Discussion: US Ultralong Championship brown course

Many of you know that OCIN will be hosting the US Ultralong Championship (and also simultaneous classic distance courses) on Saturday, April 2 as part of the Flying Pig.

What you may not know is that USOF competition rules were recently updated, and Ultralong for brown has been shortened to have a maximum winning time of 60 minutes of less. This is only slightly longer than the 45-50 minute winning time for a classic brown.

So, if you are a BROWN level orienteer, we'd like your opinion. How long (in terms of expected winning time) should an ultralong course be? Do you want a course that is only slightly longer than a regular "classic" or "long"? Will you do Ultralong or would you choose a classic distance instead of the UL Championship?

I personally, as long as I'm not injured, would prefer a longer ("ultralong", ~75 min winning time?) course on brown. Otherwise, why call it ultralong. (My opinion is that the rules changes pretty much ignored classes other than red and blue.)

Another option is to offer two brown courses, though that's a bit more work.

..rules changes pretty much ignored classes other than red and blue...

That's a shame, considering that 2011 is the year that Baby Boomer men begin to enter Brown courses in competition.

Sitting here at home, I tend to agree with JanetT. However I know that many of us older guys just don't have the agility and endurance anymore. Don't know where it went. And altho the few guys who win Brown still run quite fast, many of the rest of us are MUCH slower...poor genes? So the concept of designing Brown courses based only on winning times begins to break down: a one-hour winning time might well mean most of the pack require close to two hours to finish the course.

I'd opt to conform to the guidelines, altho I haven't yet decided if I will attend the Pig this year. I'll have to see how my training goes in March.

Mike wrote: Will you do Ultralong or would you choose a classic distance instead of the UL Championship?

The intent is to offer both an Ultralong and a classic length, so the issue isn't exactly "Will the UL be too long for some people," because it will be. The question is more like, "What's the proper length for competitive brown runners at the Ultralong Championships (knowing that there is a classic brown available as well)?"

I'm not yet on Brown, but I agree with Janet. The Brown ultralong should be substantially longer than the classic distance, otherwise ultralong is a misnomer. As long as a classic length is offered as an alternative for those who don't want, for whatever reason, to do the ultralong distance, I don't see a problem with keeping the ultralong truly "ultralong".

Well so far, I'm the only one posting here who's over 65. And I consistently compete on Brown, rather than Green...when I show up. Which hasn't been too often lately, because of injury.

I believe that Brown courses should emphasize technical challenge, rather than physical ability...a contrast to the "younger" courses, where yes, endurance, speed and agility are tested on the "long" courses. The Brown course is a refuge for us. The last thing we need are well-meaning youngsters trying to improve our "experience" by adding more distance to courses that were meant to be short and tough.

A Brown course winning time of 60 minutes or less? Doesn't a lot depend on whether or not PG is running his age class (M65+) or running up?
It seems to me that if he is not there to win the class the course has to be a 1 km shorter if Bob Lux is there, more for the rest of us.

60 minute win time! Ultra long! There is something oxymoronic with that. Win time should be 80-90' for ultra or don't bother. But there are too many spurious champs already.

Whatever, times/distances should be well noted in the meet info so plans can be made accordingly.

'Winning time' is a misnomer: it's supposed to be the time the notional 100 point ranking runner would run. If PG has a ranking > 100 (at year end his ranking was 105.41) then he's supposed to run the course in (notional winning time)*100/ranking = (in this case) 60 min * 100/105.41 = just under 57 minutes. If PG doesn't show, then the winner is actually supposed to run a time longer than the 'winning time.'

I'm with those that would want the winning time for Brown (given feet's interpretation) to be at least 75 or 80 min. If someone is not up to the physical challenge of a long Brown, they can do a shorter course.

It is also an option to draw a line between the age categories and assign some to the longer course and some to the shorter course.

