml]

Strictly speaking junior competition was outside our remit,

[/quote]
I find the debate very interesting, but I am absolutely stunned that such an important change has been done without full consideration of junior competition. I can see two main needs for juniors: the need to encourage juniors to try the sport, not be put off, and achieve relative success while developing skills; the need to allow talented juniors to develop to their full potential and continue in the sport to become the future champions.

As jab states the badge scheme is a huge motivator for juniors - and some adults . For a junior the beauty of it is: you are competing against other juniors of the same gender; you can see your improvement as you progress from bronze to silver to gold; your badge level is not impacted by the performance of veterans running the same course.

The downside of the proposed National Standard Award is, as with the current regional colour-coded badge schemes, the standard is low, inconsistent and meaningless. For example it will be heavily impacted by things like: a bus load of school children running Orange in pairs; the local cross-country club turning out; or the variety of courses offered (i.e. if there is no green offered, and half of those who normally run green opt for blue, the other half for red, the blue standard would be unusually low, and the red standard unusually high.) I would suggest that (a) the Standards are separate for Juniors and Seniors (with potentially a Veterans' awards separate again), and (b) for Juniors especially there is a 2 tier standard (e.g. standard award and star award)) where the top tier is calculated based on winners times alone (e.g. 25% of winner as per the gold badge). The star award would also be used for YBT course eligibility.

The introduction of JM/W classes at most regional events has been very positive, allowing juniors to progress as their technical ability has developed. Indeed, at National events / BOC / JK our best juniors at M/W14 or below are generally running easier TD courses than they would do at a district or regional event - and this is not addressed in the new structure. I would love to see Junior 'elite' classes, where a M12 would be allowed to run a TD4 National event course (M12E, probably the same course as M14A). To make this even more motivating, the entry to the E class would be restricted to athletes with 3 'star' award times at the appropriate TD colour level, so our M12 would need to have reached the 'star' standard at light red / green to be able to enter M12E.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is very little said about local events. If the intention is that many of the lower quality C4s would become Local, that is probably good - but will local events use the new colour system? Will local events be part of the National Standard Award or will the regional schemes now just operate for Local events? We need to make sure that local events are a satisfactory introduction to running a Standard event the next month. This means that the colours must mean the same at both levels in terms of actual TD and length, and that Standard events are as junior-friendly as local events.

Overall, I would like to see some firmer proposals that specifically address junior competition before anything is adopted and implemented. If the proposals are initial ideas, then I think they are great (and it's brilliant the amount of discussion already being generated!). They need a significant amount of work before they become implementable.

[awk]

Hi adaml
Just as senior age classes can be attached to a particular courses, so can the JM/JW classes. Indeed these would be easier, as that is effectively what already happens (JM/W1 attached to White, JM/W2 to Yellow and so on). Equally, there would be absolutely no problem running badge standards alongside. What I was trying to emphasise though, is that this would be up to Junior Competitions Group. We have simply tried to produce a structure on which competition can be built.

I agree about the National Standard award being too low to act as an incentive for many people. It is simply a translation of the old colour standard. My own long held belief is that the whole incentive scheme structure needs a fairly major overhaul, but that was not part of our remit, and to my mind is a separate issue: first of all get the structure right, and then build your incentive scheme on the structure.

FWIW, I think the senior incentive scheme will probably need building on ranking points, whilst I suspect the juniors could retain a variant on the current metal badge scheme on TD1-4 courses, with perhaps a rankings points basis for those on TD5 courses (I've now come around to the opinion that once a youngster is competing at TD5, then they should be involved in rankings). But that is purely a personal view, and let's also be honest and recognise that the metal badge scheme is pretty inconsistent too.

[graeme]

The downside of the proposed National Standard Award is, as with the current regional colour-coded badge schemes, the standard is low, inconsistent and meaningless.

The National Standard Award isn't new - its just something already in the guidelines which nobody wanted to take out.
We thought its main attraction was for juniors, and therefore we should leave it alone (see below). Your suggestion looks like a big improvement.

One problem we've had, as a group looking at "senior" events, is deciding where our remit ends. "The elites won't like it" has been a constant refrain. "You aren't representative of juniors" another. Both criticisms are understandable, and it was very clear from the outset that we wouldn't be able to make any changes to elite or junior events.