Discussion: Combining 18 and 20 Categories into one competition category.

Hi All,
Along with working on ideas to improve the JWOC Team and selection process we have also been working on getting kids competition that we feel will benefit their growth in orienteering.

Please note that the the most common argument against this is the feeling that the 17-18 year old's should be getting medals at championships for good performance. combining these two categories could discourage kids from competition because they have to compete against 19-20 year old's who are more mature and probably doing more training.

Also that those individuals might not be ready to run blue and red courses. However the navigational ability is the same.

There have also been questions about junior running the same distance over and over again, and not having enough variance. I think there is an explanation in the proposal about this.

There have also been arguments about having juniors who win on Blue or red gt award for both categories. If we were to do this then you would have to have overall winners on a course for all the categories. Example if an M 45 beet all the guys in M 35 should he get an award for M 35 as well. Its a good argument. I am not sure. My intention is to build a bridge between the Junior and Senior programs personally I think it looks really good if a Junior beets a runner on M21 its both an incentive to the Junior to keep up the good work and for the elite runner to get better. If a Junior still does well against his piers that is recognized as well. I would like to point out that we are trying develop a program that develops and helps juniors take part in the sport on many levels and encourages them on many levels. I think in light of that this would be fine because we are trying to develop a better program not make sure that everyone who should get a medal get two.

That being said here is the proposal.

Developing a New Approach to Competition for Juniors


Rule Change: Combine M/W 18 with M/W 20 to make one competition category of M/W 17-20.


Reasons for this:
1: JWOC races except for the long are all around a green length course, WOC format will be changing to shorter courses. Juniors should be practicing to orienteer faster at shorter distances before they move up. Juniors have been moving up to longer courses before they are ready, due the need for M20/W20 ranking. This will make it possible to get the needed ranking without having to move to a longer course which they are not ready for. It will allow for a more full competitive racing category and allow for juniors to compare their results to the elites in specific races. Finally this will be a start to bridging the gap between the Juniors and Seniors.

M-17-20 Racing courses at A meets and championships:

WOC Team trials Blue M21 Course
Sprint
Middle
Long
Sprint Champs Blue M21 Course
Middle Champs Blue M 21 Course
Long Champs Blue M 21 Course
Long Green
Middle Blue M 21 Course
Sprint Blue M 21 Course
Ultra-Long Green
Short Blue M 21 Course
Classic Green
Intercollegiate champs Green (in this case any M21 runners would run down in champs)
Interscholastic Varsity Green (Note for results separation will be needed for kids eligible for interscholastic championships and Juniors older than high school age. Suggestions would be to have overall winners on the course and then school champs.)

Note: I would also encourage Juniors who medal in M 21 as well as 17-20 to receive awards for both. Juniors should also receive rankings for both categories.

F 17-20 racing courses at A meets:

WOC Team trials Red F 21
Sprint
Middle
Long
Sprint Champs Red F 21
Middle Champs Red F 21
Long Champs Red F 21
Long Brown
Middle Red F 21
Sprint Red F 21
Ultra-Long Brown
Short Red F 21
Classic Brown
Intercollegiate Champs Brown (in this case F21 Runners would run down in champs)
Interscholastic Varsity Brown (Note for this Separation or results or will be needed for kids eligible for interscholastic championships and Juniors older than high school age. Suggestions would be to have overall winners on the course and then school champs.)

Note: I would also encourage Juniors who medal in F 21 as well as 17-20 to receive awards for both. Juniors should also receive rankings for both categories.

Note: These racing categories may change as different competitions develop or change. Generally the rule of thumb would be that M17-20 runs course 5-7k or shorter with the only exception being the Team trials long and US long Champs. When M21 is within this 5-7k range that will always be the course for M-17-20, otherwise it will be green.

For F 17-20 the rule of thumb will be 3-5k courses with the US team trials long and Long champs being the only exception. When F 21 course lengths are within that distance F17-20 will always run those courses, otherwise they run brown.



