Discussion: You learn something new every day

From the minutes of the IOF's Presidents' Conference in Japan last month, where after a presentation on "Micro Orienteering in the 2006 WOC" there was the following:

"USA commented that this type of orienteering has been practised in the United States and declared in support for the proposal to include Micro-O in the middle distance final."

?

Who was "USA"?

Chuck Ferguson, USOF Prez, is listed as attending, plus Frank Kuhn was there as a menber of the IOF Trail-O Committee.

Maybe it was a Norwegian posing as someone from the USA. I've heard they speak pretty good English on average.

Yeah, but how would the Norwegian know we've been practising Micro-O? I know all the team Micro-O training sessions we've had have been very hush-hush, trying to get a head start on the competition. Who leaked it?

It also interesting to note the comments about the World Games (for non-olympic sports) that were in Germany in July. Apparently some countries sent less than their best orienteers, which was publicly criticized. So the IOF prepared a resolution saying we're going to take the World Games really, really seriously from now on, This received unanimous support from the federations. Nice to know we support that even though we aren't allowed to participate.

Some people are starting to prepare for micro O'. Swampfox's Swedish club -- IKHP -- had micro O' on their training calendar for yesterday.

I'm putting together a micro-O training camp for this weekend. It will involve running through lots of sage and bitterbrush, pizza, guitar playing, and rooting for the Cowboys to teach Ole Miss something about toughness and barbed wire and the open range. I'm trying to round up enough attack badgers to form an unusually vicious gauntlet to run the penalty laps through--not that there's even a cheese shred of a chance I'm going to miss any controls and incur a penalty. It has been scientifically demonstrated that all of these activities constitute excellent preparation for micro-O. That's according to our norwegian-USA representative, who knows everything; I wonder if he could be the Axis???

OK, this is ridicuous. It is like living in America under the Bush adminsitration. And we can't really do any more about it. Actually, even less, since we could emigrate from America but never be free from the clutches of the IOF by definition. I could go on and on... sigh.

My guess about the mysterious USA comment in the minutes is that one of two things happened:
1. Some other country really said those things, and it was a mis-attribution or mis-transcription error.
2. Chuck or Frank remembered that Mikell had (apparently quite notoriously) put lots of extra controls in the general vicinity of the correct control in a couple cases during sprint chase courses at the 1000 day.

TG's statement

Can we ask Chuck about this directly?

Wonder if the next statment issued by IOF will read that USA prepaid its NAOC sanctioning fees through 2010, why not?

My only, brief, brush with notoriety--and really it was like I was on one side of the room and notoriety was over on the other side of the room, chatting up some women--came when I was racing in a certain cheese eating surrender country quite a few years ago, and they said I...oh, never mind.

I deny that I have had anything at all to do with the development of micro-O, in even the most subterranean meaning, and while I may have a good sense of humor, my legal staff does not, and they will sue the pants off (ants and all) anyone who says I am some secret scheming notorious developer and promoter of micro-O'. Micro-O' is for pinheads and thumb suckers and those claiming that beavers are more fearsome than attack badgers (my lawyers aren't too happy about that one either), and that's not the last word I will have on the subject.

PS--The Norwegian theory espoused above by mindsweeper should be investigated thoroughly. Anyone who goes by "mindsweeper" is probably a secret agent and has good reasons for suggesting such a theory.

PPS--Plus, don't forget there is that song "Norwegian Wood" to consider, and also the glaring fact that so many good base maps are constructed by a Norwegian photogrammetrist living wayyyy up in the north country. These are additional damning facts, and would be enough to act on, if we were George Bush and wanted to invade some country so that we could liberate the denizens and give them democracy.

PPPS--Putting out all those extra controls wasn't my idea anyway. When I went out to hang up my control, those other controls were already there. There were many footprints on the ground, and they did look somewhat Norwegian, as I recall.

Here's the IOF's view on regions and regional champships.

Anyone thinking of organizing the 2008 North Americans might want to read it carefully. And then suggest to USOF that the North Americans NOT be a Regional Championship as defined by (and under the auspices of) the IOF.

Our saber-toothed beavers would eat attack badgers for lunch, or at least they would if the attack badgers were made of wood. Which, like witches, they may be. After scouring the hills and valleys of Wyoming, I have to say that I never saw an attack badger moving fast enough to lead one to conclude that it was not made of wood.

>My only, brief, brush with notoriety--

"Mikell Platt(ini) l'Américain de surprise!"

was the title on the front page of the sports section of the newspaper the day after Mikell "won" one of the French 6-day races a mere 4 days before the 1986 World Cup. Mikell actually elected to dnf the course after a few controls to save his legs for the World Cup but the organizers didn't check his punch card and he won by over 6 minutes! They also announced him at the awards in the town square that night and the crowd went crazy.

Vive le renard de marais!!!, they shouted.

The next day the Canadian team tried the same thing but we were all disqualified! Tabernac!

I think Mikell also authored a less-than-flattering report on orienteering in France that was published by ONA. The next year, 1987, at the World Champs in France, the random drug testing selected an American and a Canadian each day.

Actually it was just a note I had sent to Larry and Sara Mae, with no idea that parts of it would end up getting published, much less that in turn it would get picked up in France, and that did lead to a certain amount of "notoriety" over there for the Swampfox. It was funny to see a constant stream of organizers in and out of the doping tent, wanting to see just who this character (me) was!

Swampfox said: >There were many footprints on the ground, and they did look somewhat Norwegian, as I recall.<

Norwegians are not so stupid as to leave obviously Norwegian footprints during stints of mischief. It was probably some Swedes!

I'm waiting for the Finns to second the call to blame the Swedes.

Back to PG's comment ....

