Discussion: WOC week...in the future

I think the current disciplines are fine. Enjoyable to watch, does not need to be more spectator friendly. We do not need mass starts or mixed relays. Who is coming up with these ideas? There won't be any more professional orienteers if this carries on!
The WOC this year was not the best, because it had the spectators in mind too much. I was there and spectating was as normal. We saw competitiors at finish run in and spectator control. You do not need such big arenas for these two spectator friendly advantages. They chose WOC locations on the quality of the arenas. Competitors don't like this, and even me as a spectator didn't like the affect it had on the level of orienteering provided

I think the idea of possible removal of qualification races for the middle and/or long distance races during the WOC week is a step in the right direction. Quotas exist in many other sports.

As long as it was quotas and not points/World Cup results. That could hit you lot pretty badly.

If there´s two more events, will the max still be 7 per country?

What i dont understand is, of all the new things they put in woc, why is the Night disciplin still not suggested? Night ftw! :D

I think a Sprint Relay would be cool to spectate and compete in, a Chasing start event might be cool for big screen tracking, but that's about it. They should keep it the way it is now, the qualifications are good for really distinguishing the quality of an orienteer.. we don't need the extra events, although if they chucked in an extra rest day and had a Sprint Relay.. I wouldn't be complaining! :)

As they changed the rule (what is good) now all IOF members could sent athletes to WOC. So it will not be possible to have qualifications at WOC like today with 60 or 70 countries.

Each country has now (3+3) for each q and relay. Maybe they will figured out different q system for different formats and go down to min. 2+2 per country (sprint mixed relay). Weaker nations don’t send 3+3 runners to WOC so this should be OK as long as they have chance to run on 4 different formats like today. IOF want to have more and more nations at WOC so it must give them something to do at WOC not just to run two relays. I think qualifications for sprint and middle should be kept but some other q system only for long. Quotas, WRE, Regional champs are good for regions, but not good for small and new orienteering countries. WOC should be open for every IOF member.

I cannot see a WOC without qualifications. The starting order would not be relevant to that terrain and the finals would last over numerous hours making conditions biased.

Mass Start is just stupid. It is not about the best orienteer and as a spectator that would be in the back of your mind. 'I am not watching true orienteering'
New events like this could be tolerated but only if they do not replace the old 'proper' orienteering disciplines

Remind me... aren't relays mass-start events?

Triathlon allowed drafting to get into the Olympics - and not too many people these days think of drafting World Cup events as improper. Elite maybe, but not stupid.

To anyone who is critical of mass-start orienteering races, I will ask how many of them you have done. I'll also repeat something that I've been saying for years: if people want to get orienteering into the Olympics (something that I don't really care about), the best format is likely a mixed relay, with no individual events at all. More events could maybe come later, but one compact event would be the easiest to fit into the schedule, and having teams consisting of both men and women would have novelty value, and it's something that wouldn't work in many sports. (I'd have women running the anchor leg if I were in charge.)

I agree. A format has to be a part of the WOC before it can be proposed for the Olympics (in the 2020s at the earliest), and Mixed Sprint Relay is the likeliest format to gain Olympic acceptance.

How many elite orienteers want orienteering to be in the Olympics?

Well, those who are considered elite today will most likely not be by the time orienteering even has a chance to be in the summer games...

Want to compete in the Olympics? Simple: just join the event ; To qualify B Standard is 2:17 and 2:41 for men and women. They are tough, but chances going to the olympics will be higher rather than hoping orienteering will be in the olympics any time soon. Standards are tough, but they are doable, sort of... Problem solved :D

Americans will have to outcompete people such as Ryan Hall, Deena Kastor, Meb Keflezighi, if you want to run, which might be a bit tough, mildly said. Ryan Hall is pretty legendary.

And it would also mean that big nations such as USA, Australia, Canada etc. would invest more into the sport federaly, to compete against other nations, knowing that here there could be some medals earned.

@hammer: Ive heard about that some people making the A/B-standard in Canada, and not being able to go, because the national rules didnt allow them. That really sucks.

Would elite orienteers want orienteering in the Olympics? I would say that a vast majority would vote yes, if the core concepts of the sport are not compromised to such a degree that it is no longer orienteering.

Is a mixed sprint relay format still orienteering? I don't think most would have any issue with the mixed relay part of it. The concern would be whether the sprint itself offers difficult navigation and proper forking...

I'm not sure why it would need to be a sprint relay, as opposed to a "normal" "classic" length forest relay. Opportunities for live spectators might be reduced, though they could be at the changeover, as well as watching live video feeds from the forest. I think some of the potential appeal of orienteering would in fact have to do with the fact that it's conducted on a "natural" playing field.

I suspect that a number of the sports that have made the jump from X Games to the Olympics (ie. dudes jumping off stuff whilst going really fast) had very similar discussions concerning the integrity of their sport. I remember an article in a ski magazine concerning Jonny Moseley's Olympic mogul gold as to if it were as gnarly as skiers taking part in more traditional free ski event. Or some similar vernacular.

The regular Relay was deemed too long, I believe. If all you have is a 1 hour TV slot, there'd be too much happening outside of it that affects the outcome. I don't know if 1 hour is exactly what has been discussed, but it must have been around that.

Some of the discussion has been about "orienteering in the olympics" when the original post was not about that. It is about "WOC in the future" which (following the links) is about making it more understandable to the general public and more exciting to watch. Subtle difference.

I'm sick of the olympics. I do care about orienteering. I think there should be (a) a world championship in disciplines that are widely practised round the world and (b) an international event in which new formats are run so we can evaluate them in terms of their appeal to the public and media.

The Olympic aspect was brought into the discussion because what the WOC should look like in the future depends strongly on whether Olympic acceptance is a goal, or it is not.

not all (but most) olympic sports are spectator friendly. take mountain biking. longer than an hour, unable to televise entire circuit. why is it in the olympics? because its internationally popular, especially in north america.
tv broadcasts and ratings dictates everything in international competitions. take the australian open, where matches start at 11:30pm or later so that they get a better time slot in america.
if orienteering became as popular in north america as it is in europe, then there would be no debate over whether it deserved olympic status or not.

Part of the reason mountain biking made it into the Olympics is that it's a lot easier to get a new format of an existing sport in than it is to get a new sport in.

Orienteering is one of the sports which have good rating when it comes to question how to use facilities after the Olympics. Many sports arenas are made just for Olympics and today I think new sports with special sport arenas have no chance for it. Orienteering doesn’t cost practically nothing compared to other sports.

