in: Orienteering; General;
| # Posted 2007-04-23 13:57:07 | |
| jankoc: | I have written a long and thorough analysis of Macr-o as a spreading method in orienteering over at World of O, based on the trial of Macr-o at Norwegian Spring last weekend. You find the article here - including a description of what Macr-o is, and comments from many top runners:
http://news.worldofo.com/2007/04/23/macr-o-a-step-... As I have no discussion forum at World of O, I thought I'd set up a discussion about the topic here at Attackpoint (I link to this discussion from the article). In my opinion, the short butterflies as we saw them at WOC in Denmark in 2006 is at least not the ideal way to spread runners, so looking at alternatives is definitely necessary. Macr-o is one such alternative. Questions: - Is Macr-o a fair means for spreading of runners? - Are there better alternatives for spreading of runners on the long distance? |
| # Posted 2007-04-23 16:51:21 | |
| Jagge: | 1. Are there better alternatives for spreading of runners on the long distance?
I still think this might work better: http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me... Not very well described, but I hope you can get it. Maybe I should draw a example course/image to make it more clear. EDIT: Example course, the very same loop is used here both times, and it's located at event center. 2. Macr-o Personally I don't like the idea of "no codes & penalty loops". Same with control codes might work much better, I wrote something about it some time ago: http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_954/pe... As far as I know these method hasn't yet been tested anywhere. |
| # Posted 2007-04-23 19:54:04 | |
| simon: | As for the long butterfly variant, I usually (and I know a few others who do the same) call it an "english fork" because of its use at the WC event in 2006 or 2005. But I dont know when or where it was first introduced.
Your suggestion about fairness issue: "every runner runs all the same splits" - is it something like this? there is only one ok control at a macro spot, with others being "blind controls"? (macro control D as example) - of course, it breaks the spreading purpose... Well, there is something I dont understand here. Pure technical question: how long does it take to read the card and compute the number of penalty loops? (reading a SI card takes a few second, it kind of breaks the flow) - oops, didnt bother to see the video before writing - with emit it takes less than 2 seconds. (mmm, reminds me of a recurrent bug with SI reading: a bug in the communication protocol or hardware sometimes produces a "missing bit", resulting in false codes and lots of missing codes (that's the symptom) when the soft checks the sequence - reading the SI card another time resolves the issue. But if this bug occurs while the timer is running (as in macro), it is also a penalty) |
| # Posted 2007-04-23 21:08:41 | |
| Jagge: | simon, I guess they read the card while competitor is running a short loop without the card. |
| # Posted 2007-04-23 21:12:38 | |
| OJ: | Surely the only fair way to do it is a longer start interval of 4-5 mins? Nowadays with spectator controls, GPS tracking, video controls, etc there is enough to keep the spectators interested. With the mens and womens race taking place simultaneously there should be more than enough to see.
A compromise at WOC level would be a 5 min interval in the qualifier followed by a shorter interval in the final. At least that way it would be impossible to follow your way to a good start position in the final. Butterflies don't work - they just bunch twice the number of runners together in a small bit of the terrain. More often than not I've left the butterfly in a pack having caught/been caught in that bit of the course. Macr-o cannot possibly be fair and the added complexity worries me. The sport is hard to explain to 'non-orienteers' anyway and this adds a whole extra dimension of confusion! |
| # Posted 2007-04-23 21:34:33 | |
| Suzanne: | If you run different courses, it isn't fair, no matter how similar the courses are.
Perhaps you could have just one real control and several blind controls on the macro-controls. That way, everyone has the same course but there is still the chance for penalty loops and increased accuracy is necessary since there aren't control codes. Granted, this gets rid of the splitting based on people going to different controls. But, I see two reasons why people would split while going to different controls: 1. one person is better at finding the right control quickly among distracting controls or 2. the controls are actually unfair and going to one is faster than going to the other. In the first case, people might split anyway even if they have the same control as they are distracted by the blind controls. In the second case, it's unfair so even if it accomplishes the goal of splitting it's not something that we would want in the races. For somebody who is just blindly following, they might as well just follow in either scenario and risk the penalty loops. Granted, that is less risky if everyone has the same control but certainly possible either way. I think that having people actually run different courses will cause far more problems than any reduced following by splitting would solve. For the concept to work, I think there needs to be a way for people to run the same course in the end (through loops or something as suggested on the website). |
| # Posted 2007-04-23 22:39:12 | |
| graeme: | Lots of things are unfair in orienteering, in particular start times and following. The unfairness on MacrO is tiny compared with these, and if it breaks up packs, it would be good.
