Discussion: Sprint Event at HVO A-Meet
in: Orienteering; General
May 7, 2004 6:23 AM
#
There will be a sprint event at the HVO A-Meet next weekend. The event will take place on Saturday afternoon following the races. Registration will be outside the event center, just past the finish, so you can run it as soon as you finish. The course will be between 1 and 2.5km. It will cost 5 dollars to enter, which can be paid at any time during the day so that you don't have to worry about having money at the finish. The event is a fundraiser for the US Junior team and the HVO Junior Fund. Please plan on taking part in the fun, and supporting your Juniors.
May 7, 2004 6:25 AM
#
By the way, I am open to suggestions as to the course length. It will be on a 1:5000 map of the area south of Sebago Beach. I don't know what the course lengths are for the A-Meet on Saturday, but I will check that out before finalizing the course. Do you guys think I should go on the longer or shorter side of the numbers above?
May 7, 2004 5:50 PM
#
It does not really matter what the A-Meet course lengths are. The winner time should be 12-15min so the course length should be in between of 2.2 and 3 km 10-15 controls (I’d really like to see a lot of controls on the course).
John, if you need any help I am on it.
John, if you need any help I am on it.
May 8, 2004 7:45 AM
#
For green runners (the biggest category at many A events), 2.5km is a sizable fraction of their A-meet course length. They might feel that a 2.5km course, after they just competed hard on an A-event coruse, is too hard, and bad for their recovery for Sunday.
While much of the AttackPoint crowd might like that length (esp. the M21's), 2.5km is probably too long if you want to get a lot of people and make it a good fundraiser.
I'd try to keep it shorter. Maybe 1.6km and call it a Mile...
- Wyatt
While much of the AttackPoint crowd might like that length (esp. the M21's), 2.5km is probably too long if you want to get a lot of people and make it a good fundraiser.
I'd try to keep it shorter. Maybe 1.6km and call it a Mile...
- Wyatt
May 8, 2004 6:47 PM
#
At WCOC A-Meet each leg of the fundraising relay was 2.3-2.5km and I have not heard any complains about it in contrary the people liked it very much.
If you make the course 1.6km long with reasonable climb and vegetation the winning time is going to be under 10min. The preparation is going to take more time than the race itself.
If you make the course 1.6km long with reasonable climb and vegetation the winning time is going to be under 10min. The preparation is going to take more time than the race itself.
May 9, 2004 5:58 AM
#
So what if the winning time is under 10 minutes? This event is for fun, not for World Ranking points. An 80% ranked Green runner would probably take 16 - 18 minutes for a 1.6km course versus 25 minutes for a 2.5km course. I'd be more likely to do 1.6km in the middle of an A-meet weekend than "sprint" for 25 minutes. Why not appeal to the larger demographic? The goal is fundraising after all.
May 9, 2004 8:04 AM
#
ken:
I think a mile is fine when targeting the blue/red/green crowd as a group, especially when they're running other races.
even 10 minutes can be made to seem like a very long time to keep your concentration/focus, if the course is done well. I guess it's a little like trying to pay attention to a movie on fast-forward (while on the treadmill...)
alexei says: The preparation is going to take more time than the race itself.
I don't think there's any inherent problem with that, after all, we really spend all week preparing for the weekend meets as it is. consider the ratio of warmup time to competition length in other running "sprints"... that's just the nature of short races. additionally, I think those who will spend the least time running are also the least likely to feel like they didn't get their money's worth of "map time". instead they will be thinking about where they lost those 2 seconds that cost them the lead.
I also thought the wcoc sprint relay was great, but I think it actually would have been even more exciting if the leg times were half as short, because teams were relatively spread out on the second/third legs.
even 10 minutes can be made to seem like a very long time to keep your concentration/focus, if the course is done well. I guess it's a little like trying to pay attention to a movie on fast-forward (while on the treadmill...)
alexei says: The preparation is going to take more time than the race itself.