Demonstration sports are not on the program anymore (I think), but rock climbing made separate presentation at Winter Olympics in Turin 2006. http://www.mikedoyle.ca/trip/olympics_italy.shtml

Athletes involved in this sport have same questions like we have. I don’t know what they really achieved but why we can’t do something similar for London 2012 if Olympics are really IOF final goal of all this WIF changes.

Rock climbing and Olympics. To be or to not be?:)
Rock climbing will be revealingly represented under the Winter Olympic games 2006 in the small Italian town Bardonecchia (50 miles from Turin, the capital of Winter Olympiad). UIAA high-ranking officials managed to convince the Olympic comrades of necessity of carrying out of the festival. 35 world top-climbers will take part in speed and bouldering starts. It won't be competitions, but such starts will help the officials to visualize rock-climbing and, probably, in the future they will positively decide a question about inclusion of rock-climbing in the list of Olympic sports."

Olympics? It appears annecdotally that there aren't even regional, world cup or world champs events. Aim high by all means, but get one's own house in order first!

One question: Why change the WOC?

They say smaller nations will be happier with getting on a final results list. Where is the achievement in that, just finishing a course? Competing towards a final is the ultimate aim of small nations.
And new disciplines is a bad idea. More medals = Less value for these medals
I think they are messing everything up at the moment
There was nothing wrong with the old WOC format

Some big issues here, and given the number of red herrings (e.g. Olympics) brought up they may not get the attention needed. Biggest one for me is having Sprint Qualification and Final on the same day. All 6 work groups had this, as do the next 3 WOCs and that is despite all 9 options having two rest days within the 8 day period.
The Sprint event is quite similar to something between a 3000m or 5000m event on the track. While it is run at an overall slower pace the effort is pretty close. In athletic championships no race longer than 400m has heats and finals on the same day and for a very good reason - insufficient recovery.
Having them on the same day will favour the slow twitchers; those with few if any fast twitch muscle fibres; ie the same people that already are suited to and do well in the Middle, Relay and Long Distance events. I know some people don't accept that there are a group of people suited best to Sprint events or "Sprint Specialists". To those people I would point to the very few people that succesfully double up at 800, 1500, 5000, 10000 - most people have a particular distance that they are best at.
The argument that the best orienteers won't try that hard in the qualification, because their navigation skills will get them through and therefore they will be fresh for the final only works when the competition is poor. That's not what we want is it?

The more I think about it the more I like the idea of alternating forest WOC with M, L and R (heck throw in a mass start ultra long too) and an urban sprint WOC (sprint, knockout, chase, mixed relay).

Eoin - if the fast twitchers are faster than the slow twichers, then they should be able to eliminate them in the qual so they don't have to race them in final... ;-}.

The problem is that even if they get through they won't be fresh enough: you won't get the real World Champion. In effect you are holding a World Championship for tired people. Might as well be Trail O.

Oh, good grief....

It's actually quite common for the sprint qualification and final to happen on the same day now - memory's a bit blurred but it certainly happened in both 2006 and 2010. Occasionally the middle qualifying and final have been on the same day too.

I'm aware it's happened - just not sure why people think it's a good idea. Actually some years ago IOF were considering the issue of Middle Q/F on the same day at WOC and took submissions (even from me). The decision at that time was not to have Middle Q/F on the same day at future WOCs.

I've wondered about this too. Is the idea that, even at the elite level, orienteers are not at their physical "red-line" in a sprint (due to the need to have oxygen and brain cells available for navigational decisions), and thus can physically handle two high-level competitive races in one day? Certainly at a championship track and field competition, you would not dream of asking athletes to run both the trials and finals of the 3000 or 5000 meter run in the same day.

The idea is that the best are not at the red line in the Qual. The idea hinges on the assumption that the difference between the grands and, say, the North American weaklings is large enough that the grands don't really have to work it hard to qualify. This may have been true 10 years ago, but I believe it's been getting harder to qualify, and more competitive; if someone would do the analysis of last-qualifier percent behind over the past 10 years, it can prove or disprove the assumption.

Does anyone know who actually makes these decisions. I've asked and got told "IOF Member Countries". What does this actually mean? Does each federation have a representative? Are these representatives actually representative?

It would make more sense to take a poll of national team members around the world and see what they wanted. Rather than the IOF coming up with new ways for them to make money, just like the WOC every year scandal...

Interesting question. In 2003 (re the Middle Q/F same day issue) it was the IOF's "Elite Events Commission", chair Bjorn Persson. However on checking the IOF's new website the EEC doesn't appear any more. Perhaps its now the "Foot Orienteering Commission". If so, perhaps member of the FOC and contributor to this thread, Blair Trewin, could shed some light?

I made such an analysis back in 2006 for WOC q results from 2003-2006.
http://www.maraton-vojsko.si/dokumenti/WRE_WOC%202...

Just on the basis of time behind of last qualifier you can't say that as you can’t measure how different terrain types and technical quality of courses influenced on time. Look at WOC 2004 long and middle and compare to WOC 2006. Analysis for 2007-2010 would probably show something similar.

I think WRE points is somehow batter indicator.

At least having quali and final on the same day is fair. Unlike having a final
the day after some people raced for 100mins, and other people didn't.

I don't think the Elite Events Commission is a forerunner of the Foot Orienteering Commission, although I could be wrong. I'm still feeling my way around the latter having only been on it for a couple of months.

There haven't been any firm decisions made about the exact WOC structure and a lot of options are still on the table. That said, the two reasonably firm decisions that have already been taken by Congress last year (to introduce two new medal events, in principle a mixed relay and a mass/chase start, and not to increase the length of the WOC period), means something has to give, and that something is most likely getting rid of qualification races for the long and middle (the only realistic alternative would be to get rid of one of the existing medal formats altogether).

If that does happen, there are quite a few different options on the table as to how middle/long finalists would be chosen, including personal places in world ranking (with or without some form of minimum regional representation), and federation league tables, either based on national positions in world ranking or previous WOC results (or both).

I think there are some opportunities here. Having been knocked out of a couple of WOC qualification races I might be biased but I don't like them and support their demise. But the most obvious one to get rid of would be Sprint, so don't just stop at getting rid of Middle and Long qualifiers!

At the last WOC each final had 45 runners, Men and Women running seperately, Mens race after the Women had finished. The Long race (2 minute start interval) took 5 hours to run, the Middle (2 mins) 3 and a half hours and the Sprint (1 min) 2 hours. Or if you count the Sprint Qualifier as well the Sprint actually took 7 hours.

As far as the Sprint is concerned I think it would be very easy to run a straight final with 90 runners which would take 4 hours.