Rational for these Rule Changes:

1: In developing a cohesive junior program, ages for kids that go to JWOC are generally between 16-20 years old. Breaking that into two categories makes it harder to measure were individuals are at, and asks a junior to jump to the 20 category to prove themselves. This creates a disconnect in their training because they are jumping to longer distances before they have a solid navigational skills.

2: Generally as a rule of thumb in developing an athlete between 16-20 they should not be racing much over 30-40 min on a bad day. Red wining times are often well over an hour. This helps develop strength for an athlete however it does not develop the speed and technique. The body is not fully developed until about 21 and its important to continually focus on technique and form to build healthy habits. A junior racing all out, will get tired after about 30min. Once their physical bodies are tired it severely takes away from their mental capacity to navigate. This creates the habit to race slower and save energy and does not allow for orienteering speed to develop. Both their navigational skill and their body will not benefit from going longer than they can stay focused at a high level of intensity and may even detract from navigational ability.

3: This will create a more cohesive cross competition between US and Canada. Canada already has this competition category. We can then use Canadian races as cohesive examples of how a junior did in the given race.

4. With shorter courses at A meets Junior will be less tired and able to train after races, without being exhausted.

5: Having Juniors race on the M/F 21 courses will start to build cohesion between the junior program and the elite program. The only time they will be running the long of that category is at the Long Champs which is comparable to a JWOC long.

[Since you're posting this here, I'll cross-post what I wrote to the rules committee on an earlier version; you've answered some of these issues above but not all:]

I have a couple of concerns, although overall I think this is a good proposal.

First, the proposal suggests that M17-20 should run the Blue course at Middle distance events, and F17-20 should run the Red course. (For other races, the proposal tends to be that M17-20 should run Green and F17-20 should run Brown.) I think given that a Blue middle and a Green long are not so different in length, the net effect of this is that all race distances will become more similar. I don't know that this is what is intended. I query whether it wouldn't be better, if the spirit of this proposal is adopted, to have M17-20 run Green middle distance also and F17-20 run Brown. That way middle distance races would still have a distinctly different character to longer races for the M17-20 and F17-20 age classes.

Second, the jump from M17-20 to M21+ and from F17-20 to F21+ will become very large under this proposal.

Third, a part of the proposal is that if a competitor runs the same course (eg a Blue middle that is also the M17-20 middle), they should be eligible for awards and rankings in any class which is relevant. I think rankings and awards should be distinguished here.

For rankings this should be straightforward: just use any race at which both Blue and Green use the same course as an eligible race for both Blue and Green, scoring only Green-course eligible competitors when it's used for Green rankings and all competitors when it's used for Blue. So this seems like a good idea that has application beyond this proposal. (An alternative, if the rankings organizers determine that there is now enough overlap, in the sense that Blue course runners don't only race Blue course runners but also race Red and Green runners frequently, then it might be possible to combine the course rankings into one overall OUSA ranking, at least for calculation purposes and at least for Brown and above (probably Orange, Yellow, and White should remain separate). This would enable comparison across classes and do away with any issues about how to handle the case when multiple classes run the same course. Rankings could still be reported age group by age group as they are now, if desired. I defer to Valerie Meyer on whether there is (or would be) enough overlap for the rankings so derived to be reliable.

I don't think it's a good idea when it comes to awards for competitors to be eligible for more than one award, however. It opens a can of worms: for example, when someone in F65 wins on the brown course, do they get the F55, F60, and F65 awards? If not, why not? If we are going to have age class awards in the first place, then I don't see why the M17-20 and F17-20 should be the unique exceptions that are eligible for multiple awards.

