Event structure review

[AndyO]

re length of courses:

so how long should "long" mean, and how many courses in each TD range? As Graeme noted in response to Simon E's early proposal for a length code from 1-7 for each TD, that may imply around 40 courses, but I presume no-one will argue for that. I do think that TD1 and 2 only need one course; TD3 needs 2 - a short "Orange" course and a longer "Red" for runners who will want a longer run without too much technical challenge. TD4 can use 3 lengths to suit runners moving up in standard, a medium length and a long course. TD5 is where we seem to have a debate, to provide course lengths to the proper technical standard suitable for experienced runners of all ages. Those moving up to TD5, and many older runners, may want the technical challenge without excessive length, or without too much physical challenge, while others are looking for full-on classic distance racing. How many different courses at TD5 are needed to meet these needs, and what should be the target estimated leading times (for M21 running each)?

[greywolf]

so how long should "long" mean, and how many courses in each TD range?

I imagine the consensus would be that "long" should mean a top elite winning time of 75 mins+

Don't think there can be a set answer to the second half - I would argue that it should depend on the terrain (can it genuinely support TD5?) and the likely turnout (do you need more courses to split up a big attendance?) - one of the problems might be that those events/locations where only TD4 is realistic may often be those that attract the biggest turnout and therefore demand the most courses...but anyway I thought the idea was that event organisers would be able to pick as many courses as they needed from a predesignated palette of colours?

You have to remember there's already enormous differences in results between similarly-named courses, e.g. if you compare results from the excellent BASOC event at Inshriach mentioned by Godders previously to other recent District events down south, e.g. BOK, and DVO, there are a number of striking differences: the number of competitors of course, the slower leading times for most courses (Ewan McCarthy excepted...) but most notably the overall spread of times - at Inshriach Lt Green was won in 47mins (by an M10!) but 1.52 was good enough for 8th out of 15 starters, Green was won in 38 but only 4 others from 30 starters broke 70 mins etc etc - basically the "average" orienteer takes a lot longer in technical terrain (that's my excuse anyway) whereas the elite seem to fly everywhere....

[awk]

Anyway my vote goes to ranking all running TD5 (or TD4 and 5 as Appendix K suggests) courses.

I agree.

[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.

At present, our results etc. are all listed using mutually exclusive classes, and we get silly results like Warwick where Roger Thetford was really third in the open, or Peter Palmer Trophy where OD were really runners-up. I would like to see the rankings list (and those results) being inclusive, e.g. rather than M45 being M45-49, it meaning M45 and over. Otherwise, with these new one-list rankings, the age class lists are going to start looking a bit silly themselves.

[graeme]

re length of courses:

so how long should "long" mean

The spirit of the review is that "long" can be whatever the organising club want to put on, not what some BOF committee decrees. This is likely determined by what the area can, in Gnitworp's phrase, "elegantly support"

To help competitors compare what's available at upcoming events with what was available at previous ones, and define a sensible progression into the sport, we have a colour-coded system based on the events most commonly offered at present. The "light" varieties may be overcomplicated - the idea was to communicate what the experienced know, that some areas are better than others for the inexperienced to try out TD5.

[AndyO]

Graeme

I would prefer that there was some guidance on course lengths to assist planners and event organisers, as you have sought to do in Guideline A. The terrain will always influence length and technical standard of what is possible, as Gnitworp describes so well. Is it necessary to have more courses to split up a large field, Grey Wolf? As you have shown, there is a wide range of times within any given course at current events. I actually like the colour coded format because it provides competition across age classes, and lets juniors take some scalps, as young Chepls demonstrated on the Light Green at Inschriach. If there is been a choice of 2 or more lengths of each TD course, it may help runners to choose a course better suited to their own technical competence and physical fitness.

[King Penguin]

One the subject of "... wide range of times..." have you seen the results from the original November Classic. Times for those successfully completing the A course ranged from about 1:18 to around 5:30 !!