I don't think there's any inherent problem with that, after all, we really spend all week preparing for the weekend meets as it is. consider the ratio of warmup time to competition length in other running "sprints"... that's just the nature of short races. additionally, I think those who will spend the least time running are also the least likely to feel like they didn't get their money's worth of "map time". instead they will be thinking about where they lost those 2 seconds that cost them the lead.
I also thought the wcoc sprint relay was great, but I think it actually would have been even more exciting if the leg times were half as short, because teams were relatively spread out on the second/third legs.
May 9, 2004 10:26 AM
#
Hey guys,
I am a newcomer here. I did not mean to abuse anybody. If everybody wants 1.6km course let it be so. This particular event is not a big deal whatever length it is going to be. What I would really like to see is that day when American orienteering get to the level of elite orienteering countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland.
Forget about this particular event for a second. Don’t you think that courses on American competitions are too short in each category? When Americans come to the international arena they usually are not ready to run the courses that long. Even sprints because a sprint needs more concentration (for a shorter time though) but the athletes (Americans) used to have this level of concentration for a shorter time because corresponding courses in America are shorter. My point is if we keep thinking like Ken said, “even 10 minutes can be made to seem like a very long time to keep your concentration” we never come over it and we never can compete with Europeans even if we get to the same technical and physical levels. What Ken saying usually means for people that 60 or even 55 min winning time is enough for Blue classic course and so on.
Let’s look at the problem from another side. Many people saying that competition level on American events is too low to get competitive national team. That’s true (I think). So if you keep courses longer you give the people additional stimulus to run faster to cover these courses in reasonable time. By the way this is what the Europeans doing. The courses in Europe are not getting shorter but the people runs faster. Look at the tiomila relay this year. The legs like 10-12km were normal there (at night). The longest night leg was 16.4km and the winning time was 111min (6.8min/km).
Ok, one more example. This year NA champ will be switched to 2 classics formula (not sprint + classic like it was before). Why? Because the people don’t want to go the long way to run a short course. Once they got there they want to get real challenge.
And finally a word about the statement that green runners is “the biggest category at many A-events”. I personally always think that the middle level orienteers should strive after the elite orienteers but not vice versa.
These all I got to say. Don’t take it as arguments regarding this particular fundraising event. Just think about it if you get spare time. And remember only those people who challenge themselves everyday can achieve perfection.
Thank you for reading this so long.
Sincerely,
Alexei
P.S. I did not want to answer for that but I did not like it so much that I could not resist.
Glen said: The goal is fundraising after all.
So might be we don’t need the event at all but just ask the people who come to the A-Meet to donate $5 for the US Junior Team. I am sure that 80% (if not the 100%) will be happy to make the donation. And no troubles like running in the woods for 25-30min (this so difficult, I’d better go to watch a basketball game).
Seriously, if I am doing something I always try to do my best no matter how insignificant the event is. A fundraising event (and this in particular) should not be worse than any other orienteering course.
I am a newcomer here. I did not mean to abuse anybody. If everybody wants 1.6km course let it be so. This particular event is not a big deal whatever length it is going to be. What I would really like to see is that day when American orienteering get to the level of elite orienteering countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland.
Forget about this particular event for a second. Don’t you think that courses on American competitions are too short in each category? When Americans come to the international arena they usually are not ready to run the courses that long. Even sprints because a sprint needs more concentration (for a shorter time though) but the athletes (Americans) used to have this level of concentration for a shorter time because corresponding courses in America are shorter. My point is if we keep thinking like Ken said, “even 10 minutes can be made to seem like a very long time to keep your concentration” we never come over it and we never can compete with Europeans even if we get to the same technical and physical levels. What Ken saying usually means for people that 60 or even 55 min winning time is enough for Blue classic course and so on.
Let’s look at the problem from another side. Many people saying that competition level on American events is too low to get competitive national team. That’s true (I think). So if you keep courses longer you give the people additional stimulus to run faster to cover these courses in reasonable time. By the way this is what the Europeans doing. The courses in Europe are not getting shorter but the people runs faster. Look at the tiomila relay this year. The legs like 10-12km were normal there (at night). The longest night leg was 16.4km and the winning time was 111min (6.8min/km).
