Event structure review

[Mrs H]

Just to make the point that there were 6 courses at the Warwick race yesterday with recommendations as to which age groups should run which course. For those who ran the recommended class (and many chose not to) there was age class results. There were also course results. I would imagine that is exactly how age class results would be produced in the new standard events.

[SJC]

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.

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.

From the above comments it would seem that the Event Structure review has only concerned itself with one section of the sport's participants, and also hasn't looked at 'competive' issues such as the incentive schemes. This doesn't seem a great piece of joined up thinking. Who is going to bring together the various requirements to provide a full review of the current Event Structure with recommendations on going forward that will meet the needs of Juniors, Seniors and Elite ?

[EddieH]

AndyO, you worry me.
Long - 50min minute winning time. ery Long 60!!!!

Fortunately I am older and have slowed down enough to be satisfied by a course that takes the elite 50 minutes, but when I was M21 - where does one get the chance to race anywhere near the distance required in International long races?

If we really accept that the longest courses at virtually all our current C3s and C4s is 50 minutes it seems you can waive goodbye to attracting national competition for British teams in other than middle and sprint. Is that what we want for Elite orienteering? Also, maybe I was not as that age group is today - but I wanted a physical and mental challenge and remember being very unhappy when the M21L 81 minute winning time (for badge events) was slashed.

It seems to me that we need quite a number of "major" races, ideally with weekends including at least 2 distances. If all events are just "standard" I don't see that appealing over time to the M21 age group (although I cannot profess to know how they think nowadays - highly towards their careers I suspect).

[awk]

I would imagine that is exactly how age class results would be produced in the new standard events.

Certainly, Warwick was a good example of how the system could be worked attaching voluntary age classes on to courses. However, I would much rather have seen results produced for each course, with either the age class we were competing alongside, or seperate lists. I wasn't running an M45+ race, I was in the Open class and finished 42nd - much more interesting (and Roger T was 3rd in the open, not Petr Basus). At least 2 over-45s beat all the M40s, but you wouldn't appreciate that from the conventional orienteering style.

This doesn't seem a great piece of joined up thinking.

Maybe not in the global sense, but whilst elite and junior competition were not our remit, we did develop the proposals with elites and juniors in mind, so they are I believe totally valid. Unlike you, I don't regard incentive schemes as an integral part of that. This may sound odd, but from long, bitter experience, I know that the more you include in a set of proposals for change, the more likely it is to get talked down. There is nothing in the proposals that prevent the junior/elite systems joining on as they do now, or changing if the relevant groups want them to (especially given that junior competition has already led the way in this area with ability based competition below national level, and age classes above).

[jab]

It's possible I'm slightly more confused now than I was before. At the moment Regional Events for juniors mean ageless badge classes where the course may be shared with colour coded or adult classes but the results are presented as juniors only. And I guess that most juniors in those age classes identify that system with regional events. The distinction that this is an incentive scheme that is bolted on to a regional event is perhaps too subtle to be easily grasped. If the ageless badge system is to be integrated into the proposed Standard Event system, it would be helpful to have had some indication now as to how that is to work - otherwise we're being asked to comment on something that isn't yet fully defined.

I would imagine that is exactly how age class results would be produced in the new standard events.

Certainly, Warwick was a good example of how the system could be worked attaching voluntary age classes on to courses. However, I would much rather have seen results produced for each course, with either the age class we were competing alongside, or seperate lists. I wasn't running an M45+ race, I was in the Open class and finished 42nd - much more interesting (and Roger T was 3rd in the open, not Petr Basus). At least 2 over-45s beat all the M40s, but you wouldn't appreciate that from the conventional orienteering style.

Yes it would have been good to see one set of results for the open rather than just two sets of splits for the two gaffles. My son is probably more chuffed at being 41st on the open than 10th in M18.

What I thought I understood about the new system was that nobody would be non-competitive on any course by reason of age so it would always be necessary for a course result to be published. I guess I had assumed that for most standard events that would be the norm (as most don't have age-class competitions attached then the results would look like results for a colour coded). And in that case I think the ranking list does have to include anyone on a TD4/5 class irrespective of age - looking at the results of a Green course from 2006 (I would guess that this would be a fairly standard event under the new system) only 4 of the top 10 people were M/W18+, 4 of the top 10 were only M/W12. If you have only one ranking list for men and one for women then they will be meaningless if they don't include all those regularly running the relevant classes. Given that the group produced a draft new guideline for the Ranking list -which was to include all TD4 and 5 courses, was it a considered decision not to recommend that all runners on those courses should be ranked, or was that particular tweak outside their remit?