But I cannot see why it would. In general anything which leads to people slowing down in the region of the control makes it more likely competitors will see each other, and so more rather than less likely packs will form. Existing packs will only break up if mistakes are made in the circle - unlikely if we try to ensure controls are equally hard. Aside from bigger start intervals, long butterflies are a good solution (according to my computer simulations :) ). Rob Hart introduced them in the UK for the JOK Chasing Sprint in 1996 - no doubt others have invented them independently. There doesn't seem to be much evidence that short butterflies work at elite level. Another working option is a 1 min stop for anyone who gets caught, or at (different) fixed points on the course similar to Jagges idea without th road loop - but this would require policing in the woods. |
| # Posted 2007-04-23 22:53:00 | |
| Jagge: | Another working option is a 1 min stop
The method I described should do about that, in a quite sophisticated way. Can you tell reasons why it wouldn't work? Is it possible to try this method with you computer simulation? |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 00:00:53 | |
| jankoc: | After reading the comments from Jagge in his previous postings, I kind of like the idea of not removing codes from the Macr-o/Micr-o controls, but instead printing the control codes with so small numbers that you have to be very close to the control to read them (This is for the TV-friendliness issue, and not for the spreading method). Would be very nice for TV, looking at the runners running from control to control to try to find the correct one .... |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 04:38:52 | |
| Boojums: | I'm not sure having a bunch of runners looking like they don't know where they're going is really good for tv. I mean, current orienteers would probably find it amusing. But people unfamiliar with the sport would just think it was a treasure hunt or geocaching or something. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 06:32:15 | |
| simmo: | I completely agree with OJ - longer start intervals is the answer. However I think the interval should be the same in the Final, because sometimes the best runners don't qualify fastest, and if they start in the middle of the field a lesser runner can be dragged into a 2nd or 3rd place.
One problem not mentioned with macr-o is that there might not be enough complex areas on the map. If every time you came to a detailed area it was a macr-o section, then perhaps the rest of the course would be a boring waste of time. One of the video respondents suggested a chasing start would be better. I still prefer the longer interval, but a chasing start final would make it hard for lesser runners to follow. For tv however, the race would be over as soon as the winner arrives. Maybe that's not a bad thing - its the same as a track or road running or cycle race. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 06:51:25 | |
| jjcote: | the race would be over as soon as the winner arrives
That's certainly what spectators are used to, because it's the way that virtually every other kind of race operates. But a chasing start or a mass start does not reduce following, although a mass start does present everyone with the same opportunity for following. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 07:50:15 | |
| simmo: | It depends what type of chasing start is used. If it is an interval start, with the fastest qualifier starting first (instead of last as the present system dictates), then theoretically it is more difficult to catch the runner in front of you, especially with a 4-5 minute start interval.
Regarding the supposed need for macr-o, there was a lot of bunching in Japan, but I watched most of the internet coverage of Denmark, and I didn't notice many large bunches, and those times when there were two or three of the more fancied runners bunched, it didn't seem to last long, and I don't think many results were decided by bunching. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think 1st and 2nd in any of the 6 individual races were together at any time. Certainly that was the impression given by the live coverage of the races. The Japan bunching was possibly due to the extreme steepness and thick vegetation of the terrain, and the heat and humidity, so maybe it was a one-off. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 11:03:04 | |
| Jagge: | Packs and following are a real problems, no doubt about it. It's a good idea to discuss what are the alternatives, is there any new ones we haven't tried yet. Before changing orienteering as much as we has to do with macro, we should first try all other alternatives. If then clearly see nothing but macro works, then it's much more easy everyone to accept the macro. So to make macro acceptable, all other spreading methods should be tested.
