Discussion: USOF Sprint Races

[I'll move this out of the fundraiser sprint thread, as I
think it is a different topic; I posted this on clubnet a
while back and got some good feedback, but felt like
posting it here while the issue is hot].

If I were to submit a sprint race to USOF sanctioning
(possibly, but not likely, as a championship), I would
most likely submit it as an M/F21 race only (meaning
one course for men, one course for women, open
to anyone).

Assuming a 4min/k pace WT (wild guess as I have not
spent much time in the terrain), the M21 course would
be about 3K or so. F21 perhaps would be about
2.3K or so. This on top of other racing that weekend.

One piece of feedback I'm looking for in particular
is -- is it true that M/F21 runners are the only ones
interested in sprint races? I'm not convinced this
is true -- the fundraiser at PEEC drew a diverse
crowd, for example, but this is the only data
point I have. IIRC, that race was shorter, and
everyone was already there, dressed, etc.

Put another way, if you typically run green at
A meets, would you want to run in _this_ sprint
race? Or, do you want to run sprint races, but
would prefer a course where the WT
is 12 min _for your age group_? Or, are you
not interested in these sorts of races?

(To be honest, my feeling was that having
the full slate of USOF courses was more work
than it was worth, and that it would be more fun
if everyone ran the single course for their gender.
My sense is that many competitive runners,
regardless of age, would prefer this, but I do
not like to try to think for others. OTOH, I'm
particularily bothered about what to do about
M/F16 and younger).

Secondly, this race would be added onto DVOA's
long O champs weekend planned for Nov '05
(planned format is classic day 1, long day 2 (lets
not debate "middle" day 1 in this thread; I'm not
part of that planning and that is up to the technical
team already in place)). The sprint was conceived
as an easy way to do a model -- if you are going
to have a model, why not make it a sprint race --
and why not sanction it to sort of push the process
of sprint race rules along thru USOF.

The question is, if the sprint were held Friday
afternoon, would people take an extra day to come
to this race? I know many people come to the
model when it is on a Friday, but certainly many
less than the full A meet roster. This is the "am
I going to take an extra day off to do a 12 minute
race question"?

Your opinions of how (or if) we should conduct
this race are welcome, regardless of what course
you typically run.

Thanks for your time.

I usually run red courses, but enjoy sprint courses. I wouldn't fly across the country for a sprint race or a sprint/classic weekend.

I would probably still skip the sprint model event as I typically skip model events anyway. The concept of sprinting the model event, for me personally, wouldn't work very well as I would get very little terrain study in and my legs would get thrashed for the main event the next day. I would want to walk the terrain with the map after the run.

Some other twists on the slipping a sprint in without our knowing it are: the beginning for the short course champs at the Winona Wonder last year was essentially a sprint race and the Rocky Mountain 1000 Day sprint/chase race. Both were/are fun races.

One final note, I agree that an A-meet sprint race shouldn't have 7 different courses. That is a lot of flags in a small area. 2 or 3 makes more sense.

> This is the "am I going to take an extra day off to do a 12 minute race question"?

no, not me personally.

In addition, the purpose of a model event is far different from that of a sprint, and good sprint terrain is probably not good model terrain for middle/classic and vice-versa.

Sanctioning sprint races would be fine by me. It *is* one of the IOF/WOC medal races after all.

I'm not a huge fan of Sprints, but I'll run them for a good cause if I trip over them. I won't go out of my way to run one though.

By the way, what is the IIRC? International Iguana Regulatory Comission?

I completely agree with Eddie.

The model events should not be substituted by Sprint.

I think sanctioning sprint races is very good thing. Sprint races are a part of orienteering now no matter if you like it or not.

As for me I’d like to see just one course for everybody. Because it’s not physically demanding and gives everybody the opportunity to compete with the best runners (of course you should calculate the final results in each age group separately). It would be fun to see when juniors run faster than adults or women run faster than men.
I understand though that this one-course format will never be approved. So, I am for 2 courses: one for men and another for women.

I’d like to emphasize one important thing. The maps have to be prepared specially for the sprint events. They should not be just enlarged versions of 1:10000 maps (or even worse 1:15000 maps). The maps should be full of features, which were not fit in 1:10000 scales but could be shown on 1:5000. It’s not difficult because sprint area is relatively small.

Having AM sanctioned sprint (per IOF) and PM middle (per IOF) same day may be good idea and will attract people. Using sprint results for middle seeding is another one. Last year short (sic) champs having this format was very well met.