For the Middle I think it would be reasonable to add 15 runners each to make a final of 60, run over 4.5 hours, while the Long should probably stay at 45.

A relatively easy way of qualifying runners would be to use the World Ranking: Say for the Middle - every IOF country entitled to 1 runner as long as they have someone ranked in the top 500 (Thats 41 in the Mens); a country can have two runners if they have two in the top 100, or three if they have three. Currently in the Mens that would give 66, which would probably reduce below 60 dependent on entries (e.g. UKR only had 2 runners entered in WOC2010). Extra runners could be added back in to make it up to 60 by adding runners from those with 1 and 2 (or maybe even extra for countries with more than 3 in the top 20). Currently next best would be ITA (3rd runner ranked 106) and AUS (2nd runner ranked 107).

This would produce a field quite similar to the one that contested the final in 2010 except that most of the smaller countries would have a finalist (18 countries were knocked out at the qualification stage in 2010). The only notable differences would be that there are 3 countries who would have 2 extra runners because they failed at the qualification stage last time - RUS, LTU and LAT.

Similar systems would be used to qualify people to the Sprint and Long, although ideally the Ranking used should be discipline specific. If it was possible to run Mens and Womens concurrently (for instance if there were no common legs) then extra numbers could be added.

The World Ranking could also be used to lessen the issues of grouping by having the start list in reverse ranking order (either strictly or drawn in blocks of say 10).

The addition of extra races, particularly the mass start would be a good thing to add numbers to each countries team - I'd like to see a mass start with 3 from each or more from NOR-SWE-FIN-DEN-SUI-FRA-GBR.

All in all I think this could be quite positive. Just a pity the next 3 WOCS have already decided their program and kept Sprint Qual and Final on the same day.

Just one remark

"every IOF country entitled to 1 runner as long as they have someone ranked in the top 500 (Thats 41 in the Mens)"


IOF have now 72 members entitled to send runners to WOC. 31 countries haven’t sent runners to WOC yet as they don’t have them or they were not allowed sending them. It will probably stay for some years like today but however in which disciplines they could have the right to attend in new WOC programme? Sprint relay and relay? This is a problem as already today they can’t send even 1 runner. But IOF want to have those runners at WOC.

To define championship as World championships you must have open or half open selection system for every IOF member country, so new countries have chance to compete at least at half of disciplines with just one runner. This is my view what should also be considered.

IOF made a decision so they must find also a solution. What they will give to those new countries if they decide to send a runner to WOC. This runner could probably be outsider with no WRE points. But in my opinion IOF is mixing different goals and priorities. If they want more countries they need to have qualification races or open system (more runners in Final races). I like the idea with no qualifications but let’s make race system for 60 runners and all the others can run after them. I don’t see a problem to have 100 runners on the course as they don’t have any chance to make a good result even with some huge tracks on the course.

OK, I'll answer this, since no else wants to :). I think the obvious solution is to have open entry for all IOF members to the mass start races - individual and relay (s), but keep a nominal qualification for 1 runner (such as ranked in the top 500) for Sprint/Middle/Long. That way the organisers can plan for around 100/60/45 runners in the races and the races can all take around 4 to 5 hours to run.

I don't think its realistic to have the unranked runners run after the medals have been decided. That's kind of like running the chasing start in the O-Ringen to find the finish has been taken down when you get there (and the winner finished before you even started).

PS - a clarification on relays: I'm a firm believer that incomplete teams should be able to send their first (and only in some cases) runners out on leg 1. I've never liked the system where runners are pulled out of the event if an earlier team member has an mp - this goes to the same principle (and the men/women running concurrently issue) - World Champions should be able to cope if there are some extra people in the area even if they are not strictly eligible to win the competition and the advantages/disadvantages of having these people there are not significant compared to all the vaguaries of the sport.

I like your idea but I really think that this or any other solution would need some additional improvements. Can we make WOC selection criteria’s interesting also for runners from new countries? New programme will probably consist of 2 team competitions and 4 individual competitions (sprint/middle/long and chase or mass). In my opinion unranked runners should have the right to attend at least at 2 of these events as individual runners with a chance to get a final result.

To have only one runner in a team at the start of a WOC relay have no sport value for me - and also bad idea for WOC. The same goes for mp. I don’t think that rules will be changed here (IOF Foot-O Rules - 6.7 and 22.14). It could be very strange to have 30 complete teams and 30 incomplete teams (1 or 2 runners) at the start. If we want to give them a chance to run relays it is batter to allow them to form mixed teams and maybe to arrange delay start.

Would it be any good if we make official result list with all competitors including those who did not qualify, placing based on how much they lost to the last who qualified. It might make better publicity if we could write the best athlete was 67th at world champs instead of telling no one qualified to the actual final.

WOC long men 2010 results would look about like this:

1	Lundanes,Olav	NOR	1:32:41 + 00:00
2	Nordberg,Anders	NOR	1:33:21 + 00:40
3	Gueorgiou,Thierry	FRA	1:36:21 + 03:40
4	Gonon,Franois	FRA	1:36:48 + 04:07
5	Millegård,Marcus	SWE	1:37:33 + 04:52
6	Fraser,Scott	GBR	1:37:36 + 04:55
7	Hubmann,Daniel	SUI	1:37:57 + 05:16
8	Haldin,Mats	FIN	1:38:25 + 05:44
9	Omdal,Hans Gunnar	NOR	1:39:39 + 06:58
10	Tsvetkov,Dmitry	RUS	1:40:07 + 07:26
11	Merz,Matthias	SUI	1:40:19 + 07:38
12	Lauenstein,Marc	SUI	1:40:25 + 07:44
13	Ushkvarok,Pavlo	UKR	1:41:12 + 08:31
14	Tambasov,Yury	BLR	1:42:10 + 09:29
15	Kärner,Olle	EST	1:42:18 + 09:37
16	Prochazka,Jan	CZE	1:44:18 + 11:37
17	Wingstedt,Emil	SWE	1:44:25 + 11:44
18	Kowalski,Wojciech	POL	1:44:27 + 11:46
19	Adamski,Phillippe	FRA	1:44:30 + 11:49
20	Duncan,Jon	GBR	1:45:22 + 12:41
20	Myhren,Jonn Are	NED	1:45:22 + 12:41
22	Novikov,Valentin	RUS	1:45:41 + 13:00
23	Mamleev,Mikhail	ITA	1:45:54 + 13:13
24	Forne,Chris	NZL	1:45:56 + 13:15
25	Lind,William	SWE	1:46:23 + 13:42
26	Nikolov,Kiril	BUL	1:47:10 + 14:29
27	Johnson,Oliver	GBR	1:47:35 + 14:54
28	Lakanen,Jani	FIN	1:47:37 + 14:56
29	Smola,Michal	CZE	1:47:39 + 14:58
30	Lenkei,Zsolt	HUN	1:47:42 + 15:01
31	Khramov,Andrey	RUS	1:49:15 + 16:34
32	Taivainen,Olli-Markus	FIN	1:49:31 + 16:50
33	Bertuks,Edgars	LAT	1:53:04 + 20:23
34	Sedivy,Jan	CZE	1:53:38 + 20:57
35	Schgaguler,Klaus	ITA	1:54:45 + 22:04
36	Bader,Leif	GER	1:56:20 + 23:39
37	Zinca,Ionut	ROU	1:59:20 + 26:39
38	Pihl,Peeter	EST	1:59:52 + 27:11
39	Sulcys,Nerijus	LTU	2:01:02 + 28:21
40	Simonin,Nicolas	IRL	2:01:57 + 29:16
41	Mihailovs,Kalvis	LAT	2:05:37 + 32:56
42	Kovács,Ádám	HUN
42	Hertner,Fabian	SUI
42	Kratov,Oleksandr	UKR
42	Lassen,Tue	DEN
46	Pasquasy,Fabien	BEL	+0:00:06 (Q)
47	Thrane Hansen,Rasmus	DEN	+0:00:16 (Q)
48	Stulgys,Donatas	LTU	+0:00:30 (Q)
49	Solodkin,Sergey	BLR	+0:01:29 (Q)
50	Barták,Lukáš	SVK	+0:01:30 (Q)
50	Casal Fernandez,Roger	ESP	+0:01:30 (Q)
52	Marchuk,Oleksandr	UKR	+0:01:34 (Q)
53	Kerschbaumer,Gernot	AUT	+0:01:50 (Q)
54	Hribar,Andraz	SLO	+0:01:57 (Q)
55	Teich,Christian	GER	+0:02:33 (Q)
56	Gvozdev,Pavel	ISR	+0:02:34 (Q)
57	Morawski,Jacek	POL	+0:03:13 (Q)
58	Lang,Markus	AUT	+0:03:16 (Q)
59	Kraas,Andreas	EST	+0:03:32 (Q)
60	Goeres,Patrick	CAN	+0:03:36 (Q)
61	Breitschädel,Felix	AUT	+0:03:39 (Q)
62	Bilevicius,Liutauras	LTU	+0:03:47 (Q)
63	Brandt,Christoph	GER	+0:03:59 (Q)
64	Tenani,Alessio	ITA	+0:04:06 (Q)
65	Kamenarov,Ivaylo	BUL	+0:04:18 (Q)
66	Belomazhev,Stanimir	BUL	+0:04:34 (Q)
67	Bone,Eric	USA	+0:05:27 (Q)
68	Rafols Perramon,Biel	ESP	+0:05:53 (Q)
69	Quin,Andrew	IRL	+0:06:02 (Q)
70	Pereira Pasturiza,Leandro	BRA	+0:06:40 (Q)
71	Smith,Mike	CAN	+0:06:50 (Q)
72	Reynolds,Thomas	NZL	+0:06:57 (Q)
73	Paulins,Arturs	LAT	+0:07:21 (Q)
74	Alekseyonok,Aleksei	BLR	+0:07:26 (Q)
75	Preston,Rob	AUS	+0:07:36 (Q)
76	Scott,Matt	USA	+0:07:50 (Q)
77	Kerényi,Máté	HUN	+0:11:18 (Q)
78	Yamaguchi,Daisuke	JPN	+0:11:40 (Q)
79	Yagishita,Dai	JPN	+0:11:58 (Q)
80	Ruiz de la Herran,Javier	ESP	+0:12:44 (Q)
81	Peeters,Ken	BEL	+0:13:05 (Q)
82	Tiago,Aires	POR	+0:13:16 (Q)
83	Mulder,Nicholas	RSA	+0:13:18 (Q)
84	Bradshaw,James	NZL	+0:15:42 (Q)
85	Duca,Nick	CAN	+0:17:13 (Q)
86	Healy,David	IRL	+0:17:27 (Q)
87	Smith,Ross	USA	+0:17:40 (Q)
88	Alberto Ev,Ironir	BRA	+0:17:46 (Q)
89	Bastin,Michel	BEL	+0:18:41 (Q)
90	Yi,Zhihui	CHN	+0:23:35 (Q)
91	Stanfel,Matjaz	CRO	+0:24:31 (Q)
92	Teragauchi,Wataru	JPN	+0:25:43 (Q)
93	Ayaz,Hasan	TUR	+0:26:05 (Q)
94	Pan,Rui	CHN	+0:32:26 (Q)
95	Ri,Kyongsa	PRK	+0:42:14 (Q)
96	Heikoop,Mark	NED	+0:43:50 (Q)
97	Li,Yuan	CHN	+0:46:14 (Q)
98	Green,Jeremy	RSA	+0:49:46 (Q)
99	Farial Souza,Sidnaldo	BRA	+0:51:54 (Q)
100	Man,Chi Kin	HKG	+1:01:22 (Q)

I don't think that's either what athletes or organisers (IOF) want. Athletes want to compete in a race against the best and see how they go. A Qualification race doesn't provide that because the top runners are, possibly/probably, saving something for the final. So the athletes want to run in Finals. Now the IOF are saying they want to only run Finals at WOC. In general that seems to me to be a good idea.
Your list above is kind of what a ranking list is for - to compare performances in different races. I don't think it adds much.

“As far as the Sprint is concerned I think it would be very easy to run a straight final with 90 runners which would take 4 hours”

I also think that this is probably the best idea as you don’t have problem with start list, courses and time schedule. Open entry for Sprint gives you also more chances how runners will be selected for middle/long. As you mentioned it is hard to see more runners at middle/long start list or that unranked runners start after 60 best runners. After all, these are the best two disciplines we have and where we want to see only the best athletes.

So, I see chase event as most likely the second individual event for all countries. Sprint as prologue for chase start with start interval of 12-60 seconds (I saw somewhere and it is better idea than time behind). It makes sense for me because here you will not have any problems with unranked runners and course. As new discipline will probably have lower importance for the best runners and national coaches. This gives also a chance that sprint runners from the best countries run additional event and the best runners can focus on both middle/long as the most important individual races.

In my opinion runners from new countries must have chance to run at least at 2 individual events. If they could make a team also 1 or 2 relay events. So, they get programme almost like today (3 q races + relay). I see this as min. if we want to see interest from them to come and experience the WOC.

