Discussion: Let’s have more fun and get faster:

The other day, my family and I did a 2.3K short sprint that took us a while to complete. I mentioned to a few people and on my log that maybe the course was too long for the intended audience.

I wrote this up in reflection and thought it might be interesting to a larger audience.

Not for nothing, but the winning time on Saturday's short sprint was 28+ minutes. Winning time on the long was 16+ minutes. At local meets, if one is going to the trouble of setting a shorter or easier course, it should be just that.

For what it's worth, it sounded like another dad ended up doing a bit of father/child strength training on Saturday as well. No complaint about the workout on his part or mine. We're both strong guys. I just want kids to feel like the sport is theirs, not just a course their parents bring them along for company. My four year old daughter did run a lot of the course herself, and generally kept her spirits up, but by the last 20 minutes the switch had flipped from outright fun to avoid-a-bad-time mode.

I guess what I'm seeing is that I think beginners of any age, especially if orienteering is their first foray into sports, are not learning how to run hard and fast on orienteering courses, which is where a lot of the fun is. The exception would be those already wicked fast to start with. In that case, they just figure out how to slow down to not get lost too badly.

Orienteering is drawing in athletes already performing on a high level in other sports. This is a fantastic development. Many of today’s most compelling people and stories are out of this tradition. It is certainly one important path to growth and success here.

Another path I wish for is one where people young and old can get started in orienteering and quantifiably improve fitness wise in conjunction with technical improvement. If the steps to red or blue are too far apart or people make the jump to advanced too quickly when they get there they will not be performing at their true potential.

For kids this all starts with short technically simple courses. White courses that are actually white, for instance. It sounds like that's happening in a handful of places in the US and Canada.

If orienteering tries to pull in adults from the running community, this might mean something like simple/less miserable courses where they can travel a distance they're used to at close to their running speed, then gradually increase the technical challenge of the courses they face.

From the orienteering I've seen, if you're a kid who's somewhat new to sports or an adult middle of the pack runner, right now your o' destiny is as a jogging map hiker, unless you just try it once and quit. I personally think the jogging map hiker mentality is something we need to celebrate more to grow as well, but even a relaxed mindset like it is more enjoyable if one can imagine getting faster someday.

Let me conclude by saying I have the utmost appreciation for the tremendous amount of volunteer effort that makes this sport happen. It is no small miracle that so many meets happen at all, and my gratitude to my local clubs is immense. My comments are only meant to contribute to the ongoing dialog about how to bring this sport to more people and how to push our collective performance to a higher level.

YES!

This has been a major bug bear of mine since I came here. White courses should be white. Kids should be able to whizz round them with very little help from their parents in less than 20 minutes. That's the most fun bit about the sport.

For adults, we've struggled to make the idea of longer, technically simpler courses work in the UK. We introduced "long red," which was orange standard (UK orange is easier than US orange) but longer, and no one ever ran it. The kind of people we attracted as adults wanted to face the full technical challenge right off, even if it meant taking over three hours (at Oxford, we had a special club for them :) ) But then, if they want to do that, they're already hooked, so it doesn't really matter...

But for the kids, you couldn't be more correct.

White is intended for 10-12 year olds. I don't work with kids much, but it seems like you need a completely new course (string-o?) if you're dealing with 4 year olds.

I mean, I agree entirely that people should be running appropriate-level courses they can complete, but if you're trying to address everyone from 4 year olds to 12 year olds, is it possible to effectively do that with one course?

4yo should be doing something in the assembly area (beside the car park) on a 1:500 map, if anything.

The map doesn't even need a scale for the kids - a piece of string and some cartoon trees is just grand. There's no way I'm adding one of those into my one person show local meets though...

I started completing appropriately planned white courses alone at 8, after I left my Dad totally alone in a Scottish forest because he brought my little sister, and she was being slow :)

I am becoming a bit of a connoisseur of white/yellow courses because they are perfect for carrying a 6 month old around while the other parent does an advanced course (SI units! beep! Flashing lights! a map to chew!) Couldn't agree more with Becks that there's a lot of variation here in what counts as "white", both in distance and in navigational challenge.