In WOC and WC races men and women have same course of ~ 3K, 15 or so controls. It, probably, would make sense to make women course in the USA a bit shorter. However, I would vote for same course. Start interval of 30 seconds can be used if many people signed for it.

Maps should be specifically made at 1:5000 or 1:4000 scale as Alexei pointed above. Blowing up 1:10000 or, even worth, 1:15000 maps should be prohibited.

Separate ranking scheme for sprints! Mixing middle and classic (sic) results is probably okey (although personally I would separate middle from long). However, just watch this year ranking for John F. who had wonderful performance at the number of short races :) We have rising star in our community! Having spring results would skew the ranking model we have now big time.

Last note is on using sprints for the USA team trials. We should not mix sprint results with other criterias. My opinion is that sprint champions should be included in the WOC team automatically (as well as middle distance champions). These are totally different disciplines and I can foresee big problems when averages are taken as selection criteria and we have (finally!) a big groups of candidates. Right now it is not a problems as there is only a handful of potential contestants.

I really like Sprints and would participate if I planned to be at the meet. Right now the Flying Pig has a "sprint" sanctioned for next year and I think they intend for it to be actual sprint format. It is probably necessary for the Board to pass some basic rules defining how the classes fit into this, how to connect it to the rankings, and what winning time we are shooting for.

My idea would be to put out two sprint courses:
1) for blue/red class runners
2) for green/brown class runners (and other junior classes?)

This would put the elite men and women on the same course, but also provide a shorter course for us slower folks, so we can still enjoy the aspect of running hard and having a short winning time.

If a sprint is sanctioned then I think it needs to provide for the standard USOF age-class structure.

If there is a sprint sanctioned event on friday, I do not see way,can't you have the model event for the main events, at a diff, time and location(close by), also on friday.That would not be very hard to acomplish, by both competitors and organizer,without using the resources, needed for the next two days.

If a sprint is sanctioned, there are several options, among them:
a) sanction it as an "elite meet" as described in the USOF rules, with only M21/F21 categories (but anyone welcome to participate in those categories).
b) have only one or two courses, but the full class structure, and the "courses" all coincidentally happen to be the same
c) have multiple courses and classes

I don't have an opinion as to what would be best. And I'm not sure how best to interface this with rankings, either.

In response to Randy's main question: Yes! I'd love to participate (and will do so if I can make the meet).

Secondary points: I think the one course format would be fine. One Blue/Red and one Green/Brown (or one male and one female) should also work. I don't see any problem with the Orange runners using the Green/Brown course as the legs will be sufficiently short that they could always just return to the previous control if they get turned around. If the under 14 crowd is included, a separate White/Yellow course could be set. Then you'd have the full class structure with only three courses.

I'll add my vote against replacing the model event. There's no way you will pick up sublte mapping features at sprint speed. The difference in 1:5000 mapping would also be an issue. Perhaps people could go back out on the sprint area after the event using the 1:10000 map.

Finally, I don't see how a handful of sprint events throughout the year is going to significantly skew the rankings. The sprint should be ranked like any other event.

I normally run M40 (red) but do enjoy sprint events. I also think that one course is sufficient for all but don't have a problem with two either. I would probably take the extra day for a Friday sprint (assuming the meet is within my normal driving range - I am planning on DVOA in Nov.) but would also want the opportunity to do a real model event after running the sprint as well.

Sprint events should be set on faster parts of the map than classic distance events - so model and sprint on the same map (diff scale) is probably out unless all the classic terrain is very fast as well (not in the northeast, perhaps elsewhere).

re: mapping - I think the map should be specially printed for the sprint (not an enlargement) but I do not think a lot of additional features should be added to the map because of scale - the purpose of the sprint event to to navigate at very high speeds and adding a lot of minutiae to a 1:5000 map will just slow down the map reading. The level of detail normally shown on a 10k or 15k should be adequate (though symbol sizes may need to be modified) just easier to read at speed.

However if the sprint terrain is 'parklike' - ie lots of manmade features, then using the Park-O mapping symbols would be in order to show the special details like staircases etc. But if the sprint is wooded areas, my suggestion would be to stick to the classic mapping symbol set and level of detail.

The Team/VOC event in Alabama will have a "true" IOF Sprint on MLK Day (Monday), AND GAOC will offer an Extreme-O for those who haven't had enough. The course/class structure will be J-J's (b).