Ok, one more example. This year NA champ will be switched to 2 classics formula (not sprint + classic like it was before). Why? Because the people don’t want to go the long way to run a short course. Once they got there they want to get real challenge.
And finally a word about the statement that green runners is “the biggest category at many A-events”. I personally always think that the middle level orienteers should strive after the elite orienteers but not vice versa.
These all I got to say. Don’t take it as arguments regarding this particular fundraising event. Just think about it if you get spare time. And remember only those people who challenge themselves everyday can achieve perfection.
Thank you for reading this so long.
Sincerely,
Alexei
P.S. I did not want to answer for that but I did not like it so much that I could not resist.
Glen said: The goal is fundraising after all.
So might be we don’t need the event at all but just ask the people who come to the A-Meet to donate $5 for the US Junior Team. I am sure that 80% (if not the 100%) will be happy to make the donation. And no troubles like running in the woods for 25-30min (this so difficult, I’d better go to watch a basketball game).
Seriously, if I am doing something I always try to do my best no matter how insignificant the event is. A fundraising event (and this in particular) should not be worse than any other orienteering course.
May 10, 2004 1:22 AM
#
ken:
I'd like to highlight two distinct ideas here:
1. short and long are different events, and are intensified in different ways.
2. travel time vs race length is less of an issue for elite than for other orienteers.
I am very much in favor of the short & long (notice I don't say short+long...) format for weekend events over "usof classic"+"usof classic". I agree with you that M/F 21s should be running longer long courses, because physical/mental endurance are the main challenges in the iof classic. making our classic courses longer is a good way to push ourselves to a higher level.
this does not apply to short courses, where the main challenge is to be physically/navigationally quick. I didn't mean to imply that 10 or 15 minutes is too long to stay concentrated (especially in comparison to a 100 minute course), that's not the point. the point is that making the orienteering faster is where the challenge of sprint-o comes from. let's assume we're talking about races as valuable training for international competition. in addition to running faster, the top runners can orienteer more cleanly at top speed. I would argue that the quality of the "training" is higher at faster speeds, and that 10 minutes of all-out orienteering is not less beneficial than 15-25 mins. yes, a 25 minute course with lots of controls gives excellent practice finding controls at 25-minute race pace. but in order to challenge yourself (and achieve perfection, etc) you will need to occasionally practice finding controls at an even higher pace. in theory, this will make navigation during short-o seem easy.
I'm also trying to suggest an analogy with the training of long runs and interval/speedwork. as your fitness improves over time, you can do progressively longer long runs and faster intervals. the speed of your long runs may increase, but you will not necessarily run longer intervals. in fact, shorter intervals can still provide their own benefits. (yes, having read the whole thing a few times, I'm a fan of Daniels' Running Formula)
my second point is less important/applicable, I have often heard people (usually non-elite) say that they don't want to travel a long way for a short race. this is because they may not be ultra competetive, and the enjoyment for them comes from running/navigating in the forest. that's fine, and understandable. I wouldn't expect anyone (except maybe boris :-) to fly in for an event of the boston park-o series. at the highest level, the point is not to travel for the orienteering, but for the competition. PWT runners travel around europe for a chance to run for 12-15 minutes, and maybe win against the best in the world. olympic athletes will fly around the world to race one lap (or less) in athens this summer. you get the idea.
in the context of this event, it doesn't really matter, because that's not why people are coming, it's just something fun/exciting for them to do after they're already there.
1. short and long are different events, and are intensified in different ways.
2. travel time vs race length is less of an issue for elite than for other orienteers.
