Event structure review

[roadrunner]

We want to compete against people of our own age as often as possible, ideally every weekend. Running a 'colour' just does not have the same attraction

This is an argument I'm hearing from many in your situation, but feel I have to ask - Why? The current regional event is, in effect, a glorified colour system with courses numbered, and age classes attached to courses. For example, if you ran at Salcey Forest today, you ran course 4, which had JM5M, JW5L, M35S, M40S, M55L, M60L, W35L and W40L competing. Now what happens to your age class competition when I combine those results into one class and call it 'Blue', for instance. Nothing.

As an M50 (soon to be M55), I can say that there definitely is a difference (at least for a significant number of us). When I started orienteering, as an adult, I started with Green, then having achieved Green standard a number of times moved up to Blue (I never made it to Brown). But what is there to aspire to in the colour-coded world as you get older? You move down through the courses - not much of an incentive, is it? Add to that the fact that M50s will be spread across Green, Blue and Brown, and the competition is as unsatisfying as it is for M35s when some of their peers run elite. With age-class competition, on the other hand, OK you're running successively shorter courses as you get older, but you can still compete against you peers, and it's clear that lots of veterans find that satisfying.

So all we need to do is find all the running clubs full of M/W 21s !
Unfortunately the age profile of the average running club matches that of the average orienteering club.
Plenty of vets; a few youngsters; and virtually no-one in the 21-35 year old age group.

I can only speak for my own club, but while there's certainly a preponderence of veterans, the situation is nothing like as bad as in orienteering. Whether my club's typical or not I couldn't say.

You misunderstand me roadrunner. I wasn't talking about standard regional/badge events. I was specifically talking about the more prestigious events, such as the November Classic. They are more prestigious because of the high quality reputation that they've built up.

What the new system would do is get us away from the current 'one size fits all' approach, and put the emphasis back on the organising associations/clubs to promote the event as they see appropriate, rather than leaving it to the grade at which it is classified to do the job, often unsatisfactorily both in terms of customer satisfaction (witness the increasing instance of regional events at or less than district size) and in terms of the lack of variety and exclusion of all but one type/style of event.

So, take your example of that colour coded Chiltern Challenge. Under the new scheme, if the organisers wanted to, they could beef the event up: more courses, age/gender class competition added (but don't have to do all the 50+ classes unless feel that's appropriate, might even just have one or two on each course), prizes etc. (Of course that's only one element - if the area's naff for instance.....!). If they wanted it lower key, then equally that's possible. However, what they don't have to do is produce either (a) a limited range of courses defined solely by colour or (b) the full range of 50+ classes, with no other option. Pretty much the sole 'restriction' is that there must be an open race on all courses. However, the structure provides a 'language' which will enable people to understand what orienteering is offered.

This may take a bit of rethinking by associations and clubs to fully take advantage of the system, maybe even a bit "out of the box", but it won't for instance prevent the South Eastern clubs from having their weekly 'badge' event, if that's what they want, nor will it prevent others from a different emphasis. What it it will do is enable a wider range of race types to be incorporated into the mainstream of orienteering competition and enable clubs and associations to better tailor their competition structures to local needs within a recognised framework, which is what the current system is increasingly failing to do.

Perhaps I did misunderstand you, but I think you also misunderstood me. The point I was trying to make was that, on the same area, an age-class event attracts far more people than a colour-coded event - even though its costs more. Surely that has to mean that, around here at least, it's what a large fraction of orienteers want? I don't disagree with the ideas of allowing more flexibility (such as no need for all the age classes, or extra colour-coded courses), but I do feel that in lumping everything together as a "standard" event, we're making it far less obvious what's on offer, and I can't see how that helps. At present, if I go to a fixtures list, and read that an event is C3/C4 (or regional/district, or badge/colour-coded), I know what to expect; under the new scheme, I guess I'd have to read through the event flyer to see whether it was (to use Awk's words) a "prestigious regional event", or a basic district event. If we don't go for different categories as now, then perhaps we could at least grade the events as gold/silver/bronze (or whatever other labels seem appropriate), where (for example) "silver" might mean that there are at least M/W21, M/W40 and M/W55 age categories, with the event counting for ranking points.