An interesting comment from Isabel last night: she'd like to see junior women running on the same courses as junior men. She finds it motivating and instructive to train with, and race against, the boys. On the other hand, she finds it demotivating to go to an A meet and be one of very few women on F20 (sometimes the only woman on F20). I realize there would be a few more competitors with a combined F18/20 category, but I think considering her proposal would still be valuable, especially while we are still working on increasing the numbers for young women.

I'd be curious to know what the other junior women think.

Some more cool ideas, challenging the status quo. I'm not sure about all the course switching,but I think the other parts make sense. Abolish M-18 and F-18 (including at the IS Champs). You would go from M-16 to M-20, and F-16 to F-20. Perhaps also, as Izzy and Barb suggest, F- and M- run on the same courses. The categories would not be combined, just on the same courses. If this would help junior women in any way, we should do it.

I think simpler is better, and easier to sell. If the courses remain segregated by gender, then Red for men and Green for women. If the courses are integrated by gender, then maybe it's a toss-up between Red and Green.

I'm concerned that there are so few events in this proposal with course length anywhere approaching that of the JWOC Long, that it sounds like Orienteering USA has simply given up on trying to rear juniors who'd be competent and competitive in longer distances. But maybe that's exactly the right tradeoff; we should give up on this goal because it is not achievable, and consolidate resources on something more achievable.

I'd like to try racing on Red courses, I think that Izzy has a good point. Plus I'd be able to see how far I am behind the elite women.

We've run 18s and 20s together at national events in Australia for about 10 years now. It seems to have worked pretty well. (That said, our class-course structure doesn't seem as rigid as the one you have in the U.S.).

When I was a junior the category was M17-20. It worked really well because it gave me a chance to train and compete domestically against stronger competitors for two years. Then when I was 19 and 20 I was more ready to compete at JWOC than if I had been running easier courses against weaker competition the 2 previous years.

I think M17-18 should be separate from M19-20, and the latter should run Blue course, likewise F19-20 should run on Red. 19 year old is physically mature to run adult courses. Why so few run on say F18? I see part of the problem preoccupation of USOF with all sorts of "working in teams", JROTS, varsities, scouts, zombies, mudders, adventure-runners, treasure-hunters, which suppresses competitive individual junior classes.

I would love to run blue more often and run against a stronger field of competitors. The reason that holds me back is having to run red to build a JWOC ranking each year.

blair, am I right in thinking the Australian model is instead of one 17-20 grade replacing -18 and -20, there are elite and A grades within the 4 year class? So doesn't reduce the number of grades, just makes it not entirely defined by age. I have no idea if this could work with North American numbers and course structure, but I think in general it is a good way to go. Whenever it is proposed for NZ the benefit that is always pushed is that the best juniors will compete at the "top junior" level for 3-4 years rather than just 2 (not that the best juniors ever stick strictly to their age classes so this happens informally anyway, but in doing so devalues the younger age class), but I see a parallel benefit in that the slower developers can stay on the relatively shorter course for up to another 2 years. I'm sure if I had had that option at that age it would have made quite a positive difference in my orienteering development

You're right, at least at the big national events, although the vast majority run 17-20E - 17-20A usually has only a handful of entrants.

This thread (and the other one on American JWOC selection process) is making me think about some crucial differences between the orienteering competition structure in Australia and the U.S., which superficially you might expect to be similar. The big difference is that the Australian orienteering population is much more concentrated in a few centres, not spread all over the country (and those centres, if they're too far apart to drive between, all have pretty good air links with each other), which makes it a lot easier to get most people together for the same few competitions each year - national championships week (end of September, in a week which is school/university holidays in most states), a multi-day at Easter (a four-day holiday weekend in Australia) which is also the main JWOC trial, and two or three other national league weekends. The impression I get as a distant observer is that there's nothing on the American calendar, except maybe the North American Championships, which brings together everyone serious (across the age groups) in the one place at the one time.

Travel is not so easy from WA, Blair! From a financial perspective anyway. (I laughed at the post mentioning 5 and 10 hour one way drives to get to A meets. 2-3 days drive one way from here...