The course structure needs an additional course that is sub-white.

* Sub-white = All controls on trails/linear features. Controls at all decision points => All navigational decisions made at control points. Very short. Suitable for 8-10

* White = All controls on trails/linear features. Controls more spread out. Ok to have navigation decisions (e.g., trail junctions) between control points. Short. Suitable for 11-12.

I did a 2.3K short sprint that

It does strike me that 2.3 k is a bit long for a short, sprint course. If the elites are running 3 k (i.e, 15 min winning time at 5 min/k), then the short courses (for kids and older runners) should likely be in the 1 to 1.5 km range.

A note on ages ... If a White course is appropriate for the "average" 11-12 year old, then it will definitely be very easy for the "best" 11-12 year olds. We should expect that the best kids may choose to race up a category or two if they want the added challenge ... that's perfectly fine.

The 'long red' becks mentions doesn't really work because at an event with proper courses it's seen as the soft option. I've seen a few races in London which are basically just a long red (with maybe a short but technically similar option) and nothing else, so it's the only option! People seem to really enjoy them.

bmay - your sub white is the UK white, and white here looks like a UK yellow. I agree this is a good progression.

The "long red" type of approach would have to be part of a clear progression or program. Something like an adult ARK. I have heard legend of a "pink" course in North America that's been tried on a one-off basis here and there, but this might take time to get to, not just tried once. I know in my area there are a lot of running clubs that train people up to marathons over the course of a few months. One model could be something along those lines.

bmay - your sub white is the UK white, and white here looks like a UK yellow.

I think that means you're not feeding your chickens the right food.

Wrong food for chickens? Is that how we end up with this?

EDIT: link fixed, Maebe

Yes, underfed chickens result in broken links on the internet.

Is that why my links break.

Not sure what has happenned over the years in the USA, but when I was setting white, and my children were running them, the sub white description above was what was in the USOF guidlines for the White course, not sure what they say today.

The USOF guidelines haven't changed, though I think White should probably be listed as 1.5 to 2.5 km instead of 2-3. That doesn't mean that all clubs/course designers follow guidelines.

Planning the (UK) White course.

Don't know about US and color coded courses, but what we sometimes do with kids courses to make them safe and OK to run for younger kids who might easily turn the wrong way on a crossing is the following:
A while (50m or 100m might be a good distance) after each decision point (usually path/street crossings) if you follow the linear feature there's a sign with a smiley - a happy one means the kid is on the right way, a unhappy one means wrong way, turn around and try again.

That doesn't mean that all clubs/course designers follow guidelines.

I know that this sport is largely volunteer driven and attendance at meets isn't always that big. I know it may not be practical to offer every level of course at every meet. One of the original points that got this all started though was that if resources are going to be devoted to setting a beginner or short course offered to the public, then it ought to be an appropriate distance and challenge level. I concede this might not exactly be the course to crown a M14 US champion.

A while (50m or 100m might be a good distance) after each decision point (usually path/street crossings) if you follow the linear feature there's a sign with a smiley - a happy one means the kid is on the right way, a unhappy one means wrong way, turn around and try again.

I know we do/did the same here in West Aus. Not sure if it still happens since I don't run the easy courses but it has been known to.

The original post is about a sprint event. All courses should be (IOF Rules) 'Technically Easy'. So why do you need colour coding for them?

At our sprint events we generally offer 2 or 3 courses, all the same technical standard (easy). At a standard event they're labelled Long (3km), Medium (2-2.5), Short (1.5-2). At a competition, they'd also show the recommended age classes.

Granted, 'Technically Easy' is not the same as novice/young junior foolproof, but lots of both these groups come to our sprint events and love them, even if the course takes them 30+ minutes.

I agree with ndobbs - 4 year-olds on the string course in the assembly area, OR if you take them out on a longer course, expect to carry them at some point!