When OCIN did the Ultralong in 2008, we had:

Brown A 4.2 km 125 m 9 C F75
Brown B 6.3 km 195 m 9 C F18 F55 F60 F65 M65

...as well as a bunch of "Opens" for each course.

Yes, and that 6.3 km course in roughly similar terrain had a winning time of 81 minutes (Sharon Crawford). So to meet the new rule, our longer brown would have to be around 4.5 to 4.6 km.

As in 2008, the oldest categories can always have a shorter version, as there is a huge spread of abilities on the brown.

Folks should read feet's comment, and then read it again, and then read it a couple more times, because that's how winning time needs to be understood, and it doesn't matter whether I (or anyone else) show up.

It does seem rather silly to call something that might take an hour "ultralong," when all it really is is a classic plus a sprint, or two middles, or....

The main problem is the wide range of ability between the best in the various classes on the Brown course. No way to get it right for all of them. My own feeling has always been, the previous paragraph notwithstanding, that the course should be set for the folks in the middle or upper middle of the range. Maybe it's not quite the challenge it could be for the better ones, but it's also not the survival test for the slower ones.

I think this question is being asked because OCIN feels the need to have a longer than normal "Ultralong" Brown course for the championships, but also believes a short, advanced "regular Brown" course is necessary as well.

Certainly many or most of us have dropped to Brown at an A-Meet because of an injury or some other reason. I've seen people finish Brown on crutches. We feel pretty strongly that having a normal-length Brown course is necessary. But we also see the need for a championship Ultralong Brown course for the appropriate age categories.

If you like feet's explanation---Using his terms---What is the appropriate "notional winning time" for a 100-point runner on an Ultralong Brown Course?

When we went from (USA) "Long-O" to UltraLong, I seem to remember the "winning time" being defined as Classic + 50%. Is that correct?

The old rule was classic plus 50%. The rules were completely rewritten, and most of the same meanings were kept,but in the process of cleaning up / clarifying, a few things got changed (as we are now discovering).

PG, I think most of those who are posting on this thread are pretty clear on feet's meaning of EWT. So let me add for clarification, in my earlier post, I ASSUMED that Sharon Crawford is approximately a 100 point ranked runner on brown. Sorry if I wasn't verbose enough to be explicitly clear. If she's only a 75, then the 6.3 course was about right.

I'm getting some pretty strong feedback (lots of email on this as well), mostly from M65+ and M70+, and F55+ to F 65+ suggesting that a longer EWT is desired. As we did a few years ago, we will probably put the 75+ and 80+ etc on the shorter version of brown. As I recall, we looked at entrys as the event got close, had only a few 75+s, and specifically asked them which course they preferred, then gave them what they wanted (the shorter version). We'll plan to do the same this year, so if the EWT gets raised to 75, they won't have to do as long a course as PG (ranked 105) should do in around 71.

As I run Red, I realize any comments I make here may sound like parenting advice from childless couples. However, as a member of the ultrarunning community, I can assure you that there is absolutely no reason a 75-year-old, male or female, can't run for a couple hours in the terrain. Actually, you can put a zero behind that and you're still not coming anywhere close to the limit. The fact that many can't isn't the issue - they don't have to enter. If the point of ultralong is to test endurance, then make it a legitamate test.

That said, this is a championship. Messing with the rules in championship events is generally not advisable, even if the rules are misguided. If I was directing this championship (and I probably will be in 2013), I would stick with the guidelines, but also push for a rules change for the future.

I'm at least in an age group that has me nominally on the brown course. Sadly, I'm in the slower half of my age group, so winning times don't have a lot of relevance. But on the plus side, that means I can go out and pick my course to be of a length that I consider to be enjoyable given the time limits for the day. So if I make it to the Flying Pig, I will probably be "running" the ultralong red course and hoping to get in under the 5-hour time limit. It would seem to me that other brown runners that are fast enough to want to seriously compete in their age group, but still consider endurance to be their best asset, deserve an opportunity to run in a race with a target "win" time more like 80 or 90 minutes in the one ultralong race of the year. This is in the context that a shorter brown course is available at the same race that offers a technical challenge for those that physically can't handle the longer distance (as has been done in the past, and as OCIN appears to intend this year).