I am very much in favor of the short & long (notice I don't say short+long...) format for weekend events over "usof classic"+"usof classic". I agree with you that M/F 21s should be running longer long courses, because physical/mental endurance are the main challenges in the iof classic. making our classic courses longer is a good way to push ourselves to a higher level.
this does not apply to short courses, where the main challenge is to be physically/navigationally quick. I didn't mean to imply that 10 or 15 minutes is too long to stay concentrated (especially in comparison to a 100 minute course), that's not the point. the point is that making the orienteering faster is where the challenge of sprint-o comes from. let's assume we're talking about races as valuable training for international competition. in addition to running faster, the top runners can orienteer more cleanly at top speed. I would argue that the quality of the "training" is higher at faster speeds, and that 10 minutes of all-out orienteering is not less beneficial than 15-25 mins. yes, a 25 minute course with lots of controls gives excellent practice finding controls at 25-minute race pace. but in order to challenge yourself (and achieve perfection, etc) you will need to occasionally practice finding controls at an even higher pace. in theory, this will make navigation during short-o seem easy.
I'm also trying to suggest an analogy with the training of long runs and interval/speedwork. as your fitness improves over time, you can do progressively longer long runs and faster intervals. the speed of your long runs may increase, but you will not necessarily run longer intervals. in fact, shorter intervals can still provide their own benefits. (yes, having read the whole thing a few times, I'm a fan of Daniels' Running Formula)
my second point is less important/applicable, I have often heard people (usually non-elite) say that they don't want to travel a long way for a short race. this is because they may not be ultra competetive, and the enjoyment for them comes from running/navigating in the forest. that's fine, and understandable. I wouldn't expect anyone (except maybe boris :-) to fly in for an event of the boston park-o series. at the highest level, the point is not to travel for the orienteering, but for the competition. PWT runners travel around europe for a chance to run for 12-15 minutes, and maybe win against the best in the world. olympic athletes will fly around the world to race one lap (or less) in athens this summer. you get the idea.
in the context of this event, it doesn't really matter, because that's not why people are coming, it's just something fun/exciting for them to do after they're already there.
May 10, 2004 5:44 AM
#
Ken,
You did not get my point. I think it was stated unclear plus my bad language :)
Let me explain what I wanted to say.
There are 3 disciplines in WOC program (except relay) that are Long Distance (classic), Middle Distance (which I called sprint everywhere) and Sprint (which I called short course).
Now, IOF rules says: The courses shall be set to give the following winning times in minutes:
90-100 (men) 70-80 (women) Long Distance
30-35 (for both men and women) Middle Distance
12-15 (for both men and women) Sprint
I took the times for finals. For qualification races the times are shorter for Long and Middle distances.
What I wanted to say that in US the Classic (Long) is definitely shorter than Long and longer than Middle suggested by IOF. The same with Middle, it is shorter than Middle and longer than Sprint suggested by IOF. Now you suggesting to have Sprint with winning time below 10min which is shorter than IOF Sprint.
Let’s consider an US orienteer who running WOC middle Distance. What course is he going to run and supposed to be prepared for? For him it is not Middle because in US the Middle is shorter and he simply does not have enough power he does not use to run on that speed so long. Also he cannot use his experience (feelings) for classic because it is going to be too slow. What is he supposed to do? How could he prepare for the course right? The same story with Long (classic) and Sprint.
I am also a fan of Daniels' Running Formula. So I also suggest an analogy here. In his “Running Pyramid” there are shaded areas, which he calls “no man’s land”. If you are training with intensity, which falls in “no man’s land” area “what you are doing might be termed “quality-junk” training. So, from my view, when you suggesting the Sprint below 10min you are going to have the “quality-junk” training.
So I do believe that all courses we run on US events should be as close as possible to the IOF standards. If it cost nothing why do we do it differently? Is it just striving for originality?
From other side I understand your concern regarding increasing the speed. You can encourage the increasing the speed by many different ways. You can choose flat area (for sprint it is not a problem), you can choose an area where the vegetation is white, you can choose an area with hard surface or use easier control locations and so on. For trainings you can use an orienteering intervals – small loops with rest in between. There are many tricks like that…
Alexei
You did not get my point. I think it was stated unclear plus my bad language :)
Let me explain what I wanted to say.
There are 3 disciplines in WOC program (except relay) that are Long Distance (classic), Middle Distance (which I called sprint everywhere) and Sprint (which I called short course).
