Discussion: USA Champs: Fun or Competition

Dear Orienteering Community,

I received a number of calls from respectful elite athletes that USA Relay Champs this year had too difficult courses and that "unfavorable vegetation" made it unworthy of the USA Champs status.

Should USA Relay Championships be a real test of navigation skills, speed, and strength for the whole team combined with fair competition or fun is more important? I would like to hear your oppinions. In general I would like to hear your feedback on the USA Relay Champs at McCall. Your feedback will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Sergey

Well, there are two separate issues here:

1) Did it correctly determine the best teams? I'd say the answer is yes. DVOA was the best, and the two CSU teams were in fact the second and third best teams there.

2) Was it the sort of event I'd go to again? Probably not. Other Relay Champs in recent years have also been accurate tests of who the best teams were, but they also provided a more enjoyable orienteering experience. In particular, with the nature of the forest, the quality of the map, and the lengths of the courses, after about the second leg, hardly anyone saw anyone else, and there was little head-to-head racing, which is part of what makes a relay exciting. To some extent, it might as well have been an interval-started relay. And it wasn't an issue of courses being too hard. My course (leg 2) wasn't pretty easy, for example. But for the 8-point teams, the total length was way too much. The format that had evolved in recent years was excellent, and I think it was a big step back to put the 8-point teams on courses that were simply too long for them, as evidenced by the very long winning times.

I am glad, that this issue was ,brought forward,because in my opinion and for that matter ,it should concern all the,top orienteers from US,that aspire to good results, at one point in their orienteering carier.
And it goes like this:The actual point system that rules the US Relay Champs., is nothing that a way, to accomodate the recreational orienteers and it does not do any justice,for the elite runners,so if I would be the one able to make any changes, at the next US Relay Champs,we would have two more categories:1-M open Elite and 2-F- open Elite with courses and format similar to the IOF World Relay Champs and than you can make the courses for the recreational( points) orienteers anyway they want because the Elite ORIENTEERS, are going to paticipate in the real deal competition, and that would be a step forward, in the US orienteering quest in improving on our stats in the World rankings as a Federation and as individual orienteers.I do not have any knowledge of any other country using points systems in official events.

Sergey,
I thought the start/finish area was well organized, with a fun mass start area, and good visibility up the road to the finish. So for fun, I think you did a great job.
While the map quality and terrain runability weren't the greatest, they weren't horrible either, as evidenced by the fact that the best orienteers did indeed do quite well. For a locally produced map, by a very small club, I thought the map was reasonable, especially given the complexity of the area.
As with all maps, you need to adjust to the detail, and accuracy of the detail as you go. I generally hope that a US Champs, or any A-event for that matter, you will get a really good map, and you won't have to work too hard on map interpretation, but, in reality, it doesn't always work out that way!
Thanks for organizing and hosting the event! No matter how good a job you do, there will always be critiques. I hope that we can learn from the critiques, while also being realistic about how little volunteer effort is available in the struggle to make this a perfect orienteering world...

Typo in my comment: I meant to say that my course WAS pretty easy.

As far as having elite categories, we had these categories up until 1990, and the Relay was pretty bogus in those days. There are very few clubs in the US that have the members to field elite teams. Think about what this year's Relay would have looked like with Elite categories. How many women's teams woule there have been? Up until 1990, NEOC used to win the women's Relay every year because they were essentially the only club that could get three women to run. Participation went *way* up when the "modern" relay format was adopted in 1991, and it became a much better event. And just because no other country does it this way doesn't mean that it's wrong. Our geography and participation are different from most other countries. There aren't many 10-leg relays either, but that doesn't mean that Tiomila is wrong.

As for whether fun is most important, from my point of view, fun is pretty much everything. If orienteering weren't fun, I wouldn't waste my time doing it. Maybe other people have different, more noble reasons.

Sergy, I think you've posed a false dichotomy. Relay terrain selection and course design are not about fairness, O skills *OR* fun. The goal is fairness, O skills *AND* fun.

I think fun is best viewed, not as an objective, but the residue of all other objectives combining. I think "fun" is the obvious, underlying goal, but best left unstated and out of course design discussion/guidelines. Frequently "fun" course design turns out to be at best "quirky", and often "stupid" or "aggravating" for the participants. It's a very subjective value, meaning different things to different people.

I don't want to get into relay terrain selection/ course design details right now, other than to say that there is somewhat of a formula, or set of principles, that combines all of the above objectives, just as there is for sprint, short/middle, classic, and long O. In addition there is the US Champs relay format which JJ refers to, which has evolved over the years, but I think has arrived at a consensus solution, very well suited to our country's circumstances. Perhaps it is overdue to be written down as firmer guidelines or requirements.

