Event structure review

[graeme]

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!

...and with good reason. When I controlled the FCC middle distance final last year, the planner and I asked for BOF guidelines, but there were none (indeed, the guideline for distance was still identical to the old "short race" one - 25 mins).

Can you show us an example of a good green course which would be a bad middle course, or vice versa? Because in my experience the average Green course at the average District Event is unlikely to provide the sustained technical challenge of a genuine Green course, as defined by the guidelines.

would do the same again whatever the 'guidelines'.

I thought the Hambledon JK day was a waste, because the area is much better suited to classic distance (or night-O ). There's not much scope for short route choice, but you could have set 27 run-on-a-bearing-in-a-straight-line-for-250m legs to maintain technical challenge :
maybe this is what David means? But personally, I thought your M21E middle was as good as it could have been.

[Gnitworp]

There remains a great deal of work to be done in determining what 'Sprint', 'Middle' and 'Long' really mean for anyone other than the Elite. We've yet barely scratched the surface of its resolution. We are being force-fed the whole concept without determining whether the majority really want it at all in the way it is structured for the Elite.

[greywolf]

Can you show us an example of a good green course which would be a bad middle course, or vice versa?

Well to take the vice versa, i'd suggest that the WOC Middle selection race at Carse might have been a bit much for an average Green. . (But certainly not a "bad" course on any reckoning...)

BASOC held an excellent weekend double at Inshriach in October: to my untutored eye there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference between the saturday "middle" and the sunday "green". Routegadget via BASOC website.

I had anticipated that a "middle" would have more controls per km. Most of the greens at (high quality TD) CC events i've been to recently have the same 300m / 400m average leg length as the longer courses

Because in my experience the average Green course at the average District Event is unlikely to provide the sustained technical challenge of a genuine Green course, as defined by the guidelines.

Agreed. Because Middle & Green are maybe both more demanding of the very best terrain, whereas on longer courses planners can use big route choice and physical endurance to mask the lower TD of the terrain. Maybe?

[NeilC]

There remains a great deal of work to be done in determining what 'Sprint', 'Middle' and 'Long' really mean for anyone other than the Elite. We've yet barely scratched the surface of its resolution. We are being force-fed the whole concept without determining whether the majority really want it at all in the way it is structured for the Elite.

Agreed that there is work to be done, but people have been more than scratching at it.

Who is being force-fed what? The sprint and middle championships have existed for several years and have effectively been open events (certainly the sprint). There was then a call for similar championships for the non-elite. The evolving situation is as a result of bottom-up demand rather than top-down force-feeding.

[SJC]

There remains a great deal of work to be done in determining what 'Sprint', 'Middle' and 'Long' really mean for anyone other than the Elite. We've yet barely scratched the surface of its resolution. We are being force-fed the whole concept without determining whether the majority really want it at all in the way it is structured for the Elite.

The sprint and middle championships have existed for several years and have effectively been open events (certainly the sprint). There was then a call for similar championships for the non-elite.

Whilst agreeing with the second quote - no-one is being force fed anything, you simply go to the events if you want to - there still seems to be a lot of thinking to be done as to what the three types of event mean for an M60.
At the Elite level there is a big difference between what the planner can provide with courses of 17km, 7km and 3km to play with.
At M60 if you start with a Long course of only 7km (i.e. the same length as the Elite Middle) then is the same course appropriate for both or not ? If the theory says not, then what are the differences between the two courses when it gets down to the practicalities of a typical English forest ?

[Mrs H]

The middle distance races I have done have been much the same length as my badge classes (W50S)and perhaps shorter than a green - but completely different in structure and feeling with many more controls and changes of direction requiring much higher levels of concentration in general - in terms of enjoyment and satisfaction i would say they represent my ideal.

[awk]

We are being force-fed the whole concept without determining whether the majority really want it at all in the way it is structured for the Elite.

Others have already picked up the fact that there has been no force feeding, but I want to pick up the other bit. It really doesn't matter if a majority want it or not if it's additional to what is already provided. The problem with orienteering to date is that one viewpoint of what constitutes 'good orienteering' has become ubiquitous, with the result that we have lost all the other 'minorities', leaving that viewpoint as the majority. The trouble is that this viewpoint seems to be the preserve of (largely) one particular age grouping, who have moved through the system, leaving not much behind. It's great to see the M/W50+ classes growing, but not to see the decline in their wake.

Personally, I read the minutes from Events Committee with dismay, as I don't see it as either sufficiently differentiated from what we already have, nor flexible enough to encourage a broader range of options. We needed a much flatter, simpler structure more adaptable to local conditions, which is what the review group was working towards. I was also extremely disappointed that Events Committee did not give the review group an opportunity to take on board feedback from the conference and elsewhere, but decided to make key decisions in such short shrift; months of consideration replaced by a few minutes of discussion. As a result, the balance of what we were trying to achieve is in danger of being lost. Sadly, in my view, we have as a result got, in practice if not on paper, pretty much the same as before. Others assure me that this is not the case, and we've made significant progress. I remain to be convinced - hopefully time will prove me wrong.

[RichT]

I am a little confused with what the Event Structure Review thinks it has achieved.