Consider that Micro-O is basically just Trail-O in the midst of a Middle distance race. It may have been that Chuck/Frank were really thinking that Trail-O had already been organized in the US.

Now, supporting the Micro-O concept ... i.e., the inclusion of Trail-O in the midst of a Middle-O race ... that's quite a different matter and it's unfortunate they did (if they did).

Man, the IOF's viewpoint on regional champs seems to be "regions shall bow down and kiss IOF ass, or else" (or else what?) Thats a very strange letter. Its almost as if GWB had said something crazy like "the americun people has given me a clear man-date..." Wait a minute....

I think we should start refering to the IOF simply as "The *Federation*," and say it with a twinge of sarcasm, much the way Klingons do when they say it to Captan Kirk.

GWB - Greg dubya Balter?
Hey Kirk is a Canuck... a damn good actor. ;-)

Seriously though it is time to start training micrO...

FWOC is organizing a session later this month near Calgary. GHO has one slated for Oct 19th near Hamilton and then again in our Raid the Hammer on Nov. 13th....

I met with a rep from SI last night. Apparently software for micrO is being developed by them already.....

Who is this Intergalactic Orienteering Federation, anyway?

No signs of MicrO in Uppsala, and all the talk of it here is quite derisive.

I have asked Chuck about this and am awaiting a response. My best guess is something like what Brian mentioned. Both Chuck and Frank are avid Trail-O supporters. They may have mentioned a connection to Trail-O and been misunderstood.

Also, the Elite Events programme group final proposal is not due until this month, so we still don't know exactly what it will say. I think most of what we've seen so far is IOF's intention for European based Champs and World Cup events, not their blueprint for Regional Championships in less-developed regions. I compiled a set of questions for the Federation to send forward for clarification on a number of these issues. e.g. - sanctioning fee, format requirements, arena production, etc. Lets wait and see what they say.

Or maybe Chuck & Frank, as avid Trail-O' supporters, thought that putting Trail-O' into part of a WOC event sounded pretty cool.

Clearly that's not the concensus on this board, but we're not _The Board_ (or the Federation for that matter...)

Aside from continuous whining, what can we do? Clare, can you make a report to the USOF Exec. Committee (as VP Comp.) about the majority of the discussion you have seen about Micro-O' among the Team members & other competitive types, and ask that the report be forwarded to the IOF WOC format deciding committee (or whatever the group is...)?

Anyone who chats on other nation's O'discussion groups, can you post a similar request (to the local VP Comp. or President of the National OF ?) It's quite possible the IOF meeting that made this decision is largely out of touch with how widespread the unhappiness is. They make lots of decisions, and are used to complaints because someone always complains (esp. in orienteering :), so perhaps they think there are just a few complainers about the MicrO' thing, and aren't aware of how much of their constituency is upset?

Here's a copy of an e-mail Chuck sent to the Board on August 31. It reads to me like he is excited about Micro-O at WOC-2006 because he thinks it will push the development of Trail-O.

That may or may not be true, but I question its use as a reason to put the USA on record as supporting changing the Middle distance format at the WOC.

And I suppose checking with the Team for its opinion was never considered....

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

Karen, David, Bill and Ed,
You four were selected as President's Award Recipients at the AGM in Bend, Oregon, on last Saturday afternoon. I am having plaques made for you, but the Ft. Belvoir trophy shop may take a couple of months to complete them and I'm sort of stuck with them since they have the pattern, or mold, or however they make them.

As I told the orienteers at the AGM, I am truly appreciative of how you four and the Shannonhouses (who have ordered me not to give them any more President's Awards) pitched in to pull together the US Trail O Champs at the last minute at West Point. Without your efforts, we would not have held a championship this year, and perhaps would not have found a full team to go to Japan where David won the US's highest award ever, a Silver Medal.

Also the impetus from that meet has caused USOF to put together a standing committee on Trail O and to begin the process of selecting a standing team, much like the other competitive US teams have done. You will hear more from Clare Durand, VP of Competitions. So your quick response and contributions have paid off even more than realized at the time.

While in Japan we learned that IOF is pushing "micro-
orienteering" events in the middle, or near the end, of the middle distance world championships. In this variation, the competitor will be given one or more control description, but no control number(s). Running to the center of each circle, the competitor must chose the correct control from five control flags, and electronically punch that choice. Once across the finish line, the competitor will get immediate feedback on their decision(s) and for each incorrect choice, must run a penalty leg of about 20 seconds.

Micro-orienteering was tried in Norway and found to have great TV appeal. Since the IOF desperately wants O to become an Olympic sport and since one of the major criteria is TV appeal, the Danes will run the World Champs in Denmark next year using micro-O. I am sure that you can see the obvious connection to Trail O and its decision-making process.

Add the need for 1:5,000 maps for Sprint-O and these two vectors are creating the opportunity for USOF to expand Trail O to most A meets if we can just develop a trained and experienced cadre to make the maps and set up the courses. I hope all of you will start to consider workshops in the future on how to do both. We do not yet have a convention for 2006, but there should be time in between the night o champs in Colorado on 12 July and the US Champs that weekend to host several workshops.

Best regards and congratulations to you all,

Chuck Ferguson

Isn't that special!

Perhaps secession is the answer?

Seperately, what should be done by prospective WOC team members to prepare for the Micro-O at WOC-2006, if it ends up happening. I would suggest the following.

1. The rules have not yet been formulated (the deadline for that is December 31). They may be similar to what was used at the Nordic Champs, or quite different. We'll have to wait and see. In the meantime, it might be good to educate yourself with what they did in Norway.

2. When the rules are published, then we will set up training/competition opportunites to practice Micro-O. I would anticipate this happening next spring/summer.