[awk]

Perhaps I did misunderstand you, but I think you also misunderstood me. The point I was trying to make was that, on the same area, an age-class event attracts far more people than a colour-coded event - even though its costs more. Surely that has to mean that, around here at least, it's what a large fraction of orienteers want?

No! This is a line that is often argued but it misses a number of facts.

Firstly, the current system protects age class competitions from nearby competition, the result being that numbers are artificially boosted compared to those at colour coded events. One small anecdote, but one of our events last year was an extended (Black) colour coded which was put on to replace a badge event - it was effectively protected, and had a far bigger attendance than a regional event a few months later on the opposite side of the valley, as well as other local C3s. Only anecdotal, but possibly indicative.

Secondly, our current system assumes that age class competition is higher quality than colour based - the age classes are set at a higher level (C3 v C4). They are thus advertising to people that they are 'better', even when perhaps they are not. But people are getting wise to this, and relatively the gap is closing. Indeed, round here numbers at colour events often exceed those at regional events. Which belies your statement about numbers proving regional events are what's wanted, and shows that more and more people are not doing what you appear to be doing, which is using C3 and C4 as a guide to the quality of their experience.

Thirdly, there are incentives to travel to regional events - e.g. rankings. If those incentives also applied to colour based events....?

All in all, I thin your statement that people prefer age class competition per se is arguable to say the least! We, for instance, go to C3s often because there is no readily available alternative. As a family we all prefer colour based competition, and have been known to travel to a more distant good quality C4 in preference to a nearby C3 (and it's surprising how many others we see have done the same when we get there!).

Having said all that, there is absolutely nothing in the system to prevent age class competition. That is the biggest misunderstanding that appears to have been generated. The difference is that we see the NGB's job as to define national level competition, and provide a framework for regional and local competition that enables regions and clubs to develop competition as best suits local needs. The age class system does NOT suit all areas of the country, others it suits better (although I personally believe that line of thinking to have taken those regions down a dead end - but that is personal). If your part of the world wants to carry on generating age class based events, then it still can, with the one proviso that the system enables those no wanting to be restricted to them to be able to stil compete.

[EddieH]

Good question from Lumpy Lycra

The pressing need is to get more 21 and 35 year olds into the sport.

Why?

Maybe so but definitely this assumption needs questioning.

I see people in the 40s upwards reappearing al the time. People who stopped orienteering when they left uni, started working, went abroad ........

Then they hear about an event and come back.

The loss of this age group to sport in general is a well documented phenomenon - we can't beat ourselves up about it.


What I do see now is a very healthy elite scene compared to when I began - Being in the bottom of that pyramid just does not attract that age group any longer. In fact it is probably mae worse simply because the elite are so brilliant and the gap seems out of sight for most.

[eddie]

Good question from Lumpy Lycra

The pressing need is to get more 21 and 35 year olds into the sport.

Why?

Maybe so but definitely this assumption needs questioning.

I see people in the 40s upwards reappearing al the time. People who stopped orienteering when they left uni, started working, went abroad ........

Then they hear about an event and come back.

The loss of this age group to sport in general is a well documented phenomenon - we can't beat ourselves up about it.


What I do see now is a very healthy elite scene compared to when I began - Being in the bottom of that pyramid just does not attract that age group any longer. In fact it is probably mae worse simply because the elite are so brilliant and the gap seems out of sight for most.

What if they don't mystically come back?

[EddieH]

I am not being complacent. However it is a fact that many, not all people drop out of their leisure activities when they setle down witha partner and a job.

It also appears to be a fact that many people (of course not all) who used to orienteer come back later in life. I see no reason why this is likely to change, but of course it might.

[seabird]

Firstly, the current system protects age class competitions from nearby competition, the result being that numbers are artificially boosted compared to those at colour coded events. One small anecdote, but one of our events last year was an extended (Black) colour coded which was put on to replace a badge event - it was effectively protected, and had a far bigger attendance than a regional event a few months later on the opposite side of the valley, as well as other local C3s. Only anecdotal, but possibly indicative.

awk you really should check your statistics before over-egging the pudding. I totally agree with your general thesis but
Harden Moor ,a "protected" C4 in September. had 294 runners. Baildon Moor a "protected" C3 in late March (high orienteering season) attracted 333 runners.

