Discussion: #13
in: O-ing; O-ing > 2013-12-31
Dec 31, 2013 6:14 AM
#
Was that control #48 by any chance?
Bad luck on not "winning" overall. As I said, I'm mystified as to why they decided not to do it the usual way this year. It'd be nice to have info published beforehand and even the results they had strung up yesterday had the worst two scores crossed off so there was no consistency.
Last year was also a chasing start on the final day but I'm pretty sure it was based on best three of four from the previous events, although since one of our courses had been cancelled it was best two of three. I just wonder, if you have to complete all five events to count, how does that impact on the willingness of setters to set courses on one day if they're not going to qualify from the other four?
Bad luck on not "winning" overall. As I said, I'm mystified as to why they decided not to do it the usual way this year. It'd be nice to have info published beforehand and even the results they had strung up yesterday had the worst two scores crossed off so there was no consistency.
Last year was also a chasing start on the final day but I'm pretty sure it was based on best three of four from the previous events, although since one of our courses had been cancelled it was best two of three. I just wonder, if you have to complete all five events to count, how does that impact on the willingness of setters to set courses on one day if they're not going to qualify from the other four?
Jan 1, 2014 4:51 AM
#
No - it was #46 (13 on the Hard 4 courses). I'm still mystified - good point about future setters/organisers; I'm pretty sure this will be a once off. It would have been nice to have known about it beforehand.
Last year wasn't a chasing start for Men D - the last one for all classes I've been in was 1996. That was good fun.
Last year wasn't a chasing start for Men D - the last one for all classes I've been in was 1996. That was good fun.
This discussion thread is closed.