3. The plan is to use Micro-O in the Middle distance A final only. Now I don't mention that to imply that your reaction should be -- great, I probably won't make the A final so I don't have to worry about it. Your reaction should be -- I'm going to work my ass off so I can be one of the ones who gets to participate in this f**ked up idea.

4. You still need to be really fast and really smooth. And you can be a Miicro-O ace, but it won't do you a bit of good unless you are fast enough and smooth enough to make the A final.

5. We are working our way through the 5 stages of Grief -- Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. We will get to acceptance. There is no immediate need to get there, and in the meantime denial, anger, barganing, and depression are all appropriate responses. But at some point we (and that includes Team leadership) will just accept this and move on.

Hi, my name is Eddie and I'm a microholic.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that you're a macroholic.

Norwegian TV 2 Business Plan:

Step 1. Support a controversial, unproven race format that irritates competitors, has questionable fairness, and is a deviation from the whole nature of the sport.

Step 2. ?????

Step 3: Profit!

Step 2: Sell underwear. Dance naked.

Can Claire please send up a bit of truth?

"At this time USOF or its member clubs do not possess the resources or expertise needed for widespread practice of micr-O."

Denial, anger, acceptance, or trail-O-related enthusiasm, the above sentence appears the consensus.

I did send Chuck a direct link to this discussion board so he can see for himself.

In a conversation we had in Oregon he gave me the impression that the decision was based entirely in $$ and TV coverage. The TV folks said "we will give you some money and some coverage for your WOC - but if you do that Micr-O thing we will give you lots more money and lots more coverage."

IOF voted for lots more money and TV coverage. I think they know many athletes and teams are unhappy, but they'd rather have the TV coverage.

As a Hollywood type, however, I fail to see the ratings draw of Micr-O. Those norwegians must be hard-pressed for good television. I'll bet you couldn't even sell it to the WB.

Orienteering Today asked a bunch of top women and men what they thought about Micro-O, the responses were less negative than what I would have expected. Check it out here

I assume the Swiss team will put some effort to practicing Mirco-O this next year, especially because they only sent 3 women to NOC this year, which means the majority of the team has not yet tried it. I have however not yet hear any discussion to include it in races over the next year.

I will be certain to participate in as much provided training as possible, and hopefully send along anything I learn.

With all the talk about WOC including Micro-O (I can imagine great future Olympic TV shots of people running penalty laps and playing eenie-meenie-miney-moe), I'm thinking - so what, this will only affect those looking to make the team, but...

At this point I must plead for meet directors to PLEASE not include Micro-O on the age group courses. If it becomes a necessary evil for the elite courses to get the potential team members ready for WOC, OK, but don't torture all of us. If I wanted to do Trail-O, I would, but I don't. I want to do regular orienteering. Hey, why not add something more exciting and appropriate to the end of the course - like a speed chess match between the top 2 finishers, for the title?

If they are really looking for TV coverage, I don't see how penalty loops will do the trick. I think they need to make people eat centipedes, and they should look into some kind of new and revealing costumes.

Wow, I knew we had some disconnect between USOF leadership and competitive orienteering, but that note is off the charts. Looks like Chuck's taken the bait, hook, line, sinker, boat, and swallowed most of the lake while he was at it.

I've got no problem with Trail-O, although after trying it a few times I decided it wasn't for me. I've got no real problem with micro-O, either. I'd like to give it a try. I just don't understand why adding these types of elements to normal O races is considered a good idea.

Finally, Norwegian TV must work a lot differently from what we get in North America. Here, if you want to get a sport on TV, you come to the TV station (ESPN2, FoxSports, whatever) with sponsors and cash already in hand and BUY the time from them. Then, if your sport gets really high ratings other TV stations might become interested and put together a show on their own (which you may or may not have to pay for). If the ratings continue to improve overall, but are getting split between the two stations, one of the stations may decide they want an exclusive. At this point, you MAY be able to actually get some money out of them - but only if you really have exclusive rights to the sport (like the NFL, NASCAR, etc.)

Since anybody can put on an orienteering race (in the legal sense - not everyone can put on a good race, but that's not a requirement for TV), I would not expect to ever see TV revenue for orienteering. Of course, I don't ever expect to see TV coverage of any kind, but stranger things have happened.

I don't understand the entertainment value of penalty laps, especially without a mass start which would make the first finisher the winner.

Here is an idea for Micro-O that if not accepted by the IOF, might provide a way of training for Micro-O that would (IMHO) make it a teensy bit more palatable and fun for the orienteers (as I'm writing this I'm discovering fatal flaws, but I'm continuing just in case some value can be extracted): when the orienteer reaches the correct control, he/she knows it because the control code matches the description. The penalty for incorrect navigation is the time spent visiting the wrong controls.

Possible fatal flaw: If other orienteers come into the area, they might see someone leaving a bad control and looking for a good one, thereby gaining an advantage.

Well, maybe not so fatal -- suppose different people on the same course need to visit different micro-O controls?
An issue of fairness might result as far as difficulty/expected time per mistake or difference in distance, but my feeling is that this would be negligible for a reasonably well-designed course.

Or even if people on the same course have the same micro-O controls, the possible 'fatal flaw' isn't all that different from normal foot-O, where person B could see person A punching the control.

The entertainment potential is perhaps greater, because TV viewers could be watching the orienteers bounce from control to control rather than watching them punch a control that may or may not be the correct one.

I was actually thinking about Dean's suggestion a while back as a Park-O format. Mass start relay in a highly visible area. Normal relay forking, but instead of the forks being far apart, they are really close together. When you get to the circle, you can see the other controls and have to make sure (via checking features, clue, and control number) that you're in the right spot.

Rewards people who can discren such things while running pretty close to full speed and gives a nice head-to-head race that spectators/teammates can watch.