.

[AndyO]

Eddie, I don't know why my winning times suggestions should worry you, as they are certainly in line with those proposed in Guideline A:

Colour TD Age Awards Elite winning time Length Ratio
White 1
Yellow 2
Orange 3
Light Red 4 20 Minutes 0.3
- 4 -
Short Red 5
Long Red 5 M70+, W55+ 25 Minutes 0.33
Light Green 4 30 Minutes 0.45
Short Green 5 M60-65, W45-50 30 Minutes 0.45
Long Green 5 M55-60, W20, 35-40 35 Minutes 0.54
Light Blue 4 44 Minutes 0.65
Blue 5 M45-50, W21 44 Minutes 0.65
Brown 5 M20,M35-40 55 Minutes 0.82
Black 5 M21 67 Minutes 1.0

....and my "Ultra long" TD5 was proposed at 60 plus minutes, if the competition warranted it and the terrain could stand it. I just think it gives a good choice for all ages and abilities, and having a set of "standard" target winning times for short, medium and long for each tech standard may aid choice for runners. The elite end can be whatever the terrain can take - fill yer boots - but the elite is not the majority at events, and with leading times of 50 minutes on courses, some will be out for considerably longer than that. At the 6 Days, max ELTs are no more that 55 mins except for elite courses, and that seems fair enough for "standard" (someone think of a better adjective) events.

[awk]

jab, I agree with all of your last paragraph.

I think the simplest answer to your questions is that we have put forward a set of proposals which, whilst aimed at seniors, will impact on junior and elite competitions. We attempted to keep everything as simple as possible (except maybe the colour names ). What these proposals will inevitably do is therefore raise questions such as those you have asked. You have also given an indication as to what you would like the answers to be. That feedback now needs to be taken on board, and looked at in the review that will inevitably be needed in the light of feedback: that is what proposals and consultation is about after all! I would also hope and expect that Junior, and possibly Elite, Competitions groups will want to say what they want in the light of these proposals.

I can certainly see ways of incorporating what you suggest very easily, as I outlined earlier. I also agree with all your comments in your final paragraph - as I said in my previous post, I now believe that if a junior is racing at TD5, then they should be incorporated in the ranking scheme along with everybody else. To that extent, I prefer to read the proposals as not excluding anybody from the rankings, and if they are to be then the proposals need to be altered, but I may be mistaken.

[EddieH]

My concerns about the definion of "long" are not exclusively for the elite, but for all young fit men that wish to compete fairly regularly over longer courses. If there are only to be the British, JK (2 days hnce shortened), and regionals other than "standard" events where are these people going to get the opportunity?

I am personally now disinterested (not uninterested) in this, because I have slowed enough so that by running the longest course when offerered I can get a distance challenge. This applies to the majority of orienteers. However when I was younger this was very much an issue (I was far from alone), and that was when badge events theoretically had an 81 minute winning time for M21A. Is it possible that people have changed so much that there are non longer young adults that want the distance on a reasonably regular basis? Maybe it is because orienteering is under an hour as standard for this goup that it doesn't hold or attract them.

[SeanC]

Eddie has a point, there are groups that could be considered more important than their numbers because of the benefit to the sport in the future: juniors, young adults, beginners.

I think the review would benefit from a summary paragraph explaining to the time challenged what is proposed. I've probably got this completely wrong, but something like

"The new standard event is basically a colour coded event with more courses than normal. Competitors are given a recommended course for their age class, which means that results can be displayed by colour and age class. The standard event replaces events at the C3 and C4 level. Clubs wishing to hold traditional colour coded events can still do so but they will be classified as local events.

This review defines the minimum standard that a "standard" event must reach. The review does not describe the details of any regional competition - gallopens, leagues etc. Regions are responsible for organising such competitions."

[jab]

I can certainly see ways of incorporating what you suggest very easily, as I outlined earlier. I also agree with all your comments in your final paragraph - as I said in my previous post, I now believe that if a junior is racing at TD5, then they should be incorporated in the ranking scheme along with everybody else. To that extent, I prefer to read the proposals as not excluding anybody from the rankings, and if they are to be then the proposals need to be altered, but I may be mistaken.