I like the explanation why and how should the programme look like...
http://www.kart-bosse.se/idrefjall/index.php?optio...

So I am not surprised that this kind of programme got the most of votes at WorldofO
http://news.worldofo.com/2011/01/22/woc-in-the-fut...

News: http://orienteering.org/foot-orienteering/woc-in-t...

"Council concluded as follows:

- WOC should remain an annual event with the same programme from year to year.
- Views expressed indicate that the number of medal events should be limited to a maximum of five.
- The proposed changes concerning the qualification events are supported.

[...]

Council concluded that the WIF project group presented a well considered proposal. Council expressed its gratitude to the group and its members for the engaged work. The group was released.

The Council will, under the leadership of Vice President Leho Haldna, finalise the work of formulating a final proposal based on the group’s proposal and the views expressed by member federations."

"- The number of medals to be awarded should be extended to six" !!!

Does that mean gold, silver, bronze, steel, nickel and dime? You may get some media attention just because of that.

No, no, think like an airline. You always add at the top.
Bronze < silver < gold < platinum < 'executive platinum' / 'diamond' / 'platinum plus' (depending on the airline).

The next step is to realize the lowest level is useless and so remove it. (Hence 'gold' is the lowest level in some airline programs now, 'silver' in others.)

Screw medals. Give out those giant belts!

http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/...

knock-out sprint, prologue-chase middle and 1 min start interval for long.



If I got it right,the objective of the WOC in the Future project was this:

"The intention is to raise the attraction of the World Championships for athletes, media and spectators, to broaden the participation and open up the Championships for new orienteering nations, and to strengthen the World Championships as the primary showcase for orienteering by positioning it for high quality TV coverage."

Now if I look at those proposals, well, it makes me wonder is these suggestions really best they could come up? I mean will atheletes find the new WOC so much more attracting, will it open up the champs for new nations to race and organize, and will it be now better showcase what O is all about, TV or not.

"The intention"

More attracting for athletes:
- make sure the most important race is fair. by eliminating following issues for example.
- make sure race is true challenging orienteering, no road running in front of TV cameras at stadium.
- make sure athletes from smaller nations has something to do at WOC, and some clear results to show they supporters. Other than "not qualified to final", makes it more possible them to to finance their O career. For example by listing not qualified to final result as I made above if nothing better show up.

more attracting for spectators:

- make sure race is fair and challenging. Use the technology available to show what is going on in forest, gps-tracking, splits, tv controls, head-cam runners following athletes, wireless ad-hoc networks to get at least some sort of dirty picture out of forest and so on.
- make sure there is some sort of O races for top runners outside WOC, spectators need stars, you can't expect spectators are interested if they don't know anyone and there is nothing or no way to follow O scene outside WOC.

broaden participation, new O nations needed:

- for athletes, look ^ attracting athletes.
- new O nations to organize WOC. make sure WOC is not too difficult to organize. If it all gets too complicated there will be only four countries left. So consider dividing WOC in half, urban woc and forest woc. "lesser" nations may be are able to do urban woc, middle class forest and big nations may be able to do both at the same time, if both are organized every year.

primary showcase:

- make sure quality is high at woc. Superb terrain, good map and challenging courses and don't let spectating/TV spoil the showcase. Target spectators want to see the real thing, if people want to see road running they will rather watch a TV marathon.

high quality TV coverage:

Set up work group to find out ways to do it. fore example
- it should watch and study O TV shows so far. And interview people who did them and people who actually watched them (Make sure everyone sees Huippuliiga race at Siuntio 21.5.2009)
- figure out what is the best way to show "primary showcase" type of event on TV.
- study wireless remote control cameras, using headcam runners to follow athletes.
- study wireless communication possibilities (add-hoc wimax base station and so on) to get gps tracking and video stream from headcam followers to event center.
- study possibilities to sent race on TV with slight delay, couple of hours or something, to make it possible to post process, cut the show, and get the video data from forest.


I think working on these issues might get better result than blindly believing first-in-finish formats will fix everything and save the earth.

@Jagge: I agree with most of what you are writing - especially about TV. As far as I could see/hear, the WOC in the Future group had far better suggestions than this suggestion by the Norwegian Federation. Now i just hope that the intentions of the WOC in the Future group are the ones winning...

random thoughts:

_Forest WOC_

1. short qual 25 min
2. short final 30 min (no B...E finals, results for the rest is based on qual, time behind last qualified). TV event
3. relay 40 min. TV event. Same competition center as middle.
4. rest (TV crew moves to new site if needed)
5. classic qual 50min (TV crew still moves to new site and sets gear up)
6. classic final (A,B,C,D,E) 90 min. 30 runners per heat, longish start interval. Final results list is made by concatenating these lists together, so DNS at C final gives about 90th place. This is last day, so there is no need to save strength by skipping lesser finals. And 31th place at world champs isn't that bad. TV event

No spectator legs. Big screens, wireless cameras, headcam followers, fast local wifi networks at competition center, spectators can pick any video stream from forest with their own handheld devices to see their own favorite instead of having to watch director's favorite on big screen.

_Urban WOC_
1. sprint qual & final
2. sprint relay
3. suburban mass start or prologue/chase with spreading or what ever new first-in-finish-wins race.

If there is TV production at urban WOC it can be done in traditional way, cross country skiing style - just TV controls, no GPS tracking or anything fancy. But amazing city scenery of course. To make this possible to organize for smaller nations.

Technology gets better and cheaper every year, it isn't smart to transform WOC format to suit today's (or 90's) technology. I think we should instead try visualizing what would be really cool and also maybe possible by 2020. And aim for that.

what Jagge said

July issue of O-zine suggests that WOC in future will be limited to five events and not the six we expected. But what is more interesting is this quote from the article.

"Council is firm in its opinion that there must be renewal, so if events are to be taken out we will opt for dropping one or more of the existing events”, Åke Jacobson comments."

bye bye traditional relay??

Nooooooo! That would be such a shame.

Bye bye qualifications!!
It should be Sprint, Middle, Long, Relay and either Mass Start or Mixed Sprint Relay.

From World of O - This is a guideline given for the qualification races in the World Championships, one of the organizers told when asked about the course layout. – The qualification courses must be made in a way that ensures that all (sic) the runners on a lower level also get through.
One of the best arguments to get rid of qualification races. Compromised courses and track runs don't belong at WOC.

Who is running the IOF? Sounds like someone who has probably never competed at an elite level in recent years. I'm sure most WOC runners at the moment like the current setup. I mean, what is wrong? Fair enough if you want to add a more spectator friendly event but it should NOT be at the expense of the current 'proper' O-disciplines.