We sort of did this at the Forest Park relay this spring as some of the controls were fairly close (but still within USOF's guidelines for control placement). Because of the visiblity, some people did see a bag from a distance and target-lock on the wrong control. We had a fair number of mispunches. I don't really like having a lot of mispunches, so in the future I'd give a stronger warning to the competitors that they really need to be checking codes.

Not much use for training micro-O, but most people thought it was fun.

I remember years ago helping the Gould family design a course at Prospect Hill (in Waltham MA) that was very similar in spirit to Micro-O. We identified areas where similar features were clustered together (2 or 3) and hung bags at all of them. At the end, scoring was done based on the number of correct punches. Or something like that. I can't remember, though, whether the course was designed to be a score-O or visit-in-order.

Here is one of my worries. With TV driving the sport, what happens if everyone gets good at micro-o? Orienteers just run in punch the right control and run away. Gasp! No puzzling about the correct control. No penalty laps. Will the producers demand vague ambiguous features for their "entertainment" value?

I agree with Eric.

I was always very ambivalent about trail-o. I had very much of a live and let live feeling towards it – it didn’t bother me and I wouldn’t bother it. It had as much relevance to me as geocaching, letterboxing, etc… I have tried it and can recognize how some people may like it. But, it is beyond obvious to me that it is very different than regular Orienteering. Even more so than micrO.

I also think it is fairly obvious that it has a very limited appeal – in practice and in theory. Whatever TV appeal micro has, it far exceeds what trail O has. Trail-os appeal, whatever it is, must be elsewhere.

Now, if USOF leadership likes trail-o personally, that’s fine. But if they start making representations that could bowdlerize the sport that I do like, I will be ... well, disappointed is the g-rated version.

Jeffw, that'd still be fine. Part of the TV benefit for micro O' is that you can show several legs (because the legs are so short) without having to have several cameras. The extra markers force the orienteers to read the map and navigate, not just look for orange and white.

A few other comments:

1. Whether or not it is good TV remains to be seen, but the fact that it is being pushed (in part) by people who are TV professionals suggests that it might be good TV.

2. If I wanted to do Trail-O, I would, but I don't. I want to do regular orienteering.

Trail O' takes running out of the sport. But, micro O' doesn't. Take a look at Mat Troeng's heart rate from the Nordic Champs micro O' -- he's working hard the whole time (can you guess where the micro O' portion of the race is?)

3. Bjornar Valstad -- after running the micro O' at this year's Norwegian Champs wrote:

Micro...is demanding. I have no doubt that the concept favors the best orienteers. The legs are short and that puts a huge demand on map reading and concentration. A second's lapse or running at the wrong speed can cause significant time loss.

Forget about the name micro. It is orienteering and so the name should remain "orienteering."...

4. Personally, I don't think adding micro O' is a great idea, but I don't think it is terrible either. I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

We are working our way through the 5 stages of Grief -- Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.

That's for when you're facing impending death!

I'm going to go with a different maxim: Think globally, act locally. I ain't doing any Micr-O. Certainly not as an organizer, and not as a participant, either. If the race has Micr-O, I'll pass. If you want me to work results at your meet, don't use Micr-O. And if it sweeps over us like a tidal wave, well, the only race I absolutely won't miss is the Billygoat, and I have some say in what goes on there.

And the same goes for Trail-O. I tried it. And I won't be going back.

And I guess to link back to the NAOC format from a M/F 21 perspective

"Think globally, act locally....."

Don't do any 2-day classic races and don't organize any either.....

I think some of you are being rather unfair to Chuck. Has anyone spoken to him about what he actually did and did not say at the IOF meetings in Japan?

I know he has strong opinions on Trail-O stemming from wanting orienteering to be as inclusive as possible. At least that's my take from having had conversations about Trail-O with him. You don't have to enjoy Trail-O or ever want to do it yourself to be able to appreciate that Trail-O offers at least some small piece of orienteering to those that can't go crashing through the woods. Taking the attitude of "if micro-O will help trail-o then that's a silver lining to the micro-O issue" seems like a rather reasonable one. In his letter that Peter reproduced, I don't read it as him saying "USOF should support micro-O wholeheartedly so that Trail-O gets a boost"; I read it as more of something like it would be great to get more people in the US qualified to set Trail-O courses and if setting Trail-O and micro-O is similar, and if micro-O becomes part of the international scene, then maybe a few more people will be interested in learning how to set good Trail-O courses and that's a good outcome.

In the conversations I have had with Chuck about micro-O, he indicated that the primary concern of the IOF seemed to be to get orienteering in the Olympics, and rightly or wrongly the thinking was that micro-O --> more TV coverage ---> better chance of getting into the Olympics.

The main thing in this whole argument is that IOF want to get orienteering in the Olympics. I think that everyone has to get the message over to them that this is NEVER going to happen. The Olympics are actually looking to cut down the number of sports, not to add more, and even if they did add more, there are many more popular, TV friendly sports than orienteering queing up to get in.

The IOF should concentrate on maximising competitor enjoyment. If they did this I would imagine that the number of competitors would increase.

I apologize if my remarks are too harsh. No, I haven't talked to Chuck. It's clear from the note (which I hope was intended to be more or less public) that he very much believes what the IOF is selling. That's not necessarily bad, it was just an observation on my part.

The larger concern, which is granted none of my business since I'm not and never will be on the US Team, is that this meeting took place at WOC while the US team was in town and it doesn't appear that any of them were asked before the "USA" weighed in with a comment that is not only out of line with the team's wishes, but also objectively false. Nobody has done anything like Micro-O at the A-meet level.