Very long (4-5) min start I ntervals will partly solve it, of course, but lang start intervals has disadvantages. And still if you have 4 min start interval, runners may find each others due early mistakes and competitors will end up running together the whole race. The only problem isn't the advantage follower gets. As we know the pack/pair usually can keep up a little bit better pace than one individual runner. So the pack leader also get some advantage over an other runner who has to do all the work alone. So if there is very long start interval and the other runner of the pair has already lost all chances to win a medal, we still have a problem. We need a method for breaking packs. The problems with butterfiles is mentioned in the video. Butterflies spoil the course (too much controls, easy controls, same controls several times) and classic shourt don't usually work at all. As far as I can see the best way to break pairs/packs is delaying/stopping runners for a moment, so the other runner (faster) gets some lead over the more slowly one, so he/she gets chance to get away. Or if he/she prefers running together, she/he has to slow down/wait a bit, so the pair's advantage over a lonely runner is lost. This is why the loops I described were designed like that, at first the later startes has one loop less that the previous runner, so she/he gets the 40 sec advantage. Or 2 loops more, so there is again 1:20 to catch. And the second loops basicly just equals the used time, but it also spreads competitors again. Note, you don't have use the same loop both times as I did in my example course. If both loops flat road, you can make both loops equal. I can't see macro will be accepted unless all methds like this are not tested and proven they don't work. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 12:58:22 | |
| Fat Rat: | i just dont get why packs are so bad. sure it helps some, disadvantages others in that particular race. but thats sport. surely the pack dimension provides another interest point anyway. packs can make people make mistakes as well as help them, has anyone watched a big night relay????
macro is perhaps good for tv, but it surely just creates more packs like any bottle-neck will. but really, why break up packs, if someone gets caught, or catches someone - good on em, thats their luck. everyone else just needs to get over it, they will get an advantage from it one day themselves. get over the "pack" problem |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 13:32:12 | |
| Jagge: | There is already lots of pack races: relays, mass start races, chase starts etc. I would like to see at least one long distance (classic) format without the pack problem. But well said, it's true packs are part of the sport and we should live with it. Pack/following can also make O better sport to betting, you need to think these things to guess results right.
What it comes forking, take a look at the latest mass start ultra long champs in Sweden and Finland. It's clearly something wrong with the format if after 2,5 hour of orienteering most competitors finish only one minute after the winner. If we try formats with forking (=all competitors will not run the same course), long mass start is the format to try it with, not middle/long. For example forking during first half, last hour without forking (maybe some butterflies). If one gets 10-15 sec advantage by having faster course, it would be equalized during the last hour - the person 10 sec behind gets the advantage of follower. But no-one can simply follow someone during first hour. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 13:42:16 | |
| BorisGr: | Lack of packs is one of the reasons I tend to prefer middle distance - I think these days it is the best test of one's orienteering. If someone catches you in a middle distance, you've already lost the race, no medal or anything to speak of. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 14:10:17 | |
| graeme: | Boris: you obviously missed the British elite champs results...
1 Oliver Johnson SYO 35:06 2 Neil Northrop SYO 36:52 3 Scott Fraser INT 37:03 where Oli and Scott finished together... Although they didn't in fact join up until the end, Scott *could* still have medalled by waiting for Oli at #1. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 17:24:27 | |
| ebuckley: | This is one of the upsides of orienteering in North America: we don't have enough elite competitors to make packs possible. Following happens, but it certainly isn't rampant.
That said, given the rise of middle distance as the super technical event, I'm wondering if we shouldn't start holding more of the classic/long events as mass start. Goat events are pretty popular in the US, are they common in Europe? I think that mass start introduces a lot of strategy into the sport (that is, when is it best to stay with the group and when to break) and also provides a more spectator-friendly format. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 17:30:58 | |
| BorisGr: | I set a goat-type course for the H21's at an OK Linne club event in November. Those who ran it seemed to enjoy it, but it was just a few guys. I might be willing to try it again. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 17:33:11 | |
| jjcote: | Mass start events also provide the competitors with motivation to break up packs at some point. With interval starts, you have one runner who started earlier, who wants to stay with the (presumably "better") runner who caught him, and one runner who started later who already has a lead on the other runner, and has nothing to lose by having a companion to help him avoid mistakes. That's a simplification, and only addresses the case of two runners, but it illustrates the point. With a mass start, though, you're in a direct race with anyone near you, and if you want to win, you have to figure out how to shake them. Makes for different race tactics. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 18:02:57 | |
| OJ: | Whilst mass start races are a lot of fun I don't believe there is any place for an ungaffled mass start race in international competition. Any race where it is possible to win without actually looking at your map is surely not acceptable. The common tactic in this situation (as we have seen in, for example WC ultra long in Idre) is let someone take on the navigation at the front then sprint as fast as possible to the line. The main problem being that it's near impossible to break from a group of strong following runners if you have to navigate.
A chasing start would be fairer, but there still should be some form of splitting, butterflies or hagaby. |
| # Posted 2007-04-24 22:10:49 | |
| Jon W: | I agree that packs are part of the sport and there probably isn't any way of really dealing with it. Longer start intervals might work, but wouldn't in teh situation where a competitor makes a significant error early in the course. They might get caught, but then form a pack by running the rest of the course.