Totally agree the latter is a poor turnout for a C3 and that apart from the Colour courses there was scarcely any class with 10 runners, which make the results look truly sad. Conversely the Harden turnout was good for the time of year. Harden only attracted 10 M21s running everything from Light Green to Black. Baildon attracted 15 M21s running Long (4) and Short (11). 14 out of 20 runners on the Black Course were 35+.

As an M50 (soon to be M55), I can say that there definitely is a difference (at least for a significant number of us). But what is there to aspire to in the colour-coded world as you get older? You move down through the courses - not much of an incentive, is it? Add to that the fact that M50s will be spread across Green, Blue and Brown, and the competition is as unsatisfying as it is for M35s when some of their peers run elite. With age-class competition, on the other hand, OK you're running successively shorter courses as you get older, but you can still compete against you peers, and it's clear that lots of veterans find that satisfying..

As an M55(soon to be an M60). I have to say I find there is more to inspire me in the the Colour system where I can enter the course that I feel like on the day - currently that varies between Blue and Black (if I am lucky enough to have the latter available.) I'm not fast at any of these so not really competitive, but I guess I fit into the bracket, sometimes decried by awk , of being in the "value for money" brigade. Despite being competitive only in name, I never fail to get satisfaction in comparing my performance with others on my course, whether they are my peers or not. Even in the well populated M55L class the numbers of fellow competitors is frequently dispiriting outside the occasional consistently popular event, and hence the comparisons less interesting.

Yes I can currently choose to run other age classes if i want at any event - as long as it 's not down. The only thing mitigating against that is pre-entry (i.e. the how do I feel today factor cannot come into play) and that will still be a feature of some "standard" events. The Harden example suggests that that flexibility should be extended to the 21s more often, but the statistical evidence for that is far less conclusive than awk makes out.

That for me is one of the merit of the proposed scheme. Folks who want their age class comparisons can have them. Those of us to whom it is a less important consideration can enter the course we want.

[graeme]

But what is there to aspire to in the colour-coded world as you get older? You move down through the courses - not much of an incentive, is it?

This I don't understand. In both "worlds" as you get older you run shorter courses - that's the reality of getting old. With CC, at least you can map out your own decline, and maybe even "rage against the dying of the light" beating some of those whippersnappers, rather than having your approaching decrepitude tidily mapped out for you by BOF tables and formulae. I can think of nothing more depressing than the current system where some BOF committee tells me how capable I'm allowed to be when I'm 60.

No, actually, I can: being forced to run further than my aged body can manage because someone who has aged better than I enjoys beating me.

[awk]

awk you really should check your statistics before over-egging the pudding. I totally agree with your general thesis but
Harden Moor ,a "protected" C4 in September. had 294 runners. Baildon Moor a "protected" C3 in late March (high orienteering season) attracted 333 runners.

Yes, you're quite right. The reason why my records had Baildon down as smaller, is that 75 of those 333 entered colour coded courses. There were only 258 in the badge classes - the 'regional' bit. Whilst my statement was strictly wrong in the simplistic way I wrote it, I don't think I'm over-egging; the figures to my mind actually strongly back up my thesis, at least as far as any one-off anecdotal evidence can (which is probably not a long way).

[EddieH]

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[distracted]

Event committee minutes are up, and:

It was agreed that the 3 level structure outlined in the recommendations addressed some of the issues noted above but there remained the issue of the Standard Events containing both National Ranking events and events not included in the National Rankings

It was agreed that the following structure would be more effective and more acceptable to implement; (note that in the following that the words National and Regional in these event titles bear no relationship to the current National and Regional events):

- Championship Events: including JK, BOCs and the 6 Area Champs inc North, Midlands, South, SOA, WOA, NIOA – National Fixtures Group in consultation with Major Events Group has responsibility for authorising these events and results from these events will be included in the National Rankings
- National Ranking Events: National Fixtures Group has responsibility for authorising these events
- Regional Events: Regional Fixtures Groups have responsibility for authorising these events
- Club Events (more meaningful than local events): Clubs have responsibility for coordinating and delivering these events

Championship Events will have an age class structure; the decision as to whether age classes are used at a National Ranking Event (e.g. for Regional Association
Championships, multi-day events, etc.) would be made by the club staging the event and could be a mix of age class and colour coded. However competitors would be eligible for National Ranking points whichever course they ran, regardless of their eligibility within the age class competition.