OK, the IOF isn't going to blink if USOF protests and I doubt they got much solace from the endorsement, either. Still, it appears that the team was misrepresented and since the IOF public record of that is all we have to go on, I think that's a legitamate basis for a public grievance.

The worst part of this is that (regardless of what was actually said) the world has now been told that 'this type of orienteering has been practised in the United States'. So I don't think that the argument that they shouldn't include it as this would be unfair, due to inability of athletes to practice the discipline, is going to hold any water.

I suspect that we are just going to have to accept it as part of events going forward.

In those immortal words of Twisted Sister, "We're not gonna take it!i NO, we ain't gonna take it! We're not gonna take it, anymore" :)

How did a Gould family goten on EARTH anyhow and than even helped to put on a O meet?I must' v missed that episode of the STARGATE SG-1.

I agree with Eglinski...I just don't see what's so bad about the format itself. MicrO obviously rewards accurate, precise, confident navigation more than any existing discipline. It seems to test exactly what the technical orienteer loves...navigating precisely to the correct feature, dropping right into the control, and not just running around within the circle looking for colour.

Yeah, earlier notice from IOF would have been appropriate. (The most positive elites quited in Orienteering Today seemed to be those for whom it was less of a surprise.) And the rules are more complicated than they need to be. It'd be worth trying to address both of those. (Perhaps a procedure for adding new formats to world events, with early notification of the proposal for a change.) But the format seems like it could be a good addition, as sprint was.

Let's celebrate change! And set an example to the people resistant to a Sprint/Middle/Long (Classic)format.

In 2007, crickets. (A clubmate won a Volvo doing that last year (plus some navigation and other stuff). High exposure for his orienteering abilities.) Mark Burnett eat your heart out (as it were).

I agree that some comments here have been a bit harsh on Chuck. His letter above just says that Micro-O and Sprint-O are good for Trail-O - it's hard to disagree with that. If he thought Micro-O sounded like a good idea, he probably said so in the meeting. He obviously appreciates Trail-O, so it may be that he sees value in tossing it in the midst of a Middle-distance event (even if we don't).

For those thinking of heading to Denmark, it seems like a reasonable time to get to the "Acceptance" stage (whether or not Micro-O actually comes to be). It seems like there should be many ways to prepare for Micro-O without holding full-blown penalty-loop-including races.

1) As a competitor in a normal event, you can black out the numbers on your control descriptions. This will force you to navigate to the feature, and use the descriptions, not just check the number on the bag. Ok, this is a minimal form of training, but is a start.

2) As an event organizer, one could throw a bunch of extra controls in the woods near existing controls. Gives a mild simulation of Micro-O if control codes give the correct control. Much more serious for the competitor if it is coupled with blacked out control codes (a la 1).

For training, issues of fairness, perfectness of the map, length of penalty loops, etc. are all relatively unimportant. The important technique is being able to drop into a cluster of controls and pick the right one.

Sandy Hott-Johansen mentioned running a MicrO at the Norwegian Champs recently (placing an impressive 6th incidentally). She missed a control because she punched a deciduous "tree" instead of a deciduous "copse". It certainly might be time to review those control descriptions!

Well, it is good to learn new things, now isn't it? Maybe Micro-O won't be so bad after all, when you think of the possible good things it could help encourage/engender/develop. For instance, it's clear that to excel at Micro-O, you need to be very, very observant, in order to pick out the details that separate the correct controls from the "also rans". And not all of us (orienteers) are as observant as we might like to think. For instance, just this day I learned that there are those among us who have no idea what color of pants they might be wearing, without taking a look down first. Wouldn't you think that it would be a good thing to take a practised look as you were pulling on your pants at the beginning of the day, note the color, and file that away, just in case you're stopped on the streets later that day by Homeland Security, who will ask their usual question: "Ok ,sir, you say you aren't a terrorist. Can you prove it to us by telling us what color your pants are without looking down?" So, I say, if training Micro-O teaches us to be more observant generally, it is a good thing!

PS--Don't read the above and take away the wrong message. I had *nothing* to do with the discovery and further development of Micro-O.

I'll speculate that some of the angst seems to be
stemming from the possibility that orienteering
leadership is representing interests other than
current orienteers.

For example, the original EEP that brought us
changes to the WOC a few years back was not
because people were demanding it, but because
leadership felt it would be more media-friendly
(thus representing media interests). In fact, the
mantra in those papers was, We [...] have often
applied a "we for us" approach [...] We must
[...] change this approach to a "we for them"
attitide [...] (forgetting whether the changes
to the WOC turned out popular or not, the point
is the attitude). I recall a bit of angst in various
fora at that time also.

The leadership pushing micro-O in the WOC
seems to be representing TV producers,
prospective TV audiences, and other "thems",
not the base. Time will tell if the thems end
up pleased with the product, and the base
falls in line to be spectated failing (which seems
to be what micro-O adds), when an audience for
success has yet to be found (My guess is that
the O audience will not all of the sudden
mushroom, but we'll see)

In the US, I personally have not seen much
clamoring for trail-O (we don't see the trail-O
series, for example), yet it is a definite focus of
the leadership, thus representing prospective trail-O runners.
If resources are spread thin, such that things
that at least part of the base have been
clamoring for for years (e.g., champs
change) cannot gain traction, then it is at
least something to talk about.

I'm personally not trying to bash Chuck or anyone
else; these observations are mostly independent
of what was said in Japan. But if there is a
representational dissonance between orienteers
and their leadership, then some grumbling from
the base has to be expected.

I thought democratically elected leaders always did exactly what the majority wished.

Actually, the Sprint format was originally developed by the Park World Tour, run by elite orienteers like Jorgen Martensson who wanted a more exciting, marketable version of the sport. So adding that format does seem fairly competitor driven. And I've heard for many years of the idea of elite controls not having codes, in order to require navigating with confidence to a specific feature.