Then I guess the part that's causing all the confusion is Appendix K where it states;

1.3.1. All British Orienteering members (M/W18+) who gain points at ranked events will
have their points stored in one overarching database.
1.3.2. This database could be displayed on the British Orienteering website in two
sections, one for men and one for women. Each section includes all age groups
(e.g. the men’s section has all runners from M18 to M80 in one list), and individual
age class lists can also be selected by clicking the relevant link on the website.

Just taking out the reference to M/W18+ would give the result that we're after.

[Godders]

Eddie, you'll pleased to hear I want long courses.

On Sunday I travelled for over 2 hours to the excellent BASOC event at Inshriach and as the brown course was a bit short I ran the blue as well. Very enjoyable but I'd prefer to have a black course.

Generally this year the M21L courses I've run have been far shorter than the 68 minute guideline. As a non-elite runner any M21 course I can get round in under 75 minutes is too short.

[DJM]

jab wrote:
Then I guess the part that's causing all the confusion is Appendix K where it states;

1.3.1. All British Orienteering members (M/W18+) who gain points at ranked events will
have their points stored in one overarching database.
1.3.2. This database could be displayed on the British Orienteering website in two
sections, one for men and one for women. Each section includes all age groups
(e.g. the men’s section has all runners from M18 to M80 in one list), and individual
age class lists can also be selected by clicking the relevant link on the website.

Just taking out the reference to M/W18+ would give the result that we're after.

I guess that, as the author of the draft revised Appendix K, I should reply. To reiterate what others in the review group have said already, our brief was to look at seniors only, so it seemed easiest just to restrict the groups to be ranked to those in the existing scheme.

As you quite rightly point out, it would be simple to drop the reference to M/W18+ and rank anyone who runs on the courses-to-be-ranked (the highest TD ones). Thus, if a W12 ran the Green course she could obtain ranking points and appear in a W12 rankings list. However, the question then arises regarding whether the same W12 should also gain ranking points from, say, the JK W12A course as this is of a lower technical standard than the standard Green one.

The point is that, although we could in principle rank anyone who runs at any event, we have yet to have the debate about whether or not we should do. The good thing is that the event review proposals are flexible enough to allow whatever the collective we decide we want to do.

[greywolf]

it would be simple to drop the reference to M/W18+ and rank anyone who runs on the courses-to-be-ranked

...which is what happens at the moment isn't it? - current "M21L" list includes an M14, an M16 and several M18 etc

[DJM]

DJM wrote:
it would be simple to drop the reference to M/W18+ and rank anyone who runs on the courses-to-be-ranked

...which is what happens at the moment isn't it? - current "M21L" list includes an M14, an M16 and several M18 etc

Correct. The new difference will be that the M14 will enter his course as an M14 whereas he currently enters the M21L class as an M21L (or at least this is what the results display usually shows). In addition, the M14 would appear in a separate M14 listing as well as the overall listing for all age classes.

[jab]

I guess that, as the author of the draft revised Appendix K, I should reply. To reiterate what others in the review group have said already, our brief was to look at seniors only, so it seemed easiest just to restrict the groups to be ranked to those in the existing scheme.

As you quite rightly point out, it would be simple to drop the reference to M/W18+ and rank anyone who runs on the courses-to-be-ranked (the highest TD ones). Thus, if a W12 ran the Green course she could obtain ranking points and appear in a W12 rankings list. However, the question then arises regarding whether the same W12 should also gain ranking points from, say, the JK W12A course as this is of a lower technical standard than the standard Green one.

OK, so it's a separate debate. Another source of confusion has probably been that nowhere in the description of the review group's brief in the news item on the BOF website does it mention that the brief was restricted to seniors. It merely states that the group was to:

"Review the current event structure and determine if it meets the needs of British Orienteering and its members"

I interpreted members to mean all members not just senior ones and I think maybe it would have been better if that's what the brief had actually been, though I do appreciate that this hardly a helpful comment to make at this stage!

Anyway my vote goes to ranking all running TD5 (or TD4 and 5 as Appendix K suggests) courses. Thus our hypothetical W12 will be ranked when she runs Green but not when she runs W12A, ie she gets ranked as a matter of justice when others on the same course will be ranked. And probably I'd vote for one single ranking list with age classes as an option rather than age class lists as the norm. While the ranking list for W12 (some of whom will regularly run TD5 and some of whom won't) might not be terribly useful/relevant, our W12's position in a single list compared to older age classes would have more meaning.

The point is that, although we could in principle rank anyone who runs at any event, we have yet to have the debate about whether or not we should do.

So is this the debate that will be happening on 27th October?