In order to make the above work the National Ranking list process needs to be updated in order that all participants taking part in these events can be awarded ranking points – this applies to various event formats sprint, middle, colour coded etc.

Seems to have the best of both the current system and that previously proposed. I do like the fact that the "National Ranking Events" are primarily based on course rather than class and will contain other event formats such as sprints and middles. The system is at least following, and also able to cope with, the changing nature of our sport.

[greywolf]

...Championship Events: including JK, BOCs...

does the plural mean that the middle and sprint champs will be considered as part of this top tier too?
and any ideas where the WOC selection races (the most important events after JK & BOCs??) fit in?

[graeme]

All three BOCs, JK and all area champs are tier 1. WOC selection race isn't considered (off-remit) - maybe one day someone will notice that it is the race the elites regard as most important, and make it BEOC - this would have the added benefit that we'd have meaningful age-class BOC for 20s, 35s and 40s without half the contenders off running elite.

What confused me were the "problems" they think they are trying to solve...

o Too many poor quality Regional events
o Too few local events
o Too few district events
o Too few middle and sprint races

...here in Scotland, the top three aren't even true. If I want middle distance, I can run a 35 minute race at dozens of district events - but like everyone else I choose not to. More sprint races might be good, but that's hardly the most pressing event-structure problem facing the sport.

[Gnitworp]

What's the definition of a 'Middle Race', for say M60, given the following statistics?

British Middle Distance Championships 2007 winning time for M60: 42.04

Whitbarrow National Event 2007 winning time for M60: 41.12

Longer than 'Long'?

[DJM]

Graeme wrote:

If I want middle distance, I can run a 35 minute race at dozens of district events ...

This falls into the trap of thinking that Middle Distance is defined by winning time and by nothing else, and many UK orienteers think likewise!

When the IOF "invented" the Middle distance discipline a few years ago, it wanted it to have a deliberately different philosophy from that of the Long discipline, i.e. Middle was not to be simply a cut down Long. New BO Guidelines will adopt the IOF principles and will explain that the emphasis in the Long race is on physical endurance and significant route choice, especially on long legs, whilst that for the Middle is on consistent technicality with small to medium scale route choice. IOF Competition Rules Appendix 6 give much more detail.

Consequently, the best terrain for Middle races will rarely also be the best for Long, and the planning principles will be different too. The average Green course at the average District Event is unlikely to provide the sustained technical challenge of a genuine Middle course, at least in the parts of the country I know best ...

[Gnitworp]

Graeme wrote:

If I want middle distance, I can run a 35 minute race at dozens of district events ...

This falls into the trap of thinking that Middle Distance is defined by winning time and by nothing else, and many UK orienteers think likewise!

When I planned the Middle Distance Elite Races with Colin Duckworth for JK 2003 Day 1 at Hambleden, we set absolutely the most challenging and technical courses we could in the available terrain to give the required winning times (courses with the greatest possible sustained and unrelenting technical difficulty); these were our only criteria; we had no other objective, and were uninfluenced by the supposed 'special nature of middle races'.

I would do the same again whatever the 'guidelines'. The type of course I set is an automatic product of its length and the area available, for instance, a 3 km track-running route-choice leg is a nonsense on a 5 km course.

I believe the 'Middle Race Philosophy' simply exploits the technical potential of areas, or parts of areas, full of highly complex contour (usually) detail where the principle that a 'good' long leg without obvious handrails and a high density of decision points along its length always 'beats' an equivalent 'good' shorter leg nevertheless still pertains. I realise that the JK Individual Day 1 tries to serve both 'Long' and 'Middle' Distance Philosophies at the same time and is therefore inevitably compromised.