[Tatty]

So come and try the re run on Saturday 3rd November from 11-1. The courses were/are a real challenge. Are you up to it

[IanD]

I like most of the proposals. I think basically what they're saying is that clubs can put on events offering any courses they like, provided they make it clear in advance what technical standard and physical toughness combinations will be available (“physical toughness” being a combination of length and nature of terrain). If they want to allocate particular age classes to particular courses for some sort of points or trophies then fine; if they don't, that's fine too. People can ignore any such allocation if they like and still be listed in the results as “competitive”.

So far as I can see, correct me if I'm wrong, there's nothing to stop a club putting on an event with courses identical to those on offer at a current badge/regional event, and allocating each age class to a course so that those wishing to compete in age classes can do so? In many areas of the country, people might not wish to do this, but in the south-east we do have the numbers, and I wouldn't want to interfere with for example the Scottish 6-Days.

The main issue I have is that I race fairly seriously at some events, while I use others more for training. I want a race more than a few times a year (more often than there are “national” events). For a race to be meaningful, others with the same attitude need to pick the same event to be their race too. At present, the “regional” label is useful for this purpose, “regional” events are serious races, “district” and “local” for the most part are fun/training.

While my club tries to make all events as good as possible, there's about one a year which we make a special effort for. A freshly surveyed map of one of our more technical areas, an experienced planner, a higher grade controller etc. We need a way of indicating to the orienteering public which event this is, and labelling it “regional” rather than “district” is an effective way of doing this.

I'm therefore not happy about the proposal to collapse the present five-tier (championship/national/regional/district/local) system down to three. I think five tiers of seriousness of event is about right. In fact, I think even the proposals backhandedly acknowledge this. They recognise that British Championships and the JK are a cut above other nationals/area championships. They also recognise that only some “standard” events should count towards the ranking list; obviously these would be the better events (in terms of quality of area, freshness of map, experience of planner, etc). Dare I suggest that we call these ranking events “regional” and the rest “district”?

I would emphasise that I'm not against the main thrust of the proposals. I like the idea that course names should be consistent across different events. I don't think event quality should be measured solely on the number of courses offered, although obviously providing a range of courses suitable for W10 to M21 to W80 should be a factor. I'm certainly not suggesting that in the new world a “regional” event must have at least 11 courses. Something that has been annoying me for a long time is that some of the best events get only “local” status because they don't fit in, for example I believe the UK City Race series merit “regional” status (and perhaps one a year could be “national”)?

[EddieH]

I think I agree100% with you IanD

[graeme]

Eddie,

SOA have indicated that if the changes go ahead they will designate seven SOL events, as approved for quality by the Competitions Convenor, as the events where people should turn up to race, with some points system based on those seven events only.

The proposals also anticipate that some events will want to have higher profile than others ...

For particularly high profile events, then the dates should be notified to the BOF fixtures committee to avoid clashes with neighbouring Associations. Each Club may expect that. on average, one of its event per year will get such fixtures protection.

The issue is really whether we want a BOF-dictated five-level scheme, or set minimum standards for most events and allow clubs to pitch to whatever audience they want. We preferred a decentralised approach.

[Simon E]

You are Organiser for an event under the new structure. You want to keep pretty much the same range of courses as you had previously. What do you put on the flyer to describe the courses you are offering if your event would, in a previous life, have been:

a) The November Classic or any other established large badge event with an expected entry of 1000+

b) A badge event with an entry of around 500

c) A colour coded event with an entry of around 200.

We don't have a workable system until we can answer these questions. Perhaps if we can agree how to advertise things the proposals will become clearer. Having some concrete examples would be a good start to finding out if this can work or not.

[awk]

Simply say what's offered, along the lines of the "the following courses are offered...." with attached classes where relevant.

Personally, if organisers have to be more specific, it'll be an improvement over some of the advertising we currently get.

[distracted]

Personally, if organisers have to be more specific, it'll be an improvement over some of the advertising we currently get.

Agree entirely - and if that extends to making it obvious to everybody what's on offer, and not just the established orienteer, then all the better!

[DB]

Interesting debate on the proposed changes.
I still feel a relative newcomer to the sport (4 years) and surprised to the requirement to change what to me seems a very straightforward system. Lets not make things too technical for potential newcomers.
The colour coded system for the newcomer makes perfectly adequate sense. Orange is advertised as adult beginner, Green and above for the experienced orienteeer. The newcomer approaches Registration and sees a list of the course lengths and technicality on offer. In relation to the other courses they know exactly what they are choosing.