It is against the rules and a couple of upheld protests might help. Breaking up a pack is difficult, but actually losing the rest of a pack that are following you is a great feeling. (Or it could be that they have a very low opinion of you navigating ability!) |
| # Posted 2007-04-25 04:51:01 | |
| EricW: | Before we think about gimmicks (some are intriguing), I think the first approach to remedy pack formation and following should be the simple tool of course design. For the Classic/Long course, I believe a return to the past with a reemphasis on longer legs and route choice will make a serious impact on pack formation. I believe others have voiced this opinion as well, and I believe the experience of the two recent WOC's, Japan and Denmark, is very strong evidence of this. Granted, route choice, and sight distances are not easy to quantify. Graeme, want to work on this?
The Japan "Long" course started out with a series of short legs, trying to squeeze weak technical interest out of fantastic route choice terrain. I believe it finished up the same way. If I remember correctly there was only one long route choice leg, certainly far less than the potential of the terrain. A Finnish(?) course designer demonstarted the potential of this terrain on this web site(?), with a fantastic course with many great long legs that exploited the rough O and route choice strength of this WOC terrain, and would have seriously reduced the pack issue. Now look at the Danish Classic/Long course. The Men's course had 32 controls, but 6 or 7 of these were used (wasted?) for the butterfly loops. There were 4 excellent route choice legs over 1.0 km, but even so this is not a large number of long legs. I'll suggest the key to this course was in the short and medium length legs, which still contained great route choices. The "cramped" section returning to the start area with many controls was was justified, not by the technical interest, but by the great short route choice legs it contained. Granted, this terrain had better than average route choice potential, but I think the course setters deserve great credit for getting the most of it, and deserve much of the credit for the alleged reduction in pack formation. Classic/Long courses can still have technical challenge, but this should only be part of a balanced variety. The challenge and impact of technical orienteering is only improved when it occurs as a change of pace, mixed in with generally less technical route choice legs. Let the Middle have the max technical character, where the issue of pack formation is as least easier to deal with, given the time frames involved. |
| # Posted 2007-04-25 11:01:40 | |
| Jagge: | This off topic (about the TV and micro).
I'm not sure having a bunch of runners looking like they don't know where they're going is really good for tv. I mean, current orienteers would probably find it amusing. But people unfamiliar with the sport would just think it was a treasure hunt or geocaching or something. TV audience is used to compare succesfull and unsuccesfull attempts. I knothing about pole vault, but when I look at ti on tv I can see the difference between. Seeing someone spinking the right control with great speed and an other one hesitating and reading codes at wrong controls, that's closest we can get to pole vault. Unsuccesfull pole vault attemps are amusing, but that doesn't make me think it's not a real sport. We could even have some sort of timing system to put timer on only 50-100 meters before the control (a shourt leg, or a just some sort of sensor sensor before control) to be able to show on tv screen how many seconds is used/lost to spike to right one. Two days a go I wathed O on tv (it regularly on tv here these days) and Novikov, Ikonen (and exhausted Jani Lakanen desperately trying to hang behind Pasi) showed such a speed on screen it's difficult to think someone could think it's just a treasure hunt game. But we didn't see much difference between winners and the rest. With appropriate micro controls with codes(!!) we might see some "unsuccesfull pole vault attempts" on tv screen. And also succesfull ones. And any non orienteer could see the difference. |
| # Posted 2007-04-25 22:36:16 | |
| JimBaker: | If you want route choice, come to the Canadian Championships Long event this year. Lots of route choice, especially for the longer courses, but some on all courses. |
| # Posted 2007-04-25 22:42:21 | |
| Ricka: | Very appealing. But it is sure a long route (with lots of choices) from Missouri. Maybe. |
| # Posted 2007-04-25 23:04:33 | |
| JimBaker: | Here's a long event that breaks up packs:
Mass-start team event. The map has, say, 40 controls on it (and the start and finish). Teams of 4, say. The team members run separately. Between the team members, they have to visit all 40 controls. First full team back wins. The teams get to see the map a few minutes before the start. Before the start, each team member must declare to the organizer, in secret (except to their own teammates), one control that they will visit. Because you don't know what controls the members of other teams have declared, you can't just follow them so easily. Lots of strategy. Made for television! :-) |
| # Posted 2007-04-25 23:14:16 | |
| JimBaker: | Here's another anti-pack course:
A normal Long course, but no control markers. When the competitor reaches the correct feature, they press a button on an electronic card that they carry with them. If this "punching" is suitably discreet, then other competitors won't necessarily know when another competitor has punched. Sure, you could follow someone the whole course, but would you have the correct punches? How to implement the gadgetry? A few ways seem possible, such as devices hidden in the bushes around a control site, allowing triangulation of the control card's location, or perhaps differential GPS would be close enough. But this being AttackPoint...I'll leave the wizardry as an exercise for the reader! ;-) It'd be interesting to see which competitors could complete such a course correctly. |
| # Posted 2007-04-25 23:49:55 | |
| the_latvian: | I really find Jagge's idea of flat running sections of different lengths at different times appealing. However, have you considered that it could also help to bunch people together? For example, the runner with the start time at 00.00 gets to control 7, runs his two loops and then meets the runner with the start time 02.00 go through not having to run any loops - a following scenario created. The same way, if the 00.00 runner is still about 100 meters from the end of the loop and he sees the 02.00 runner go through, he will dash like crazy in the general direction of control 8 to catch up. |
| # Posted 2007-04-26 00:19:48 | |
| feet: | I think JimBaker's second idea is brilliant. It may not be orienteering as we know it, but it's brilliant.
