Discussion: Age group sizes

In my relatively short time O'ing, I've seen occasional calls for changing the age groupings and the last couple A meets I've been to have been consistently spotty in filling out classes. The main issue seems to be the variability across classes, not the size of classes in general. As a newcomer, I would expect the participation to drop off with age, but at least in the mens' classes it usually is the opposite (M>50 classes are bigger than M45, etc.) Depending on the boundaries, it seems like 10yr categories would be just as 'lumpy'. Do you have a more specific idea on how to do it?

I think that adopting the Canadian model might make sense:
http://www.orienteering.ca/pdfs/Course_Category_gu...

Nah I think we need to keep it the way it is right now! The small age groups for up to 21 i think helps us get juniors in since it is easier for them to win something. and really there is a huge age difference even in 2 years when you are young. I think the same goes for the 5 years when you are older. If we lump it together anymore i'm not sure it would be totally fair.

The Canadian model is similar to the US for juniors except they combine 17-20 into one rather than two.

There may be a certain logic to that when you consider that collegiate athletes can compete against peers who are 3-4 years older.

There is no perfect solution to this. I agree that a 69 year old is going to be disadvantaged relative to a 60 year old. On the other hand, it doesn't make much sense to me to award championship medals in older age classes simply for finishing the course.

Certainly makes sense to have small divisions for juniors, but not so much for the older classes. Plenty of road races have 10 year age groups, sometimes with 50-100 competitors in each age group. And that's a sport where 9 years can really make difference. I think the difference in orienteering is much smaller.

Proposals to change the groupings almost always leave the junior classes the way they are. Large groupings for older people has always made sense to me. However, proposals of this sort always seem to be doomed for several reasons, and I have lost interest in lobbying for them

I think the key argument should be shorter awards ceremonies!

the US champs award ceremony was 15 mins!

Yeah, and half of the banqueters were on stage by the end of it. ;-)

Close!

Are there 31 US Champs classes? -> 93 medals?

I count 196 Champs eligible competitors.

(This is really fast, really back of the envelope.)

Many of the medals don't get awarded at a small event. I think (without peeking again) that only one of the 12 potential medals on the White course had a recipient, for example.

Following this string of comments, the logic is that we should replace the senior age categories from a 5 year to a 10 year age difference just so we can have a shorter award ceremony!!! This is absurd.

The real issue here is getting more people into the sport across all age groups. Even in the "wee country" of Scotland with a population of 5 million, they have the full compliment of age categories.

I have to agree with jcampbell on this one...
My original observation was that the number of competitors in various age groups varied a lot and in (to an outsider) unexpected ways. Who would think that in such a physically demanding sport there would be about as many finishers over 50 as under (e.g., Men, day 1: 64 in 11 classes under M50+ vs 59 in 6 classes M50+ and older)? If the point of a 'championship' (and class awards and medals) is to recognize 'exceptional' performances, then the classes should be reasonably sized to make 'exceptional' meaningful, and even better the classes should be relatively equal in size so as to provide provide a 'fair' opportunity for recognition independent of age. Of course, there are going to be differences of opinion over what is 'fair' and 'exceptional', but the issue would fade away if all the classes were just larger across the board. Reducing the number of classes and/or medals doesn't seem like a good long term solution because, if anything, it would possibly promote a vicious cycle of reduced participation and pressure to reduce classes/medals even further.

It's not about shorter award ceremonies. It's about feeling like you've earned your friggin' medal.

I know - let's go with 1 year age groups!

Thanks Cristina. That's all I was trying to say. Yes, I won F50+ but it doesn't seem quite as deserved since I would not have won F55+ or F60+. The women who won those categories could have legally chosen to run F50+ and then I would have been third. So it's a bit of a strange feeling.

I think rogaining has it right. If a super vet team has the best score overall, they win the overall category, the vet category and the supervet category - every category for which they would have been eligible.

I'm not really suggesting orienteering move to that model, but until we have a good size field in every age category and the younger classes on the same course are routinely beating the older age classes running the same course, we do get these outcomes that are a little unsatisfying.

I agree with Fred and John that having more competitors would solve this problem. And it is absurd to propose consolidation solely to shorten the award ceremony. However, in my opinion, it is also absurd to award US Championship medals to everyone in a class, or to have half the entrants "earn" a medal of some sort just for finishing.

I'm certainly glad that I haven't been lumped into the same categories as those older women who routinely kick my butt on Green courses (ahem, one of them own's this blog), but that's because I'm highly motivated by small shiny metal objects. I see the other point too as to making the medal mean something more than "there were only 3 people in F35 that day," Would it be possible to somehow recognize elite competitors while also gratifying us underlings that would otherwise never see an award lest it be for an expanded age category?

Dudes, the awards ceremony comment was not serious. I think our southern hemisphere friends are right when they say that we Americans take ourselves too seriously. Seriously, WTF?

Obviously there are different feelings on this. Sure, more people is better. I'd rather finish 20th out of 40 than 2 out of 4. I'm tired of being asked, "how'd you do this weekend?" followed immediately by, "wow, how many people were you racing against?" and then, "Oh." Until we actually get more people at meets, why not consolidate the classes? It's hardly unprecedented in other endurance races.

Don't worry Christinah. I'm completely on your wavelength on this one.

Personally, first I would like to see an a-meet rule like the rankings rule - on a given course, you can only enter the class closest to your age. So, a 45 cannot enter M35. But, then this would also reopen the topic about eliminating m35 all together. :)

Oooh, we could have all kinds of controversial conversations in Sandy's log! ;-)

The sad part here is that after M21, M50 and M55 are the two most competitive classes. That says a lot about our need to attract more people into the sport, especially younger folks.
In regard to getting a lot of people to travel to national meets, it costs a lot of $$. Between travel, entry fees, hotels, car rental etc, the US Champs w/e for Alison Heather & I, it cost close to $1500! I can't afford to do that too often. The real loss here is that out of all the A-meets this year, this was definitely the best terrain, so it was a shame so few orienteers made it.

Two thoughts...

1) Establish minimum class sizes for 2nd and 3rd place awards. If the classes aren't big enough, don't award three deep. For example, USOF might establish a minimum of 5 competitors in an age group to award 2nd place.

2) Allow the same person to win multiple age groups, so when, for example, Sergey wins the red course as an M45+, he also is awarded first for M35+ and M40+. You wouldn't actually have to give him three gold medals, but perhaps one for the widest spread of ages, in this case M35+. It should be straightforward to automate these calculations. This would also get rid of the problem of people running down to place higher (e.g. a less competitive M45+ running and placing in M35+).

Your #2 is what is done in rogaines. A quick check shows that none of the course winners on red, greenY, greenX or brown were in the youngest age category on that course.