Certainly, the process undertaken for MicrO seems to be a bit lacking in many ways, and some correction would be nice. But still, I'd say, focus on can-do aggression, rather than grief and denial. Orienteering is about dealing with the unknown under time pressure. That wasn't supposed to mean a new WOC format with three snow-free months to train, but hey, it helps to have a sense of humour. I would suggest a goal for every NA WOC-hopeful of making the A final. Hard (means equalling the best North Americans on their good day), but doable for the top five in each country (prove me wrong), and worthy. How about a goal of five high level training camps between now and WOC?

It seems to me that the problem with all of this is not the micro-O itself, but rather the "dumb" penalty loops. Why not make people run "smart" penalty loops? i.e. more micro-O or just extra legs of O, instead of just running in circles. Everyone can see that this will be pretty boring to watch on TV (not to mention for the competitors). Its not even head-to-head, so just like spectating at an O race everyone will watch the single person cross the line, then look up at the Jumbotron to see the time. How is that more exciting that just watching the Jumbotron by itself? Is it the neck-turn that causes the adrenalin rush? No, its the appearance of the person's name in the results list. Anything that dumbs down O is a step backwards. Stop the dumbening and maybe micro won't be so bad.

At the MicrO tomorrow after our club champs Long distance event, we're using penalty controls instead of penalty loops. Miss two MicrO controls, you do two short penalty controls (designed so that someone who misses all 6 MicrO controls and thus does all six penalty controls takes one minute more than someone hitting all the MicrO controls accurately, per the course setting guidelines).

I hope you made the penalty controls truly unpleasant like: middle of blackberry thicket, top of radio tower, etc.

I'm a bit player in all this. This decision doesn't affect me the way it affects the people going to the WOC. I do believe in being realistic and hedging to make sure all the bases are covered, so while I will complain about Micr-O, I will also keep an eye on other people's courses and even try to set one if there's interest.

Last night I reread the Micr-O rules. I was trying to answer two questions: 1. Why is this a bad idea (if indeed it is a bad idea)?, and 2. How would I set one?

To me, the biggest problem is there is no history of what makes a good course. In regular O, people understand what to expect when they turn over the map. Competitors know the coursesetter has limits as to what sort of stupid tricks can be pulled. The course setter knows how far he (or she) can go. There is no way this mutual expectation exists today for Micr-O, and a year is too little time for it to happen.

My experience with big event courses is that the course setter, in the interest of fairness, has to avoid tricks. I put things on local courses that I would never even think about at an A-Meet. This is another big problem with Micr-O: The more interesting the course is for watching, the less fair the course is. For Micr-O, I propose that the fairer the course, the more boring it is to watch. Brian May posted that Sandy Hott-Johansen missed a control because she punched a deciduous "tree" instead of a deciduous "copse". To me, that is a trail-O distinction that I do not welcome in regular-O (unless there's only one flag). If that's what Micr-O is, I don't want any part of it.

Looking at the maps, I noticed two things I didn't like: (1) They don't always use the same number of flags, and (2) All the flags aren't necessarily visible from each other, especially if there are two large parallel features. Say you navigate to a control, and there are three flags there. Should you look for more? How do you know there aren't six? Normally, if you get to a parallel feature and the code is wrong, you know exactly how to correct.

As much as I like the "Billygoat" rule and the strategy of skipping some or all of the controls, I think it's just too made-for-TV to be fair---there are just too many things going on. And what about Competitors who happen to enter the course together? Is the presence of another competitor likely to help your time? I think it would. (And to be clear, I think a true Billygoat rules event, mass-start with a skip, would make great TV, but it would require a lot of editing, for sure.)

As far as setting courses: Six controls with six flags each is 36 bags and 36 punches. I prefer stands, so that's 30 more stands than I'd normally use. That is a burden for a quick weekend course. And equipment is the smallest problem.

Much more difficult, in my opinion, is the map. I don't think you can ever set a Micr-O from the map. You have to fieldcheck to a level beyond a standard course. Any weakness of the map, or an approach you didn't check is going to bite you (as setter). The mapping standard is considered an acceptable control "test". My experience says the mapping standard is a vague line and changes from point-to-point on most maps.

One thing I will cite as proof that this is a lame idea is the IOF's decision to use it only on the final. I think there is so much difficulty in setting a WOC-level Micr-O that they only want to do it once, for the final. And that decision is completely against the interest of fairness. When the final competitors exchange the map for the Micr-O section, they're going to have no idea what to expect. My idea of a fair course might help someone prepare for the WOC Micr-O, but it might not. I'd be surprised if it helped, but I'm working on courses anyway.

The more I look at this, the more I shake my head. It's an idea that's just not ready for primetime. Sure, I'd run one. Sure, I'd try to set one. There is a certain amount of unfairness in Orienteering, primarily (1) on controls when you see people go in and come out of them ahead of you, and (2) with elephant tracks. But Micr-O takes it to another level. It takes the setter from being someone you expect a fair course from, to someone you expect an unfair course from. And why? Because it makes good TV.

The only way to fix micr-O is to make the six controls fair. That means very few people are going to miss them, and very few people are going to run penalty loops. If that is the case, then why do it at all? To me as a course setter, if someone runs a penalty lap, it's because either they gamed the course and skipped controls, or it's because "I the course setter" screwed up. Micr-O is asking me to trick the competitor, and I don't like that.

Two final thoughts:

1. I am not mad at Chuck Ferguson, in any way.
2. I am mad at IOF for making this unthinkable change to orienteering.

Matthew Robbins
Cincinnati, Ohio USA

...instead of just running in circles. Everyone can see that this will be pretty boring to watch on TV...