Of course, it wouldn't be great TV unless mispunching gave you some kind of electric shock. |
| # Posted 2007-04-26 00:26:16 | |
| ebuckley: | It sounds like Micro-O with no controls at all! I think it would be a hoot. Also, the first idea is something I've seen implemented at the start of an adventure race. It does a nice job of spreading the teams (and rewarding the teams that have more than one person who can read a map). |
| # Posted 2007-04-26 02:27:31 | |
| Jagge: | the runner with the start time at 00.00 gets to control 7, runs his two loops and then meets the runner with the start time 02.00 go through not having to run any loops
Take a better look at loop counts at #7. Next runner has always only one lap less than previous one (or two laps more). So even with 2 min start interval there should be 1:20 left, and with 3 min interval 2:20. So if next runner catches the previous one, it's mainly because he has been a lot faster and only partly because of the loops. But it's true, competitors might end up running together if timing is right. But they can't run the rest of the race together, there will be soon loops again. Today's problem is the pack will very likely stay together all the way to finish. And it's also true it's only 40 sec so they may find each other again. But in that case they can't have had optimal run and a lone runner has better changes against this pack. What I like in this method is it's quite simple, straight forward, mechanical (no judges needed to decde who will have to wait) and it will not spoil the course with lots of controls. It isn't as effective for spreading packs as some other methods, so there will be some pack running left, but it should be effective enough for our needs. You can take any old classic WOC course (like -93) and try adding this method there and see how badly it would spoil the good old course. But it's never tested anywhere, so it might not work for some reason we can't think of. And there may be better methods. So let's hear about them. (I like JimBaker's second idea too. I run most of my O trainings a lot like that. Without flags but with gps and I check afterwards did I got controls right. As feet said, not be orienteering as we know, but I can tell you it really is fun) |
| # Posted 2007-04-26 05:26:56 | |
| EricW: | Usuccessful pole vault attempts are indeed exciting, and so are crashes in Rally racing. However the attraction is not in the mistake, but the visual excitement created for the lay viewer.
Watching people running slowly and tentatively in the forest is more akin to watching a mistake in a chess match, only weirder. In Micro O even the winner will look unspectacular, not much different to those making mistakes. Granted this is a subjective issue, but obviously I think Micro O makes pathetic video, and I think Cristina's comment above has it exactly right, only more diplomatically. Please put Micro O in front of a TV test group of non orienteers, in a part of the O world with developement potential, and I'll bet that finally puts it out of its misery. |
| # Posted 2007-04-26 10:55:00 | |
| Jagge: | EricW, don't get me wrong. I wasn't trying to support mirco. I was just trying to say say they got it all wrong for the reasons you described, and there is lots of easy ways to make it much better, one of them is putting codes back where they belong to. And also putting fake controls in real control points, not middle of nowhere. Then no-one needs to run slowly and tentatively.But competitors without any map contact may end up making some unsuccesfull pole vaulting - dashing like mad between fake controls. I have no idea will it be much better or good enough, but I am sure it would make better entertainment than regular mirco.
My opinion is the Micro o is doomed to die as it is today, I can't see any point trying it with any test audience. If any try outs will be made, the concept should be first changed one way or an other. |
| # Posted 2007-04-27 14:47:29 | |
| kofols: | The first idea from JimBaker looks something similar what is one of the most exciting event at ISF School meetings. What I heard it is great fun for the kids and good closing event.