But I totally agree re: the 2 main carnivals being on at the same time each year. I guess one of the North American issues is the vast climate differences between north and south that result in the best conditions being at totally different times of year?

I haven't bee to a single event since I got here where everyone important (juniors or seniors) from both coasts attends.

Which is why I'm constantly surprised how ridiculously rigid (and objective) all selection criteria are here.

(I like the proposals btw. Not sure 17 year olds care about separate prizes or rankings, but fun actual competition).

If I recall correctly, there were basically 2 reasons we combined 17-18 with 19-20 in Canada a number of years ago. The first was numbers - so few participants in either category it seemed logical to combine them. The second was to try to develop a stronger field at that age - more competition, more people running the longer course. Generally speaking, I think it has worked out well, but one downside is that it then creates quite a 'jump' from 15-16 to 17-20.

Why not put 17-20 together with 21-35 as well? Its always nice for juniors to know how they compare to seniors. Besides, the bigger the field, the more fun it becomes.

Looking at how norwegians do it, they have had 17-20 for quite a while in the nationals, up untill i was around 20. Then they made two seperate ones. What I´ve noticed is 17-18 has a lot more broadness in levels and a lot of people, whereas 19-20 are few people with either the really good ones that might make WOC team in 5 years, and then for the most part everyone else quits. In many qualifying races in national championships, its often harder to make the final as an 18 year old than a 19 year old.

I think there is an advantage to leaving the current M/F category that hasn't been discussed; and that is, it provides an intermediate step between running Orange and than Red/Green under the current system or going directly from Orange to Blue/Red under what Erin has proposed.

I understand Erins reasoning but alot of it seems to be based on the premise that the juniors are constrained to their A categories and that is where the thinking should change. Juniors should move up when they are ready to move and not when their birthday says they should. If a 14, 15, or 16 year old thinks they should move up out of Orange, then they should. Under the current system they can move to Green/Brown (current category for M/F 18). Under the proposed system, they would have to move to Blue/Red for the majority of the races (proposed courses for M/F17-20 middle and sprint races)---quite a step.

Even consider the 16 year old that has just turned 17 in O' years and has to jump from Orange to Blue/Red. Wouldn't it be better to let them compete on Brown/Green until they get comfortable with that and than move up?

Now, with all that said, I do think it's a good idea to have the advanced juniors (and by advanced I mean ability, not age), run blue/red for middle and sprints but they have to be ready. How do they know if they are ready, well that is where the coaches come in.

One area that I think needs further thought is the idea of moving the M17-20 to the Green level for most of the "long" courses. Again, the actual course should be based on the individuals ability. Certainly makes sense for some but the more advanced juniors boys should easily be able to handle red long.

With respect to idea of putting the junior girls on the same course as the junior boys, I think everyone should run the course that they can run fast, accurate and yet challenges them too. If some girl/boys need to move out of their category to do this, than they should.

What this all boils down to is that the courses that juniors (or anyone), run shouldn't be based so much on their age category as on their ability and the proposed change does reduce the available options. Although, I suppose the open catgories would still exist.

I suggest to first select 'best course for JWOC eligibility" for M and for W. Once that decision is firm, other decisions seem easier to compare and may fall in place.

For simplicity for participants and registrars, stick to one course for each gender & age category. For M, is speed on Green or endurance on Red more important? For W juniors, I suggest skip Br: with a couple exceptions, there is little speed on Br - including me soon; F17-18 has few competitors; often Br and Gr length differences are not large.

If Green for JWOC M, keep M18 and M20 categories for medals but they'll be running same course for comparison & JWOC.
If Red for JWOC M, keep M18 on Green to avoid mandatory Orange->Red jump in both length and skill. Via results and coaches, 16-18 year-olds will know when to move up to M20 Red to compete for JWOC. (Ie M18 Green would not count for JWOC qualification.)