Which reminds me there's a Nascar race on TV today.

The main problem I see is that elite sport feeds from and feeds back to "the rest".

If the main membership base in North America is hard pressed to accept and set courses for the Middle and the Sprint (OK, maybe only the Middle), then the Team will have to only count on itself so that "Organisers of orienteering events [...] will have the opportunity to try out this format (IOF wording).

I don't watch NASCAR (real men turn right?), but if I did, it would be because on each loop there is a chance that someone could "blow up real good". Penalty loops thru a minefield anyone?

At the MicrO a few hours ago, most people made one or two errors, a few 3 or 5 (of 6 MicrO controls). Most people got the Flag in the Forest wrong. Partly this was because the nearby features (ruins) were faded, and I hadn't checked the terrain beforehand, the event being an hour away to coincide with a Long (Classic) distance event, and intended as a training event. (I pointed out the ruins before the start, but that only helps so much..) Some people reported finding that the Flag in the Forest took longer to figure out (because you had to analyze distances and directions from adjacent features, rather than just orienteer to a normal control location and check your code), and thus they felt it was a better choice to risk a penalty loop rather than spend time there. But that's part of the strategy (weigh the time-cost of thinking.). But for this control, several (of 16) would have had perfect runs.

One participant opined that everything but the Flag in the Forest amounted to orienteering to a control and making sure that you had read your control description before getting there. Frankly, that's what I expected, at least for those good at reading the detail within the control circle. (But maybe that means I set it too easy. Not sure I could have set it harder, even though it was quite detailed terrain, and still been fair. Ties in to one of the points CedarCreek made.)

By the way, there's a web site describing the course setting guidelines...what's fair, what's not. Most of it is much as it is for normal orienteering. (But of course, that's different from courses actually being set fairly in practice, which is something that takes time to be sorted out as has been remarked. One problem (of a few) with the short timeline until WOC.) Some of the MicrO courses I've heard of sound like they don't meet the specified fairness. Though I prefer nowadays not to protest a lot, I think it's worth protesting this at big MicrO events (if you do one and a control is unfair), in order to raise the point and help set the accepted practices, so that courses are fair in the future as the event becomes established.

http://www.orientering.no/arrangement/Description_... Down a ways is the bit on how to course set.

I've watched a fair bit of NASCAR (even driven one for a few hot laps at Kansas Speedway). I also enjoy watching the 10,000m on the track, which some would think as exciting as watching a marble roll down a funnel. I do not, however, watch qualification runs for NASCAR, nor do I watch "record attempt" runs on the track which are paced and therefore have no strategy. I believe that's the fundamental problem with the penalty loops - it's just individuals running fast around a loop. Not the stuff of drama.

Accepting that this is likely going to happen and further accepting that changes at the WOC level do work their way into standard practice, I believe the more productive discussion is how to set these things to best achieve the balance of fairness, workability, and training value for elites.

I would suggest that leaving the control codes on the bags and clue sheets best does this. If you go to the wrong control, you've lost time so you've already received a penalty. People who consistently go to the right control quickly will have an advantage over people who hunt and peck. There's no need for penalty loops. The elite get immediate feedback on whether they were right, which should speed the process of adjusting to the format.

Note that this is not an endorsement of Micro-O and J-J's suggestion of boycotting the whole thing is a reasonable course of action. However, for those who do want to try to put these on, I think the fairness issue has to be taken very seriously.

A huge thanks to Jim for orgaizing the event yesterday. I can't imagine how much work that must have been (which is part of the issue). My thoughts are as follows:

The majority of the controls were wasy to get using standard orienteering, i.e. look at the description before entering the circle, ignore the flags that didn't make sense. The 'flag in the forest' control was quite starightforward, run to the attackpoint and then attack! I got the linear feature wrong, but this was mainly because I figured that the penalty would be quicker than the fine navigation that was required. The main thing seemed to be to make sure that you kept moving, and didn't worry at all about whether or not you had the correct control.

My overall comments were that if I had to run the Micr-O event, I would be overjoyed, since I would have made it to the Final, and not be too worried about it. It seemed to me that using a normal orienteering approach will be fine.

That being said, I am still unclear as why this will be great TV, unless someone is a keen orienteer I'm sure that they won't have a clue what is going on. I also don't think it should be in the World Champs, unless you are going to put Line-O, Score-O, Night-O etc in as well. Finally, if you need this event fro TV, is there any rationale for still having a Sprint event, since that was introduced purely (I think) for TV.

Including a section of three-four legs of Culvert-O would make middle course much more telegenic comparing to Micr-O! And much more competitive (not to mention fairness)! Just imagine how much great TV footage can be obtained with couple-three stationary cameras! I think the USOF should take the initiative and propose the inclusion of the culvert-O as part of middle quals and final into the next WOC.

JMHO - That may give USA and Canadian teams an advantage as top Culvert-O world competitors reside right here in the North America!

Hey, I resemble that remark:
>>as exciting as watching a marble roll down a funnel

I enjoy watching the marbles or coins roll on the hyperboloid (? paraboloid ?) surfaces at the science museum.

Auto racing, though, is about as exciting to me as golf, or watching paint dry.

I think people are misunderstanding where they are hoping the TV value of this will come from. It isn't from people doing the penalty loops, but rather, from seeing whether or not people punch at the right controls. The idea of penalty loops comes from biathlon (which in Europe has much higher TV ratings than pure nordic ski racing). The reason for this is the "drama" of the shooting range - are they going to hit the targets or not? I think the idea of micro-o is the same. Are the runners going to hit the right controls or not? In biathlon coverage, they don't actually show the skiers doing circles around the penalty loop when they miss, and I don't think they would show orienteers running around the penalty loop either. I am sure that if you had a camera at a micro-o control (with the false controls visible) you would see some runners coming in smoothly and quickly, punching at the right one and running off. It would look pretty impressive. You would also see some people come in slowly, stand around for a while looking silly, punching the wrong one, etc. That wouldn't look so impressive. I think that a non-orienteering sports fan would be able to understand that. It is kind of the same in biathlon. You see some skiers come into the range, pump five rounds right in the middle of the targets in less than 30 seconds, and ski away. Pretty impressive. Other people come in, take their time, miss a few shots. Clearly not as impressive.