Maybe some similar official/unofficial event at WOC will be good for promotion. Closing event like it was introduced at Skiing world championships with mixed national teams. Look under 5.4.2. http://www.sass.sk/ISForienteering2006/files/bulle... |
| # Posted 2007-04-27 20:30:28 | |
| jankoc: | > Please put Micro O in front of a TV test group of non
> orienteers, in a part of the O world with developement > potential, and I'll bet that finally puts it out of its misery. Actually, there was positive response from many (non-orienteer) viewers after NOC 2005 in Notodden with Micro O, which was sent live on Norwegian TV 2. I also talked to many non-orienteers myself which watched it, and they said that they really got caught by the excitement, saying "No, no - the one to the left" when the runners approached the wrong control. I'd love to put up part of the production to show people how it was, as it was actually quite interesting to watch, but unfortunately there is the copyright issue. However, using Jagge's suggestion with control codes on the controls, would still give the same effect. On the other hand, viewers found it just as interesting to see the runners fall into a pool of mud... (but I am drifting away from the original point of the discussion: spreading runners at the long distance) |
| # Posted 2007-04-28 07:07:38 | |
| EricW: | "...in a part of the O world with developement
potential,..." |
| # Posted 2007-04-30 05:11:22 | |
| addison: | There seems to be a whole heap of bullshit written here.
I come from a country where orienteering isn't the biggest. To be honest, it seems that many don't give a damn about competitors from the smaller countries. You all talk about fairness. - Increasing start intervals infact makes it unfair. How can you compare competitors running in the cool morning, with those running in massive heat in the middle of a hot day? How can you compare it when it rains for the whole course for one competitor, compared with it being completely fine and dry for another? These can all happen on the same day. - Micro / Macro is supposedly all about TV. I just watched some cycling on TV this morning, imagine if cycling was staggered starts how boring would it be then for TV. Surely the only honest way of making it more TV friendly whilst making it fair, is to have a mass start race. The rest of the stuff I read here is just crap. |
| # Posted 2007-04-30 10:09:39 | |
| Boojums: | I dunno, I enjoy watching downhill skiing, bobsledding and luge events on TV and those are not mass started - time trial format, much like orienteering. The coverage is interesting because the live footage is produced to make it so. I don't see why the same can't be done with orienteering. In fact, I think the staggered starts with the top seeded runners going last is great for close-to-live coverage. |
| # Posted 2007-04-30 12:03:41 | |
| Suzanne: | Imagine how exciting it would be to watch mass start downhill skiing.
On a different note, when I got back to my corridor after Tiomila, a friend down the hall told me that he'd seen the women's race on TV on Saturday. He was impressed that it was so cool to watch with the GPS so you could see exactly where one of the girls went a different way and lost time to the faster pack. Granted, this is Sweden so everyone knows what orienteering is in the first place. But, this was the kind-of guy who usually watches football (soccer) when he watches sports and remembers orienteering as that thing they had to do in school. Clearly it can be made tv-friendly without adapting the sport much or at all. Even in non-relays, it is easy to overlap GPS to be as if it were a mass-start to show where they gain/lose time.... or show it in real time where you could see the last starter trying to catch up or see the groups that form and disappear. Of course, it's good to have the TV in the forest too so that it's more than just dots moving on a screen. So, perhaps the sport is fine, with some adapatations like choice of start/finish/stadium and spectator controls, while it's the TV that needs to and can step up and be in top form? |
| # Posted 2007-04-30 13:25:14 | |
| simmo: | Addison, some of the most exciting cycling races I've watched on tv are the Tour de France time trials - with staggered starts! Lots of other sports also have a long start period where changing weather conditions affect the competitors who might start early or late, eg golf. The elite competitors in every sport just deal with it - that's why they are elites! I agree with Suzanne that we have to make every effort to adapt tv to our sport, rather than the other way round. |
| # Posted 2007-04-30 15:27:45 | |
| jankoc: | The gaffling used at 10Mila's last leg with three loops of different length seemed at least to work a lot better as a spreading method than the traditional butterflies. But by using that much of the course length for spreading, there is not much left for the "real" long distance orienteering... |
| # Posted 2007-04-30 17:13:57 | |
| ebuckley: | Imagine how exciting it would be to watch mass start downhill skiing.
No need to use your imagination - they have this in the X-games. It's fun, to be sure, but I actually find the razor-edge precision of the staggered start event more exciting. Seeing that little whisp of snow come off the back of the ski and asking yourself, "was that .01 or .02 they just lost?" |
You must be logged in to add a message