Same Green and Red options for JWOC W but perhaps different decision.

If there is to be a JWOC Team Trial (eg each first place qualify or ...), perhaps a Fall event could work. In terms of US & NAOC champs, US schedule normally peaks for the Fall events (which makes sense since early Spring training is not feasible for many; also, for qualifiers, travel plans for next year are much easier). For the 2-3 of each gender who qualify early, perhaps mandate spring A-meet competition &/or team training and still require physical standards be met. For the rest, incentive is, "I'd better improve my ranking."

For longer courses, JWOC Trial courses (end of season) could be on long side. Also, for the 2-3 of each gender already qualified, they could run M21/F21 in the spring.

Out of the mouths of babes . . . (NO offense to Miss Izzie Bryant)

This not from a JUNIOR woman, but from a much, much older woman.

I think what Izzie suggested about the Junior Women competing on the same exact course that the Junior Men compete on is an excellent idea.

Now THAT would increase the orienteering skills of the young ladies in our sport!

I love the idea of combing the M/F18 and M/F20. It would be great and build the number of people compeating at the level. If our goal is to have teens have more expeirnence and skill mabey we should change the other catagories too.

Interscalastic Ideas (parden if i got a class wrong)
Varsity-red Junior Varsity-Brown, Freshman-Orange
Age Group Interpretation
M/F20-red, M/F16 Brown, M/F 14 Orange, M/F13(newclass)-Yellow, M/F11-White

I think if there is a change to M/F18 and M/F20 it should also be slightly reflected in the other age groups. Running on the same course would also make course disscussion simpler.

Everybody who seems locked into the mindset that longer courses are the best preparation -- and selection bases -- for JWOC needs to remember: The Long is only one race out of five (assuming quals for Middle, but not for Sprint or Long). The other 4 races run at JWOC will be shorter than Classic/Long Blue.

Try reading Erin's two "Rationale" sections again. Success will not be achieved simply by building endurance; it will be achieved only by mastering the ability to move quickly, off-trail, in a forest, while navigating. This requires that most preparation/training be at the more common distances raced at JWOC -- not the longest ones.

Actually my complaint is that the middle distance races juniors run, if they run blue, are too long, not too short.

Why not put 17-20 together with 21-35 as well? Its always nice for juniors to know how they compare to seniors. Besides, the bigger the field, the more fun it becomes.

It is embarrassing to be smashed by the juniors that's why. When we held the national sprint champs a couple of years ago, the M17-20s ran the same course as the M21s and many of the juniors beat the seniors. I just got beaten by everyone; they didn't discriminate :-)

The Brits have M/F18 and M/F20 classes but they run the same course.
BOF course and class structure data

Compiled for my own uses; links to where data is referenced.
BOF documents and guidelines for reference.

Going by colo(u)r code equivalents US juniors seem to be competing on the B standard/short course for their age groups for the UK. And those that compete up a level are at the level of their peers in the UK. It seems starting at age 15-16 they are competing on advanced level technical difficulty courses.

Having B standard/short courses assigned for each age class is interesting and maybe helps group people that want to run against someone their age but also skill/fitness level. As opposed to just open course color classes; some people don't want to be running the 'kids' courses and run an inappropriate course for their skill level. Maybe designated secondary levels would make it ok to run the right course for your ability.


An overall ranking points scale is what AP ranking does is it not? It groups everyone into one course-class, so no matter what course you run on you earn the same points for a similar performance. Want to know how you might have done on a different course/class at a meet? Just look for a result on that course that scored the same points as you and that would be about the time and placing you would run. If you divide your AP ranking by your age class's speed ratio from BOF you could get something of an age graded ranking.

Yes, you are advanced from aged 15 in the UK. We have an extra skill stage to your colour courses, so it goes something like this:

10 - white
12 - yellow/ orange
14 - light green (between British orange, which is slightly easier than US orange, and US green)
16 full technical difficulty