Mike, can you, or anybody else, reference this rules change?

(edit) OK, I found the source. Let me revise the question.
Are you sure that this is not a mistake? Where did this come from? I thought I was involved with the process, and this is a complete mystery to me. Are you sure this is not some old misplaced artifact?

The rule is as Mike cites it in Section M of the rules currently at http://orienteeringusa.org/rules (scroll down to the end of the section: it's the last of the three subsections all labeled 3 within section M). It mimics an identical guidance for B meet ultralong races in the section on B meets (not that anyone ever holds a sanctioned B meet).

As to whether it should be like that, Stephen Shannonhouse is the person to ask.

But EricW may be the right person to get to the bottom of this.

three subsections all labeled 3 within section M

You gotta love the USOF (sorry, Orienteering USA) Rules...

I'll try to shed some light and be diplomatic.
I believe I am a member of the Rules Committee.
Agreed, the rules document is a work in progress.

The latest language, that I am aware of, that pertains to the Ultra Long winning time is the following:
"WINNING TIME*:M21/ 140-180, F21/ 120-150. For other advanced classes, courses should be proportionally longer than standard Long courses."
"*estimated or target winning time for US 100 point M/F21 runner, other classes proportional. For all formats it is desirable to design the best course possible within the range, rather than striving for the exact middle of the time range."

This language was copied from my own file, but I believe it officially adopted without changes, and incorporated somewhere in the rules document. Don't ask me where.

To my knowledge, no more specific guidelines have been written or adopted recently. I have started to prepare more specifics, but they have not even been circulated for comment.

Speaking for myself, not USOF, OUSA, or the Rules Committee, I'll stick my neck out and give my draft stage parameters for the Ulta Long Brown course. If Mike or anyone else wants a guideline, this is my suggestion:

Winning time- 80-95 minutes
Length- 5.5 to 8.0 kilometers (depending on terrain)
Length ratio* (relative to Blue length)- .32

*This length ratio is intended to help achieve the target time, at least a time proportional to the Blue course, for which there is generally better statistical awareness. If the Blue course is 20km, the Brown course should be 6.4 km in similar terrain to achieve the target time.

These parameters are intended to be in line with the definitional language, and somewhat in line with current thinking and practices, which are understandably difficult to generalize about.

EricW, I agree that the 60 minute cap for brown EWT and 75 minute cap for green EWT probably got put into the new rules as some sort of oversight or mistake. To make a longer time official, I had planned to ask the board to approve increasing those numbers to 75 for brown and 90 for green. But I'm actually seeing a fair number of people (including your .32 figure) pushing for even a bit higher.

I think, especially seeing your response, that the 60 and 75 were never intended to go in the rules, but probably got put in there as an attempt to quantify by EWT, perhaps with some thought that there is more variance in physical ability on green and brown than on other courses, and that perhaps "older" people shouldn't be out so long.

I think there is every possibility that this can be quickly adjusted / corrected for this year's event. On that note, I disagree with EBuckley - this rule is new, it has been below most people's radar (As Event Director and Course Setter, I didn't even know about it until I started putting together the event info pages for the event website & working course designs into colors, and I'm sure very few other orienteers & ultralong fans had actually looked at these current rules, which I emphasize are very different from the status quo that has been the standard for many years, up through the most recent US Ultralong Champs.) It does not seem reasonable to me to let a "mistake" in rewriting the rules throw one current year's event way out of sync with history past and (probably) future.

Do the rules actually have to be officially changed/clarified before the meet, or is this something the sanctioning committee can endorse? Or isn't it even okay just to make the "deviation" from the rules really clear on the meet website?

Any of the above would probably work, but would leave the root problem for next year.