In a country with such a small "elite" (chuckle) orienteering population, the Relay Champs needs to cater to a large range of ages. An event designed with "elite" teams in mind (as I believe this one was) serves only a small segment of the population here. In this case, no leg was really suitable for the younger or less experienced runners that most teams will have.

This relates well to another question that has been in my mind lately--should the US "elite" (ie the Team) be more integrated with the wider orienteering community (ie USOF), or more segregated? To me, the former is clearly the correct answer, as I don't think that we're nearly good enough to justify the demands we already make!

I know that others feel differently. But to me, an assertion like the one Mihai has made (that US orienteers would improve if Open was the official category at the Relay Champs) is crazy. US orienteers will improve when more do the training (and have the physical capacity) that Brian May does--a 75 minute half marathon (5:46 average for 13.1 miles) is very impressive! Until then (until we can run like those who represent their country in a running sport should be able to!), I think that anything specially done for "elites" is much ado about very little.

Dan, if you would be able to get a fair opinion, in the wider orinteering community(international) ,you will probably ,find out that a lot more people involved seriously with orienteering, will say that having relays champs organized in cat. like we (US) do, is more crazy,than having Open Elite cat. at the National Champs.
The problem with the "elites" in US orienteering is that besides the Team trials,there is nothing else,set mandatory by the US Federation,that would make the elite orienteeers, be better prepared ,when they are selected in the National Team.

J.J.,Tiomila and Jukola are special events,not National Champs and is not about wrong or wright,is about beneficial or less beneficial for the US orienteering image and eventual performance on the international stage and most of the other national Federations make that, one of the top priorities on their agenda.

Of course you are correct that in other countries, relays are organized with the elites in mind. Those other countries' national teams also produce results that merit that treatment! But they aren't good because of the way relays are organized--they are good because they are excellent athletes who train hard.

We, on the other hand, are really not that special, as the results show. So I think that we shouldn't complain at all about how we are treated within the orienteering community (low financial support, etc.). Otherwise, we come off as expecting to be catered to, without having done much to deserve such special treatment. That only makes the situation worse.

When I moved to US, 11 years ago, I was verry surprised to see how the whole orienteering system was functioning without having much or none financial support, but in the same time I was disapointed, to see that was a major lack of interest as well,towards encouraging and supporting, the talented orienteers to constantly improve and stay commited to a long term plan, as it happens in most of the other national federations,since I was on a ascendent improvement, in my orienteering career and my plan was to continue that, here in US.
Unfortunatelly for me and maybe(probably) other US orienteers that was not possible and is still not today, as I have'nt seen any changes in the way the "elite" issue is dealt with, all this years.
To state the true, even if I know that some might,dissagree, officially,the US orienteering is genuine recreational,except for the orienteers who are commited on their own will and efforts to be or to become elite orienteers, so of course,probably the way the relay champs. are organized, won,t improve that to much,if any, but it would be a small step in the right direction and I am sure that it would be more beneficial, than otherwise.

And Dan, I am not following you with the : " That makes the situation worse." What situation and worse than what ?

Yes, I could have been more clear about that.

The "situation" is the position of elites (the Team) within the broader orienteering community (USOF), and how we are perceived within that community.

Of course this is far from the original question of relay organization, but because we were discussing that in terms of elite vs. recreational, it is a small example of what I am talking about. Elites here should show themselves to be worthy of special consideration, before expecting to receive it.

Before moving on, let's talk about what the Team is. It seems clear to me that the Team currently exists in order to select the best orienteers and to provide the fundraising and organization necessary to send those orienteers to the top international events. That's fine, but as an organization, the Team doesn't do much else.

In that framework, the broader community will have a relationship with us mainly when we ask them for money, and when they see our results. In that respect, our "return on investment" is not good and has been stagnant. There may also be organizational contact with leading members of the broader community (the USOF Board, or club leaders), but those contacts often seem to turn out badly.

So the perception of the Team within the community is often poor. But when we complain about that, we make that perception even worse than if we did not complain. The reason is that we are seen as having a very high opinion of ourselves (that we deserve the money and special treatment that we ask for), when the community has a low opinion of us. Therefore we appear both greedy and out of touch with reality.

How to change all this? I can think of a few ways:
--Contribute more to the broader community. Some already do a lot of this, while others don't. Even for those who already do, if that same work was re-cast as a Team effort, it could have additional goodwill benefits (especially if accompanied by additional work from other members).
--Don't complain about our poor position in the community. Instead, work to change that position.
--Improve international results. Note that this is certainly the most difficult of these steps, but it's the one that we put all of our effort into now.
--Create a plan for improvement of community involvement, and perhaps for improvement of results. Present that plan when asking for money. Now people will see that we are doing something to deserve the money (though then we must follow the plan!).