Looking at the colour coded at the Districts and Locals it seems that the most represented/required courses are Green and Blue. White to Light Green seem to attract 20-40 competitors, and at the other end of the scale Brown (when offered) is similar.
So if Green and Blue are oversubscribed then break only these two courses down into maybe a Short and Long Green and simlarily a Short and Long Blue. Short being around 65-75% of the Long. I realise people willsay what would be the difference between a Long Green and a Short Blue. Very little perhaps, if need be then give them new colours, two extra to the current system as a maximum. The additional two courses shouldn't provide too much extra work for the planner and will help alleviate the 'crush' on these two courses.
I prefer to compete at District events as i know that certain friends will be competing in a certain colour and its always good later comparing routes and experiences.

Red has a place in the system (maybe add Purple if Red proves more popular). Attracting runners to the sport should be considered, Red is an ideal choice. Place ad in Runners World. 'A Sport for the Thinking Runner'etc. On a similar vein an ad in Trail/TGO. I read Trail regularly and despite hillwalking for a number of years and 'enjoying' running too, until 2003 i had never heard of Orienteering. External not Internal quotes Oldman.

Back to the main point. I don't like the term "Standard". It gives a picture of average or basic.
Personally I think that the current age/badge system works ok, certainly there are large numbers in 50, 55 & 60 age classes and less so in the band of 21 to 40. That subject is a task for Orienteering to attract numbers in this age class and retain numbers from Junior years. Its a major problem that many young adults loath exercise in general and would rather have a Saturday night out rather than up at 7am on Sunday for a 150 mile journey (with parents) to a Badge event to run for an hour then come home again. Lack of young adult participation is general in sport overall. not just orienteering.
The club tents at events has certainly helped the social side of things, long may this continue. Not only to seek out my own club, but to look out for friends in other neighbouring clubs.
I think the cost aspect is about right. With the BOF reduction about £4.50 for Districts and £7.50 for Regionals. The price of travelling to the events, makes these prices seem small in comparison. To watch a similar length premier football match would set you back £30. The orienteering value is very good indeed.
So, voting for the current system with one or two tweaks.

[Simon E]

Simply say what's offered, along the lines of the "the following courses are offered...." with attached classes where relevant.

But have you tried doing that?

A current "full colour coded" might offer:

White, Yellow, Orange, Red, Light Green, Green, Blue, Brown

This would become:

White, Yellow, Orange, (no red equivalent: surely a mistake), Light Red, Long Red (which is a bit short) or Short Green (which is a bit long), Long Green (which is a bit short) or Blue (which is a bit long), Brown (which is a bit long)

I guess this would settle down to something like:
White, Yellow, Orange, Long Orange, Light Red, Long Red, Short Green, Long Green, Blue, Brown

Instead let's try a <TD-Length> idea, but using a percentage of course length ratio for the length component. I'll use White, Yellow, Orange, Green and Blue for TD 1 to 5. That would give:

White, Yellow, Orange:25, Orange:50, Green, Blue:40, Blue:55 and Blue:80

This expands quite easily to a 14 course "badge" event as in the current Regional Event guideline:

White, Yellow, Orange:25, Orange:35, Orange:50, Green, Blue:30, :35, :40, :45, :55, :70, :85 and :100.

This even allows things like Blue:120 for those left wanting more. Once people know that "Blue:100" is an elite winning time of 67 minutes then it gets reasonably easy to understand. I think you might need to publish a "standard" length in the details to show people what the percentages mean. Thus "Blue:100 is expected to be around 12km with 250m of climb" for a nice fast southern forest, or "Blue:100 is expected to be around 8km with 400m of climb" for further north.

One thing we must not lose is the ability for people to pre-enter (yes we will definitely be keeping that) so that they are running against their friends and rivals. For example, the current badge structure normally has M65L, M45S and W45L on the same course, and people will want to keep it that way. This would be a Blue:55 course, but we'd need to ensure there always was a Blue:55 course. Otherwise you're left wondering whether to enter Blue:50 or Blue:60 (or Short Green, Long Green or Blue in the original proposals).