Which was sort of my point. If there's a problem with the rules, the best solution is to fix those, rather than hold a championship with an exemption. While I agree that it's very low risk, simply proceeding with no official endorsement leaves one open to a protest.

A look at the minutes shows that Eric's wording was adopted without vote as being consistent with existing rules and merely intended to clarify formats. No specific winning times for a Brown Ultralong were in the document and there was no formal vote to "change" rules.

I believe it may be the result of some confusion over distinctions between Classic, Long and Ultralong and may have been intended as someone's idea of a Long winning time that accidentally ended up in the Ultralong section, but that's merely conjecture.

Although there are no IOF guidelines for Master's Ultralong lengths there is this IOF rule for Older competitor's courses:

"3.11.6 Courses that are not too physically demanding.Courses should be set so that normally fit competitors can run over most of the course set for their level of ability.
The total climb of a course should normally not exceed 4% of the length of
the shortest sensible route.The physical difficulty of courses should progressively decrease as the age of the competitors increases in Masters classes. Special care must be taken that the courses for classes M70 and over and W65 and over are not too physically demanding."

If we take a page from most major European events the courses become physically easier with each older age group. At the present our Brown groupings cover F55 through F 90, a 35 year span and M65 through M90, a 25 year span. Maybe it is time to start offering increasingly shorter courses for those who want to continue orienteering into their 70's 80's and 90's.

I think it makes sense (though not always practical) to offer shorter courses for the very oldest ages classes. However, we are talking not about regular/common A-meet courses but about something called "ultralong". For various reasons, not everyone will choose to compete in an ultralong race, and I don't think they should be cut short just because a smaller and smaller percentage of people in that age group would be able to complete the course.

I agree with Taco-C. An analogy might be running races -- not everyone is able (for a variety of reasons, not just related to age) or even wishes to participate in marathons or ultramarathons. That doesn't mean they should be shortened so that more people can do them. There are plenty of shorter distance races available for people who prefer those distances.

There is generally an "ultralong" O championship once a year (maybe not even once a year, sometimes). If a person isn't up for the distance / time involved, there is no obligation to enter. I do think it's good practice to offer a standard-length Brown course for people who want to attend the meet but don't want to participate in the ultra championship.

Over 10% of the finishers of the 2010 Hudson Highlander were 'veterans'

Based on feedback here and on clubnet, the Orienteering USA Board will consider the following in their conference call on Feb. 5. If approved, this will raise the upper end limit for expected winning time for Ultralong brown and green. This does not affect any other course, nor does it affect brown or green at long, classic, middle or other events. ONLY ultralong.

---------------------------------------

MOTION PROPOSAL:
The winning times for UltraLong for brown and green course are changed as follows:
Brown course from "Maximum 60 min" to "Maximum 80 min"
Green course from "Maximum 75 min" to Maximum 90 min"
This change shall be effective immediately upon board passage.

RATIONALE:
The rules recently adopted by OUSA included a table with the lower limits (60 and 75) defined above. These numbers are not consistent with the rules which have been previously followed thru 2010 for Ultralong courses. This motion corrects the rules to allow the 2011 and future Ultralong championships to be consistent with what has been done in the past, and what appears to be greatly desired by participants. Polling on attackpoint and clubnet of eligible participants on brown course generated an overwhelming response in favor of limits at least as high as those proposed, with some favoring even higher limits. There was general consensus that a 60 minute course does not meet accepted expectations for an Ultralong event.

------------------------

For comparison, the same table has red expected winning time of "maximum 100 minutes" and blue as "maximum 145 minutes". Reminder to note the definition of EWT is based on a theoretical 100 point ranked runner, not who actually shows up.

Perhaps for the future, these numbers could be tweaked further, but this should (I hope) suffice to give an ultralong experience similar to past year's for this year's event.

A reminder, for those who do not want to do Ultralong at this year's championship, OCIN will offer simultaneous Classic Distance "A" meet courses.