FOCUS magazine (for the elite?)

[RJ]

I've felt for a long time that championships should simply have one class per age category, the championship class whatever that is - long, medium or sprint.

In total agreement with that, The British Champiosnhsipsfor example (or any of the new regional championshsips) are exactly that.... a championship. We devalue it by having other 'winners' being declared.

A good solution is....

What about Championship courses for those who want to run the 'full' distance and a full compliment of colour coded courses for those who don't? No ambiguity there.

We try to make the sport everything to everybody all the time.... just now and again we should evaluate what we are offering and focus on what the purpose of a particular competition is. Getting rid of short courses at a championship shouldn't worry anybody.... if comments like MrsH's are to be taken as a concensus.... and to offer a range of courses of various lengths for those who can't 'hack' the championship course at the event (for whatever reason).

[andy]

But Andy you were way off the pace in the Short Open as well

so! we got shiny medals!

[SeanC]

Andy wrote "What about Championship courses for those who want to run the 'full' distance and a full compliment of colour coded courses for those who don't? No ambiguity there"

Be careful here. If you replace S/B courses with colour coded courses your average punter might think "why go all that way just for a colour coded course?". Some of the magic of competing at a big event is lost.

A bit of internal marketing is needed here. By all means have colour coded courses but give them labels and categories that match the importance of the event - "any adult medium" "any adult short" etc. And why not prizes for the winners too?

Going back to the original thread, focus is a good way big events can be marketed, thinking about the 3p's, more publicity, more prizes and more punters.

[distracted]

What about Championship courses for those who want to run the 'full' distance and a full compliment of colour coded courses for those who don't? No ambiguity there.

An idea with great potential! This suggestion gives a way in which everyone can run at championship event on a course of their choosing, which fits current ability/fitness, without being overly restricted by age-classes Might require a bit of refinement as SeanC notes, but as a starting-point for a change in approach I think it's fantastic!

[graeme]

What about Championship courses for those who want to run the 'full' distance and a full compliment of colour coded courses for those who don't? No ambiguity there.

Trouble is that you end up planning more courses than you need. A 6k "Championship" for W40 and a 6k "blue" for others. The obvious solution is to combine the classes on the same course. And then you have an extended colour coded system with prizes for certain predefined age groups on certain predefined colours.

Which is exactly what the Event Structure Review has recommended...

[frog]

One of the good things about running an age group short class is that if you do a few you compete against the same people. I usually spot names I recognise in the start race and think "I want to beat x".
It also recognises the achievements of the older runners, although I am often beaten by men 20y older than me on club colour coded courses.
I'm quite happy with the status quo. I run a short course, I come somewhere in the middle, I have fun. If I were ever to win it I would consider it an achievement and whilst not declairing myself champion I would feel as though I was a champion of sorts. I don't hold with the longer is "better" theory. Marathon runners aren't "better" than 10k runners, they just run different races.

[IanW]

Marathon runners aren't "better" than 10k runners, they just run different races.

I'm not expressing an opinion here about the merit or otherwise of short courses, but surely this statement is irrelevant in this context. In a major athletics championship, the winner of the marathon would not necessarily win the 10k. In almost all major UK orienteering events, the winner of the long course would win the short course by a country mile!

If the standard of competitor were comparable across the L&S course (which I seem to recall was the hope when L & S replaced A & B) then this discussion wouldn't be happening.

[awk]

In a major athletics championship, the winner of the marathon would not necessarily win the 10k. In almost all major UK orienteering events, the winner of the long course would win the short course by a country mile!

True, but there are quite often instances where an athlete has had to choose which race, as they have not been able to double up because of the schedule.

If the standard of competitor were comparable across the L&S course (which I seem to recall was the hope when L & S replaced A & B) then this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I don't think that was ever the thinking - the idea was to ensure that the planning on both were at the same level, too many planners thinking that a B course should be easier than an A. The L is the one that the better tend to enter because it is always treated as superior to the S in terms of prizes, championship badges etc. Now if that was all inverted (and of course advertised).....?

What would be interesting would be to see what would happen if the JK age class trophies followed the elite, with a middle on Day 1 and a long on Day 2. All that need happen is to designate the S class as the championship course on Day 1 (still providing an L for the long course aficionados) and the L class as championship on day 2 (still providing S for the short course fans) - thus leading to L/L, S/S or S/L entry combinations (or for the real curmudgeons, L/S!!).

[RJ]

........to designate the S class as the championship course on Day 1 (still providing an L for the long course afficionados) .....

Why have longer courses for the 'others'? It is a MIDDLE championships.... focus on that and design the event within that framework. Stop trying to cater for everybody. The competitors enter a MIDDLE event and if they don't want to race a shorter course then they can stay away..... nobody will stay away though... well maybe one or two will!!

In the new format of Park/Sprint/City races you don't cater for the Classic distance! People enter the event knowing exactly what they are going to get.

It is just in the Classic/Long event where you have QUITE A FEW runners who can't hack the L distance. There would be a large dropout if other shorter courses were not offered. But those shorter courses are just the opportunity to be in the same forest as the 'L' runners and are not in any way a championship course. Be clear what the event is..... a long distance event championship.

Over the next few years we will see an increase in numbers in the sport. We won't need to cater for everybody at all events.... just offer a definite structure to everybody and they can then choose where they want (and are able) to compete. Most people (>70%) will be quite happy to compete within a clear championship structure.

[awk]

........to designate the S class as the championship course on Day 1 (still providing an L for the long course afficionados) .....

Stop trying to cater for everybody. The competitors enter a MIDDLE event and if they don't want to race a shorter course then they can stay away..... nobody will stay away though... well maybe one or two will!!

We don't know how many will stay away. It would be quite interesting to see how many went down the non-champs route and stuck with, for instance, the L option.

On a broader front, one reason for offering L at a middle distance event could be that of voluntary manpower: to offer middle or shorter distance races in addition to the standard classic distance events means more events needing to be put on. If you can kill two birds with one stone, and keep the long distance fanatics happy whilst still providing events focused on shorter distances, then it helps preventing making more demands on voluntary commitment.

Otherwise, I completely agree RJ, and the better solution would be to offer separate races.