I'm sure all this is a push for orienteering to appeal more to the Olympics, at the end of the day. But what is the point of getting the sport in the Olympics if what it is all about has been completely lost?
They talk of a mixed sprint relay on the new WOC schedule, one of the proposals. Is this a joke? It sounds like next each team must have a chimpanzee run one leg and at least one bald runner. I mean come on, races like that are OK for the fun if it, but at the World championships?
Imagine how much stick FIFA would get if they introduced a mixed team setup for the World Cup..
Maybe this proposal has since been dropped but even the idea arising has seriously undermined IOF's status in my mind.

Obviously I have no real say in the matter and realistically neither does anybody. 1 vote can't change the whole decision but I at least hope people realise large change without any real say from today's athletes is the wrong way forward and will be a damaging mistake.

It's not rocket science. We shouldn't change orienteering for spectating if it is ultimately detrimental to competitiveness. We can work on improving spectator opportunities, of course, but it should be done without changing the challenge or competitiveness for our elite runners.

As the Facebook groups says "IOF, don't be retards. Keep WOC as it is"

What is it about a mixed relay that you object to, and why do you feel that is it contrary to "proper" orienteering?

(Maybe we should go back to "real" orienteeing at the WOC -- just two events: individual "classic" and relay...)

When I referred to 'proper' orienteering, I more was opposed to Mass Start/Chasing Start etc. I feel in these one can do better then their orienteering ability from basically being fast. Relay is different as in the end all competitors (teams) have run the same course but in a different order so following is not so contagious. It would take a very strange course to offer competitors all the same course but with different loops etc to eliminate a following aspect in single runner mass start.

The mixed relay seems strange. I may just be taking it at face value and relying too much on my World Cup comparison. It just feels like a step towards randomer disciplines which I have no doubt the IOF would be interested in ;)

It may seem weird this coming from a girl, but I just think there is less quality in women's racing. There are the obvious stars, but the relay always seems a bit random - who makes the least mistakes kind of thing. The men's on the other hand is a really quality event, great for spectator value, plenty of competition, runners trying to play the game, outwit each other. There's just far more depth in men's orienteering, as the qualifiers from this week show.

Maybe I just enjoy seeing men in lycra more than women. But I think it would be a shame to dilute this great race, nonetheless.

Really well said

Why did they ever introduce mixed doubles to Wimbledon?

Be it mixed or otherwise I think a two-person sprint relay would be a good addition to WOC. If you've ever run one you'll know how much fun it is and there is lots of running through the stadium so it's good to follow as a spectator too.

I hope it doesn't replace something that's in the current program though.

They introduced it to Wimbledon as an extra. It never REPLACED anything.
I don't object to it being enforced. I just object to it replacing today's disciplines

What you said was:

They talk of a mixed sprint relay on the new WOC schedule, one of the proposals. Is this a joke? It sounds like next each team must have a chimpanzee run one leg and at least one bald runner. I mean come on, races like that are OK for the fun if it, but at the World championships?

I was a little troubled by the ski-O two-person relay that AliC and biggins competed in. It seemed like it excluded all the other team members *and* it depleted the best-of-the-best for the next few days of competition.

I remember someone at ski-woc talking about the mixed relay and the difficulties it presented in forking since it wasn't a matter of each country having all the same legs in the end, but rather each of the men and each of the women having all of the same legs in the end. With just two skiers it meant each one saw a bunch of the same stuff on each of their turns.

I suspect one of the advantages of a mixed relay is that it gives the opportunity for nations with limited depth to field a more competitive relay team. Might be wrong. If it is true, is it a worthy objective, and if so, does the format actually achieve this goal?

Debate has just started...
"...The IOF presented their conclusions, which is that there should be fewer than 6 finals (which means 5 or 4). If it's 4, they suggested Sprint, Mixed Sprint Relay, Middle (prologue and chase), Long. If it's 5, they would add in Relay..."

I am not against it but clarification about participating and qualification methods is needed.

1. LONG will become the only individual forest format and a real superstar format. King of orienteering. It is also good that every discipline will have its unique racing style and qualification format.
2. Sprint mixed relay. Nice overview here. I agree, same gaffles for (men, women) but who will know who is in lead? Maybe women start first (gaffled course) and then men with normal course.
3. Middle (prologue and chase). Questionable racing style. Prologue as one course for everybody?

Has IOF lost it's mind?
a) orienteering will never be part of the olympics
b) making a POS mixed sprint will be no easier to understand whats going on while watching on tv, particularly as a non-orienteering spectator. why?
-both runners run twice! so once you start filming men starting while others finish/women start it gets confusing.
-you can only film so many controls. if anyone has been watching WOC in france, they'll see that even the best tv editors can't fit every important event at every control. information is lost before broadcast so it is impossible to show a complete timeline of the race for every team, for instance Oleksandr Kratov in the middle final was not mentioned and only shown running once during the race, but he came fourth!.
c) why would you change the middle? a good middle is not improved from a chasing start. chasing starts advantage runners who are lucky to get a good sit in the seeding race, i.e. a runner who would have qualified 3rd but made some small errors at the end of his/her qualifier starts the final 15secons behind thid place and can spend half of the final race just sitting behind 3rd place. this also advantages 3rd and 4th in comparison to 1st and 2nd, if neither of them start together. we've all seen the effects pack running has on the medal tally, and a chasing start does not alleviate that issue.

Yesterday we had TV event, prologue + chase format. Prologue is not shown, just W and M chase. http://areena.yle.fi/video/1314462736120

Vesa Taanilas maps and comments here.
http://taanila.blogspot.com/2011/08/hl-finaali.htm...

He writes a branch hit him in the eye in prologue, so most of the prologue he just followed the guy who started next to him. And in chase he couldn't see map either, but he writes seeing map is not that important in this format.

I don't much like see something this replacing today's middle. Runners end up close together in short prologue and they just run together and prepare for the last leg and run in.

Did I just see "WOC in france" and "the best tv editors" in the same sentence? Those of us who are used to watching cross-country skiing with interval start know that it can be done so much better.

I agree with Jagge

I see Middle (prologue and chase) - that both races run as one course for all athletes. Final chase should be organized with individual start interval. Like in skiing. That would be great to watch as each runner would start with larger time gap than previous runner. With only 25-30 runners in Final start interval could be even larger (3min) and we would still have all in finish in 2hrs as we have today. 3 min start interval should be enough in Middle course to exclude anyone running in trains from TOP positions.