Now, IOF rules says: The courses shall be set to give the following winning times in minutes:
90-100 (men) 70-80 (women) Long Distance
30-35 (for both men and women) Middle Distance
12-15 (for both men and women) Sprint
I took the times for finals. For qualification races the times are shorter for Long and Middle distances.
What I wanted to say that in US the Classic (Long) is definitely shorter than Long and longer than Middle suggested by IOF. The same with Middle, it is shorter than Middle and longer than Sprint suggested by IOF. Now you suggesting to have Sprint with winning time below 10min which is shorter than IOF Sprint.
Let’s consider an US orienteer who running WOC middle Distance. What course is he going to run and supposed to be prepared for? For him it is not Middle because in US the Middle is shorter and he simply does not have enough power he does not use to run on that speed so long. Also he cannot use his experience (feelings) for classic because it is going to be too slow. What is he supposed to do? How could he prepare for the course right? The same story with Long (classic) and Sprint.
I am also a fan of Daniels' Running Formula. So I also suggest an analogy here. In his “Running Pyramid” there are shaded areas, which he calls “no man’s land”. If you are training with intensity, which falls in “no man’s land” area “what you are doing might be termed “quality-junk” training. So, from my view, when you suggesting the Sprint below 10min you are going to have the “quality-junk” training.
So I do believe that all courses we run on US events should be as close as possible to the IOF standards. If it cost nothing why do we do it differently? Is it just striving for originality?
From other side I understand your concern regarding increasing the speed. You can encourage the increasing the speed by many different ways. You can choose flat area (for sprint it is not a problem), you can choose an area where the vegetation is white, you can choose an area with hard surface or use easier control locations and so on. For trainings you can use an orienteering intervals – small loops with rest in between. There are many tricks like that…
Alexei
May 10, 2004 3:13 PM
#
ken:
for the most part, I agree with your comments about course length and specificity. I'm not suggesting that we create a USOF Sprint champs with a winning time of 8 minutes, just that in consideration of the overall goals of team sprint fundraisers, it's not so bad to have the course be slightly shorter, if that increases participation significantly. yes, that may not be ideal for the top runners in terms of world champs preparation, but they will still get some training benefit, and they're getting more money to make up for it (well, in this case it's the jr team that gets it)
I think the most important thing (for fundraisers) is to maximize participation from the non-elites. This will increase revenue and improve team relations with the public. the point is not for the teams to collect money from themselves...we already do that!
on the other hand, I don't think the same should be applied to sanctioned/serious sprint events, if we ever start having them...in those cases the 21s would have our own iof-standard course.
I think the most important thing (for fundraisers) is to maximize participation from the non-elites. This will increase revenue and improve team relations with the public. the point is not for the teams to collect money from themselves...we already do that!
on the other hand, I don't think the same should be applied to sanctioned/serious sprint events, if we ever start having them...in those cases the 21s would have our own iof-standard course.
May 10, 2004 6:34 PM
#
Why not have designed sprint courses of 2 length for this fundrasing event? One slated for 10 minutes and another for 15 minutes. If you don't plan pre-printed maps for this fund raising event - that may be the way to go to satisfy all.
On the side, general USOF membership IS NOT interested in competitive sprint (per IOF) courses. Being recerational runners/walkers most of the people in USOF interested more in 1 hour or so exersize in the woods that would challenge them mentally and physically.
Competitive sprint (per IOF) races should be organized for elite classes only (or should I say open classes) as they would attract those 200 or so crazy ones who run M21 and F21 each year.
I totally agree on the comments above in respect to so called "classic USOF" courses. In my opinion elite classes should demand more from organizers to have true middle & long (per IOF) courses. All other USOF classes may have "USOF classic". It is not acceptable that US elites coming to international competitions are not prepared to run elite courses.
And it should give more motivation for elite athletes to train harder :)
On the side, general USOF membership IS NOT interested in competitive sprint (per IOF) courses. Being recerational runners/walkers most of the people in USOF interested more in 1 hour or so exersize in the woods that would challenge them mentally and physically.
Competitive sprint (per IOF) races should be organized for elite classes only (or should I say open classes) as they would attract those 200 or so crazy ones who run M21 and F21 each year.