Saw the following on nopesport (a British site) posted by David May, member of the IOF Foot-O Committee, which is supposed to come up with rules for the Micro-O for WOC-2006:

"The next version of the Micr-O Rules is likely to see a simplification of the punching possibilities.

Firstly, competitors WILL now have to punch something (even if a dummy control) at each Micr-O control else they will be disqualified, as in normal orienteering.

Secondly, and again as in normal orienteering, they can punch again if they think they've made a mistake. So, if there are 5 Micr-O controls (another change - reduced from 6) and a runner has 5 correct punches, there will be no penalty loops even if there are several incorrect punches too.

Hope this clears the muddy water a little (and I hope that no one raises the issue of 30 max punches on an SI card at this point too ...)"

Boy, and I was just getting to like Micro-O' and now they're going to change it. Next thing you know they'll be messing with the "control in the forest." That's the one I figured us old-timers would have a big advantage on, because way back when we had a lot of controls like that.

But I sure am glad we haven't wasted a lot of time organizing Micro-O training sessions with 6 controls. Might have picked up some bad habits.

The FOC has until December 31 to write the rules, so this may well not be the final word.

I presume that the last control punched is the one that counts? As opposed to punching every control you pass on the way into or out of the one you believe is correct, just be be safe?

I guess it would depend on the length of the penalty loops, but I can't imagine that punching every control would be faster than punching one wrong and running the loop. Still, it does seem "right" that your last answer should be the one that counts.

What's the clue symbol for the control in the forest? I have often wanted to see a clue of a square with a diagonal line, with one of the resulting triangles shaded. There have been occasions where that seemed more appropriate than the clue that actually appeared.

>What's the symbol for the control in the forest?

IOf symbol is: ?

>What's the symbol for the control in the forest?

How about "indistinct tree"?

JimBaker wrote: "By the way, there's a web site describing the course setting guidelines...what's fair, what's not."

The link Jim sent is a part of this larger site (below). These are the maps I was studying.

If you get a login page, hit cancel. It seems to load anyway. (Don't tell anyone...)

Micr-O page with map examples

Personally I think it's time to study the official rules (when they come out), talk with people who have done Micr-O, and get as much experience doing it as possible. Like Jon-dub said "My overall comments were that if I had to run the Micr-O event, I would be overjoyed, since I would have made it to the Final, and not be too worried about it. It seemed to me that using a normal orienteering approach will be fine."

I have decided I (if I make the team for WOC 06) would like to run the middle distance regardless of the micro-O, and of course my goal is to get into A final, and when I am there, to have done the above so that I might also "do-well" in the final. Reading the description from NOC, and talking to some people who have done it, I am starting to think it's not actually that that bad. A new challenge, and something new to learn, maybe it will even help us become more precise orienteers on all our controls if we practice a little for Micr-O. I am going to do as much Micro-O as provided as possible. I think it's great that Jim Baker already set up a Micr-O, and I talked to Marc yesterday who is in Denmark for the first training camp, and they did their first Mirc-O too. People are accepting the challenge, and if we do so as well, we might even win some time on other people who are running penalty laps. I see it as an opportunity.

The new change in the rules that you have to punch a control at every control changes the strategy though. Originally, it was allowed to skip all the micr-O controls and run just to the mandatory check points, thus running 6 loops and as the rules states gaining 1 minute to the optimal time for the Micr-O course. When I read this, I thought well, that would almost be to our advantage, since we would probably have longer than the optimal time for the Micr-O controls, why not just run the loops, we might even loose more than 1 minute going to all the controls. I guess they figured that one out! Oh well…

btw, there is no clue description for the "control in the forest", just a blank line on your clue descriptions. I find this type of control strange…

Now that I've seen the link and the sample courses, I get this. I participated in what might be called surprise Micr-o courses about 10 years ago, set by a noted vulpine marsh denizen. The guinea pigs for this event didn't know they were being micr-oed until arriving at the circle, when they were generally panicked and stampeded by the sight of orange and white in all directions. It was certainly interesting, but the course setter was nearly run out of town on a rail by some hidebound lampshade hunters who liked to see their quarry one at a time. Well before his time, that prescient course setter.

Oh, lordy. It were not micro-O! (using BT speak)

And now for the other half of the non-micro-O story.

Earlier in that course, there was an infamous leg from 'gully in field' to 'large rock pile in woods'. Nearly the entire lead pack went right - right to the wrong rock pile and wandered around. Having messed up the prologue as usual, and being slower anyway, I got to the gully and noticed that the gully itself was an arrow pointing to the left rock pile. I ran there, punched, then nearing the end of the course, ran with Evan Custer into a field of controls. Evan went right, I went left, checking each control. I got lucky and found the punch, then looked over my shoulder. 80 m or so back was the 'lead' pack - bearing down on us fast - and they knew which control to punch! I was really ticked off at the thought of them passing me on the way in - they didn't! And the non-micro-O course-setter had one fewer person screaming at him.

jjcote: "I presume that the last control punched is the one that counts?"

ebuckley: "Still, it does seem "right" that your last answer should be the one that counts."

Me: "What?! A penalty lap? But that wasn't my last answer to #3; it was my first answer to #4!"