Looks like alternating forest and sprint WOC's might be (finally) on the table.

http://news.worldofo.com/2011/11/10/separate-sprin...

Thanks to TyrTom—get your act together and take part in the only knockout Sprint tournament that you'll be able to run in the next two years! Where else would you get an early start on the newest (proposed) WOC format? Be an animal

looks like Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark are suggesting alternating sprint and forest WOCs.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F...

So, the current program being a bit too heavy, they will alternate sprint and forest WOC, but that means there's time do the same with EOC so EOC also becomes annual... honestly?

Original document in En
http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/...

If there will be no qualification races the start order will be based on ...? Why this essential detail is always ignored in every document suggesting qual race removal?

Just ask them all how much they despise map walkers. Most hateful goes last.

I like the idea of having the sprint and forest regional champs and world champs offset. ie., year 1 regional sprint and WOC forest; year 2 regional forest and WOC sprint. especially if the regional champion gets a spot at WOC the following year.

I think this will enable the development of more sprint specialists.

And the forest specialists won't need to talk to the sprinters and v.v. But there's one thing missing from the plan. Which year will the WTOC be in?

Many good solutions, especially qualification model - 1 place for all nations (middle, long) based on strength of nations: using the current WCup quota. I think this was the main requirement from small nations in a model without qualification races. With inclusion of regional champs this become even better.

Start field would probably be even bigger than their assumption, around 75 for Men with the same number of nations as we had in France. We have seen this number of starters at many World cup races so I see that this shouldn’t be so big problem also for WOC and TV production.

It would be also nice to get information which countries are willing to host “Urban” WOC. It seems to me more natural that new nations have a chance first to host the World cup Sprint series to see the potential with lower organizing costs, get feedback from media, public and then try to host the WOC.

Did anyone say WHEN they want this to come in? Before or after 2015...

Standard IOF procedure is that no major change to WOC format is binding on an organiser that's already been appointed; where that would leave 2015 is a bit unclear (would the current status quo continue?).

(Another interesting speculative question on 2015: what happens if Scotland declares independence in 2014?)

SOFT is already saying perhaps in sweden in 2016.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F...

@graeme: Not before 2016.
@blair: Yes, interesting question, but it won't happen.

@martin - you should try living up here! I don't think it will happen, but I wouldn't bet the farm.

2015 was a Scottish bid, driven from Scotland, and then approved and supported by BOF. Contrast 1999, led by BOF, awarded to Scotland in competition with England and Wales. So the Scots are responsible and unlikely to pull the plug.

@Hammer @blairtrewin (While I have your attention, and in an entirely unofficial capacity aside from a penchant for troublemaking).
The Commonwealth Games is in Glasgow in 2014 - would there be any enthusiasm for Canadians and Aussies to travel for a 2014 Commonwealth O-championships in the run up to 2015, probably combined with an open WRE which will likely happen anyway? Other Commonwealth athletes on the forum please pitch in too!

Sounds like an interesting idea, if its timing is right.

Sounds like a good idea Graeme. Would an independent Scotland still be in the Commonwealth or would we have to secede from that separately? Have you got another secret area set by for the Commonwealth Sprint?

I suppose we could invite the USA and Ireland to a "former British Empire"Champs?

I can think of a few of us from Canada that would be interested in a common wealth games.

Well the British Empire Games were first held here in Hamilton (and should have been held here in 2010 if not for India's bribing scandal) so I'll be sure to bring this up with the Canadian HPP committee. Like Jeff says I'm sure there will be interest and if combined with an open WRE and WOC training camp even more so.

No-one travels further for orienteering than kiwis.

Summary of responses so far:
http://news.worldofo.com/2012/01/20/woc-in-the-fut...

If you know of more (e.g. US, Canada or Australia who have many readers here), please post me a comment about it, and I'll put it up.

@graeme Commonwealth O - great idea!

Thanks for the summary Jan. Splitting WOC into an alternating forest and sprint WOC is such a great idea - and suggested by Jan way back on his Aug 20, 2010 posting on world of O I should add. I've liked this solution ever since.

Looks like I could have gone to bed early yesterday evening anyway. IOF Council has published all responses from 19 federations here:

http://orienteering.org/woc-in-the-future-january/

Conclusion is similar to the one I have drawn: Very difficult to make a decision in Lausanne in July this year based on the feedback compared to the original suggestions. Therefore, the Council will not propose changes to the current World Championships programme at the upcoming General Assembly in Lausanne.

But the process should go on.

It seems that one of the main WIF problems still remains qualification model for middle and long. After 2 years federations still want to use very different approaches e.g. previous WOC results, ROCs or World Ranking. Now finally this becomes a very important ISSUE. All federations have agreed that qualifications should be removed already at the start of the process, so IOF must work and solve these open questions first. World Ranking should be developed further because today anomalies prevent it to become a fair tool for all equally. I hardly believe that we are able to find/develop better qualification criteria.

Many good reasons and different views why not to use previous WOC results or WR but not one federation described how should it works in full details. In many ways WR has better starting position over WOC results and I see AUS, GBR, CZE, NORD and SAOF proposals as those in the right direction. From the document it looks like NORD and at least many small federations now again favour WR. It is interesting that AUS contrary to (USA/CAN) as country with almost same low number of WREs in the vicinity has diametrically the opposite opinion.

Y'all better start training for them mixed Sprint relays, and for "knockout" Sprints! Full-body contact orienteering? (if I write the k-word in my permit application, what is the park going to think?)

Seriously though, we put on two elimination Sprint festivals, and how many attendees did we get? a long road is ahead!

[...] a WOC format without a counterpart at the national level has no value.—From SOLV on Page 26 of the document.

sprint cross

The SUI argument is for mixed relay but you are right. Also in our case sprints are not very popular among ordinary orienteers. Also practicing knockout and chase is almost irrelevant for us. These events have sense when you have a proper competition field. So how big starting field "Urban" WOC organizer can expect? If we would need to chose based on low budget between "forest" European champs and Urban WOC I am sure that we would chose EOC. How many EU countries have a proper budget to send full team also to Urban WOC outside EU in same season? I see a chance for Urban WOC only in case when Urban WOC is supported by a proper prize money awards. Spectator events for the local people, citizens ?!? - a nightmare.