I totally agree on the comments above in respect to so called "classic USOF" courses. In my opinion elite classes should demand more from organizers to have true middle & long (per IOF) courses. All other USOF classes may have "USOF classic". It is not acceptable that US elites coming to international competitions are not prepared to run elite courses.
And it should give more motivation for elite athletes to train harder :)
May 10, 2004 7:53 PM
#
Speaking about USA vs European courses, here is one of the recent courses in Hungary
http://www.tajfutas.hu/wre2004/results/route_m.jpg
I am not sure how many USA elites would be able even to finish this course (13.6K, 700 m). By the way, very well planned course as routes of winners show!
Only courses at the last USA Champs at Lake Tahoe approached on the physical side (we will leave mapping questions aside) what is should be offered at Blue level. Very often we forget about testing endurance, speed, and orienteering techniques in favor of fun during competitions :(
http://www.tajfutas.hu/wre2004/results/route_m.jpg
I am not sure how many USA elites would be able even to finish this course (13.6K, 700 m). By the way, very well planned course as routes of winners show!
Only courses at the last USA Champs at Lake Tahoe approached on the physical side (we will leave mapping questions aside) what is should be offered at Blue level. Very often we forget about testing endurance, speed, and orienteering techniques in favor of fun during competitions :(
May 11, 2004 5:59 AM
#
John,
I think, it is crystal clear from this discussion, that you should go for a 2.21 km course with 9 controls :) First of all, this is a fundraiser for the US Junior team and the HVO Junior Fund. I wouldn't care about "map time" for my money if the money will go in the right direction. And I would care even less about compliance with IOF rules for a non-official sprint event...
I think, it is crystal clear from this discussion, that you should go for a 2.21 km course with 9 controls :) First of all, this is a fundraiser for the US Junior team and the HVO Junior Fund. I wouldn't care about "map time" for my money if the money will go in the right direction. And I would care even less about compliance with IOF rules for a non-official sprint event...
May 11, 2004 6:32 AM
#
Thanks Sergey. It was great course you referenced here and very good example of how courses should be designed, I think.
May 13, 2004 3:15 PM
#
A possible solution....
10 years ago I started a winter series in Ontario called THOMASS. The idea was to have events that the elite and age-groupers could race together. Little work, lots of fun! The course is common but there is a box with 6 checkpoints in it in the middle of the course. Based on your age-group (handicap) you can skip 0 to 5 of these checkpoints, thereby shortening the length of your course.
So it IS possible to have a simple sprint fundraiser that also allows mass participation. Say you set a 2.5km sprint race for a 12-15 winning time with say 18 checkpoints. Make 6 of those checkpoints in the middle of the course a box. Can be taken in any order (or skipped depending on handicap). Ideally this area should be in some technical terrain. Then adopt a handicap system (blue, get 'em all, red any 4, green any 2, others none). If designed properly then the top blue, green and red course runner will all run in 12-15 minutes. So the size of the box matters. You want to make it so a green runner does 1.6, red, 2.1, and blue 2.5'ish.
Good luck John.
10 years ago I started a winter series in Ontario called THOMASS. The idea was to have events that the elite and age-groupers could race together. Little work, lots of fun! The course is common but there is a box with 6 checkpoints in it in the middle of the course. Based on your age-group (handicap) you can skip 0 to 5 of these checkpoints, thereby shortening the length of your course.
So it IS possible to have a simple sprint fundraiser that also allows mass participation. Say you set a 2.5km sprint race for a 12-15 winning time with say 18 checkpoints. Make 6 of those checkpoints in the middle of the course a box. Can be taken in any order (or skipped depending on handicap). Ideally this area should be in some technical terrain. Then adopt a handicap system (blue, get 'em all, red any 4, green any 2, others none). If designed properly then the top blue, green and red course runner will all run in 12-15 minutes. So the size of the box matters. You want to make it so a green runner does 1.6, red, 2.1, and blue 2.5'ish.
Good luck John.
This discussion thread is closed.