Though for any of this to happen, there needs to be both an agreement that the current situation should be changed, and the will to do something about it. While I know that those things exist among some, it may not be the consensus.

The "elite" US orienteer? It is quite the myth. Maybe you can find them somewhere in "Grimm's Fairy Tales", but where else? What US orienteer could make the first Tio-mila team of a Scandinavian club? Has it ever happened that a US runner has made a WOC final? Here's what international organizers worry about when they see an "elite" US runner on their start list: when to send out the search party! But, who knows. Maybe this year's batch of US WOC runners can do better, and even finish in the top 35 of the WOC Relay. Good luck, US Runners! Run fast, fly the nighttime!

OK Dan,I see now what you mean, and I can only agree and also strongly agree, that elite US orienteer is a myth and as Billy mentioned, maybe at this year edition of WOC someone(B.M.) might, prove something different.Other than that, I don't think, that would be any chance, of getting anyone to do something, in the general direction of working on how to help on something that would make some of the top US orienteers, elite orienteers, unless they are doing it for themselfs.
I have some ideas, for manny years lurking in my brains, but I was reluctant to make them public, because I have noticed that is more criticism than anything else when someone tries to prezent something that is hard to understand by the common orienteers, which form the vast majority here in US.(When I say common,I mean orienteers, that most likelly have no aspirations, of challanging the results, of the top orienteers in the world, at one point in their orienteering carier.)

Well, little bird, your friend bmay may well be approching those lofty heights. We may be onto something regarding defections from other countries as a means of improving US results. If it works in running (Khannouchi), why not here? Imagine a 2004 US WOC team of Ikonen, Valstad, Rostrup and Mamleev. Everyone wants to live in America, right?

Of course, we'll have to relax the residency requirement for your idea to work Dan. Generally, time spent in the US and Orienteering performance are negatively correlated.

Dan,I am only hoping, that the last assertion to this thread was on the light side(joke), otherwise the "little bird" expression it might become your nickname, since you are either incorrectly informed or you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, of course it was a joke. I'll explain it for you if you like. As for the bird reference, I think you can figure out who that refers to.

DanSH, how can you expect MIHAIV to get obscure references to Batman movies? Even, if, you had, and, I mean really, and most strongly I emphasize, mentioned the Penguin MAN DIRECTLY, it, might maybe have been. Just Gen'l Thoughts, so, not tooo much alarm at this moment pls.

In the unlikely event that I were to make a Batman reference, it certainly wouldn't be to an installment that tried to pass off Mr. Mom as an action hero. Not that Val Kilmer in a nippled suit was much of an improvement.

By the way "Billy" (whoever the heck you actually are), you are one unusual dude. Not that there's anything wrong with that! Now there's a real pop culture reference for you.

I want to thank everyone for the comments, suggestions, and the discussion. I am glad that the audience here is not inept toward the orienteering sport.


Sergey

PS.
Looks like time come for the Team to separate from the USOF and become self-sustained entity.

As first step toward this I propose for the Team to organize 2 weekend-long events or 1 week long Festival with the goal to accumulate enough money to support the team and elite athletes willing to invest major part of their life into the sport.

Let USOF regulate recreational part of the sport.

And what would be gained from this full separation? The Team is already a self-governing body, which is why there is an ESC. In my opinion, the amount of separation we already have may be a reason why we don't get much money from the USOP Board--why would the Board want to support a group after it has declared that the Board isn't competent to govern it? We want money without accountability, which is not likely to happen!

As for the Team putting on fundraising events (with courses for all levels, to get maximum attendance), I think that's a good idea. It can already be done! It's not as though the big, bad USOF is telling the Team that it can't do it! It's difficult given our physical separation (especially if we're already using our effort to put on our own Team Trials every year), but that's our problem, not someone else's.

Separation sounds fine to me. There is the hurdle that USOF would have to agree to it, because the national governing body (NGB) is the only one allowed to designate a team to international competitions, and USOF would have to relinquish this power to the Team, so that the Team would be the NGB in the eyes of the IOF (and maybe the US Olympic Committee). Of course, once this separation occurs, I expect it will be a pretty short time before the Team completely disintegrates. But that's just my guess.

So what would be gained from Dan's proposed plan ("Contribute more to the broader community")? Lots of extra work and little payoff. Most of us already contribute way more than the average club/USOF member, with no appreciation from the latter. (Strangely, the latter is sentimentally amused when their friends' kids head out to a JWOC / European trip to "check out the opposite sex").

We are just a bunch of people trying to do our best. We know what works (holding events) and what doesn't (asking USOF for money). Why don't we just do what works, send people to WOCs, log that training on AttackPoint, and 10 years from now maybe they won't have to send out those search parties anymore.