@Vlad. This approach seems to be working-
http://www.sprintthebay.org/information/stb2012.ht...
Its not a championship, I don't see any mention of WREs (may be wrong) but it now attracts a regular contingent from this part of Australia and there is even a warm-up training weekend in Melbourne right now. I don't fully understand why its working. Perhaps the timing to fit in our off-season, and the attraction of mild weather to counterpoint the heat of summer in Australia? And there are clear generational differences in the attraction.

kofols, I actually think one general opinion in he responses from national federations is very clear. Biannual forest and urban WOC has strong support. My fast tallying of votes says 11 countries for, 7 countries unclear, and only 1 country against. I think there will definitely be a referendum for this in Lausanne, even if the IOF council doesn't want it. Qualification procedures most likely will have to wait for later.

The IOF council does not want alternating forest and urban WOCs, almost certainly this is the main reason for them removing the WOC in the future item from the agenda for Lausanne. They realise that they have lost control of the debate and it is now moving in a direction which they do not want it to go. A direction which many, however, think is better than anything the IOF have proposed.

If members who pay most of your bills want something, it's hard to see how there's a chance to get that control back.

Urban WOC has one big problem or advantage compare to forest WOC. It depends how you look on the matter. Competition field is now already much stronger and results are very tied at sprint races more than at forest races. Technical aspects of the races are lower and speed is more important. For small federations LONG is still the best discipline to qualify into Final. Many athletes who have lack of physical preparation can replace this shortage with superb technical performance but in sprints this is almost impossible. So competing at Urban WOC has no sense for many orienteers. It is also hard to see that Urban WOC could give new learning experiences on new terrain types and previous experiences will not be so important to succeed at TOP level. But idea by itself is very good because focus will shift towards speed which could raise the possibility for new generation to succeed and gain better places also in traditional disciplines. With today status of orienteering in many less developed countries I suppose that criteria to send someone to Urban WOC would be even higher. The same is happening at World cup sprint races. How many TOP orienteers have desire to run only sprints? Could we count to see athletes from “athletics sprint" countries, for instance Jamaica, etc? Bring the best together and make a show like PWT did it 12 year ago.

...it is more important not to split the IOF family...
...Federations are already split but not because of biannual WOC proposal but because of lack of understanding (from IOF) what are the true problems of WIF. On the other hand most of the countries which have its representatives in the Council suggest one solution but Council still want different solution. Mutiny on the Bounty?

...it is more important not to split the IOF family...
Yes, it is now obvious the pyramid is split horizontally, not vertically.

For the latest news, 3 proposals have been submitted to the IOF Congress this summer. See them here IOF hompage

I like the Nordic Federations proposal - alternate urban/terrain WOCs, with alternate urban/terrain regional championships in the opposite years.

I love how they write, "There seems to be agreement that qualifications races, as currently run at WOC, can be removed from the program. But none of the qualification methods presented so far have received broad agreement among member federations."

And how the Swiss view Chasing Start as both being good and having athlete support, rather than just less evil than mass start.

tomorrow WOC as we know it will v. likely change.

http://news.worldofo.com/2012/07/19/iof-general-as...

Removing the qual races and putting more emphasis on previous WOC performance and regional Championships is a step in the right direction. Will be interesting to see what model is chosen.

is a step in the right direction

Unless you disagree. Haven't we had this debate already? What is new here?

What is new is that they are going to finalize and vote on it this time.

It's hard to vote for a system when there has been absolutely no clarification on how the "previous performances" or "strength of nation" will be calculated.

The current federation league table, which I think was used for World Cup allocations in the past, has FRA behind GBR in the men. LTU and UKR are also well down the field. Behind NZL, ESP, ITA, AUS...

I still don't understand what is wrong with the current system.

What is new is that they are going to finalize and vote on it this time.

Without giving the runners time to mount a movement against. If it passes in any substantive form I would be very disturbed. Did they not listen to the athletes last time?

Got a text from CharM who's at the IOF General Assembly...

WOC program finally approved. Same as now except elimination of qual races for middle and long. And addition of sprint relay (2 men and two women). Split WOC defeated 20-16

Email from CharM:

WOC program voted on after very long process and discussion. Final outcome Is same as now except elimination of qual races for middle and long. And addition of sprint relay 2 men and 2 women. (this is the council's proposal). This was passed 22-11. It was a vote between council proposal and the status quo.

Split WOC defeated earlier with 20-16 vote.

Qual for middle and long - details still to be confirmed by a working group, but at least one per nation, plus WOC strength. Understood by all that qualification should be generous. Desire to use reg champs too when they are functional in South America, Africa and Asia.

You can start to get a flavor for the future of WOC at NAOC 2012--an IOF regional championship where there are no qualification races for sprint, middle, or long, and where the sprint relay will feature two national teams from each gender, along with teams of the best juniors from the countries of North America.

Don't waste time. The future is now.

Is the South American Champs considered dysfunctional at the moment? If so, what is that makes it less functional than the NAOC?

What year will be the first WOC that implements the new program?

Say it were in place this year... one US boy, one girl to run middle andlong. Three to run sprint, three relay, 2+2 sprint relay.

What would the team have looked like?
Ali &Sam both sprints, relay, and what, they fight for the long and loser gets middle?
Plus one more girl to run sprint qualie and relay.

On the men's side? Eddie, Eric and Ross share the forest races, Giacomo and Boris come to run the sprints?

Just wait till WOC goes to Australia and see who turns up.

Boris - Italy probably will, GBR very likely will. Finland probably won't, they'll be too far along the process.

IOF rejected PWT proposal 2000 and introduce Sprint event.
IOF rejected Urban WOC proposal today and introduce Sprint (mixed) relay.
IOF rejected ...... proposal 2024 and introduce URBAN WOC. :)

How is that possible that leading o-countries can't convince or they are not able to make an alliance with small orienteering nations but IOF council always do?

Why should ITA and GBR introduce mixed sprint relay if they said many times that they are against it and they are not obligate to do it? Just because someone from the council like it to watch before 2017?

at least one per nation, plus WOC strength

That will be a loooooong starting list. Once considered anathema to televisability. More so now with 73 nations.

kofols: I really think Italy will, I'm sure they said today that whatever was decided they would try and run with it. I'm on organising committee for 2015 and believe we will too, it's certainly been discussed as part of a possible schedule.

Boris: not until 2017, but countries who have already been awarded WOC may choose to include elements of the new format.

@andrewd
What confuse me about this decision is why these delicate decisions always came in the packages. It might be better to vote separatly on qualifications and sprint relay or for all proposals together to have clear picture about all new changes. In this way feds voted for it probably because they wanted to get rid of qualifications but they got within the package also sprint relay. I hardly believe that they will vote at next GA for any qualification system without at least 1 spot for Long and 1 for Middle.

it didn't appear to be the most obvious set of packages, and from what I read it did seem to be a very confusing vote. I wasn't there though...