If memory serves (for a change) we've moved through the following progression
C2 - Area Champs - National Events - Area Champs
C3 - Badge Events - Regional Events - National Ranking Events
C4 - Color Coded - District Events - Regional Events ( )
C5 - Local Events - Local Events - Club Events

If I've understood it correctly, apart from renaming a C3, the change has been to allow "National Ranking Events" to be either based on age classes or color coded. But to my mind the current regional event bases its age classes on course numbers which can be roughly equated to color standards.
And results are often given by age class AND course.

So what is it exactly that has changed ?

[graeme]

I am a little confused with what the Event Structure Review thinks it has achieved.

Nothing has been achieved, because nothing is approved yet. Lyn West will take the proposals to BOF Management Committee on Dec 13th.
If you have a viewpoint, please let Lyn know - writing here won't have any effect.

If memory serves (for a change) we've moved through the following progression
C2 - Area Champs - National Events - Area Champs
C3 - Badge Events - Regional Events - National Ranking Events
C4 - Color Coded - District Events - Regional Events ( )
C5 - Local Events - Local Events - Club Events

Actually, Event Committee appear to still want a five tier system..

C1 - BOC/JK - BOC/JK - BOC/JK BMOC BSOC Area Champs
C2 - Area Champs - National Events - National Ranking Events
C3 - Badge Events - Regional Events - Regional Events
C4 - Color Coded - District Events - Club Events
C5 - Local Events - Local Events - Local Events

Whereas the Event Structure Review had three

C1&C2 - BOC/JK BMOC BSOC Area Champs
C3&C4 - Standard Events
C5 - Local Events

More importantly, the Review proposed that event level is independent of race format, concentrating on
course quality, epunching, overprinting, controlling. Also, we promoted the idea at Standard events
entrants would compete with their orienteering-ability peers, rather than with people of similar age irrespective
of experience.

[Gnitworp]

There remains a great deal of work to be done in determining what 'Sprint', 'Middle' and 'Long' really mean for anyone other than the Elite. We've yet barely scratched the surface of its resolution. We are being force-fed the whole concept without determining whether the majority really want it at all in the way it is structured for the Elite.

There's been some misunderstanding here, I think

I said 'force-fed the concept' (which may not be appropriate, as currently formatted for the Elite, to non-elite classes),
not force-fed universal participation, which I strongly favour.

'Sprint', 'Middle' and 'Long' need to be redefined in non-elite terms.

Also, by using 'force-fed' in this context, I don't apportion 'blame' to anyone. I mean 'the effect of the phenomenon'!

[seabird]

There seems to have been much debate about particularly the older competitors wanting age related competition.

Yet at our recent C4 event where we provided a Black Course - there was heavy demand for this course from the older age groups with many 50s-60s doing it. To such an extent that we had underestimated demand, ran out of maps, and the later rising M21s had to run down on Brown!

It was this kind of demand that the Events Review seemed to be addressing, and which is now on the point of being lost with the watered down proposals.

I think we need to have some research into who takes any significant notice of ranking tables. Most people I talk with, including many older competitors, haven't looked at them for years. The ranking list obsessives seem to be winning the day, but I feel they are in a minority.

[Homer]

It will be a great shame (and missed opportunity) if the Event Structure Review Group's recommendations are not adopted in full.

However, at the end of the day, we are all free to enter whichever events and whichever courses we wish. Whatever comes of the review (or doesn't) I will continue to enter the events which appeal to me either because of the format or, more usually, the terrain. I will also continue to enter the course I fancy, or whichever I feel my body is up to, whether that be M21L, my age class (L or S), Blue, Black or whatever. The ranking lists are of secondary interest, but would obviously be more accurate if they took into account all your results irrespective of which course/class you choose to enter.

Come on Events Committee, be brave!

[RichT]

Actually Graeme I'm not sure I agree with your analysis.

Events Committee Minutes stated the following
· 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

So presumably National Ranking Events should be aligned with C3 and others (old District) with C4.
And therefore I would expect British Champs and JK at C1 but the Area Champs to be at C2.

I don't disagree with your comments about focussing on event quality and standard events providing competition with ones peers. However it just strikes me that the structure being proposed is a renaming exercise allbeit we're allowing people to enter existing regional events (C3) on the basis of course number rather than age class.

[Mrs H]

It would be very disappointing if the ranking list was allowed to dictate any direction in which the review went.

At present it is a hopelessly inaccurate barometer of ability and is merely a selective league table rewarding the people who travel to the most ranking events and says very little about the best orienteers in any particular age group.

It should be discarded completely - the new format brought in and a new system of ranking introduced afterwards if required based on all the 1st and 2nd level events. to suggest some events would be ranking and others wouldn't - just takes us back to the point we started from - on our way to oblivion.

I wonder what would be the effect on the sport if we abolished the ranking list all together? the very best people in their age groups don't give a toss about their ranking points and seldom run in their age class anyway. Perhaps if there was no ranking list people would embrace the new proposals more enthusiastically as there would be no reason not to run the course they wanted.

[SJC]

Perhaps if there was no ranking list people would embrace the new proposals more enthusiastically as there would be no reason not to run the course they wanted.

Reading the Events Committee minutes it says: "However competitors would be eligible for National Ranking points whichever course they ran".

Which suggests that under the proposals the Ranking List should have no influence on which course you decide to run.