Discussion: World Rogaine qualifying criteria

Can someone please confirm two things for me.....?

1. Is the CNYO rogaine in mid-July a pre-qualifying event for South Dakota 2014 (for a Canadian)?

2. If you qualify in the co-ed, can one of the team-mates pick up another female partner and race in the female division at Worlds, or did you qualify only for the coed??

Thanks.

Yes and yes. We got the clarification on Item 1 from the IRF. Once qualified, an participant can enter any division, with any partner, prequalified or not.

Please note that only top two teams in Open divisions are qualified at the CNYO U.S. Rogaine Championships. If you are second-place U.S. eligible, but third overall, you don't achieve prequalified status.

Nicki, if you're a Canadian planning to race with Americans (as I am), you have the option of joining OUSA for $35 to become eligible for the U.S. Champs.

$35? that's a great deal for Canadians to be US champ.

There are no citizenship/residency requirements to be eligible for US Rogaine Championship titles?

No, only Orienteering USA membership. This is specific to Rogaine Championships. There are stricter requirements for Foot-O, Ski-O and Trail-O Champs.

Sweet. I'll consider that. First I got to find a partner because Liza can't make it. Bash, who are you racing with?

Stay away from the riverbanks Nikki and good luck to all of Calgary as you deal with the flooding and the inevitable heartbreaking aftermath.

Nicki, I'm racing in the female category with Arthurd and Ang this time. So be sure to find yourself a male teammate and race Coed, OK? ;) And all the best to you in Alberta this week.

I wouldn't have cared about the U.S. Champs but I would have felt guilty about being the one to disqualify my teammates from the champs so I looked into the rules. As Smittyo says, rogaining works differently from the other U.S. champs where I could not become eligible.

Thanks Bash.

Yes, things are bad, bad, bad here in Calgary. Surreal. And its still raining and rivers are still rising.

Isn't it summer in Calgary? We got a few issues with 200kmh winds but its winter here. And from tomorrow the days get longer..

We're probably both well off compared to the monsoons in India.

An updated list of qualifying criteria was received today from the IRF. According to it, Get Lost!! in Henry Coe, the 2011 U.S. Rogaine Championships, is a qualifying event for WRC 2014.

The following individuals are Automatic Pre-Qualifying Entrants: Glen Brake, Cindi Choi, Catra Corbett, Sharon L. Crawford, Natalia Deconescu, Pēteris Lediņš, Murray Maitland, Jonathan Owens, Andrew Peterson, Donato Polignone, Eric Smith, Mary Smith, Ken Walker Sr.

Why does a Masters Men team take away a qualifying spot from an Opens Men Team? Seems like a good way to limit qualifiers. Why not qualify as many teams as possible. It certainly seems counter-productive for a country hosting Worlds that probably wants to qualify as many teams as possible.

As far as I see it if you choose to compete in Masters Men than you can't compete in Open Men. If you want to compete in Open Men then you can't compete in Masters Men. That is how we do it in Adventure Racing.

If the masters team is just looking to qualify it doesn't really matter. They can qualify in the easier Master's division and still race in the open division in the World Championships if they want. If the US Championship Open title is what they are going for then go for that and resign yourself from the Master's title.

Just don't take up two qualifying spots.

Tundra: This may be the point you were alluding to at the beginning of the thread but I didn't realize this is what you meant by it.

Something else we do for USARA that is helpful for qualifying teams is rolling entries. If the top team decides not to race or is already qualified the qualifying spot moves to the next team. This is good because in these growing sports a lot of times teams will do local races but can't race in farther races that require more commitment. This way each country/race still sends 2 qualifiers to represent instead. If the goal is to keep the competition prestigious then don't do rolling entries but I don't think either sport is in a situation to turn people away. This rolling entry does not apply to the ARWS.

Just some thoughts.

As a SuperVet team who came in 2nd overall in Men's Open, I was more than happy to claim a qualifying slot for the world Championships. If you want the spot, run faster.

To clarify Brian's point, the taking-away applies to regional Champs (North Americans), not to national Champs. For U.S. Rogaine Champs, it's the overall (Open) teams who qualify, there is no separate qualifying pathway for Masters. There is such pathway at the North American Champs, however, and Brian's point is valid.

Brian is capable of winning the event outright. I don't think he needs to worry. And I guess it is a good thing you qualified already Ken, because it would not happen at CNYO in two weeks....unless you run quite a bit faster yourself.

The following individuals are Automatic Pre-Qualified Entrants from the 2012 North American Orienteering Championships: Three15er Rogaine hosted by MerGeo:

Hilary Anderson, Tamara Armstrong, Jackie Bonn, Jeff Brucker, Sharon L. Crawford, Alex Frank, James Heilman, Bart Jarmula, Bud Laird, Pēteris Lediņš, Ken Lew, Nikolay Nachev, Beate Orgas, Becky Quinlan, John Rance, Bob Reddick, Bruce Rennie, Karen Rohr, Michel Roberge, Eric Smith, Wade Tokarek, Vivian Volz, Jim Waddington, Sue Waddington.

And these individuals are Preferred Status Pre-Qualified Entrants (from the 2012 NA Champs):

Maxim Kazitov, Sue Kuestner, Gena Tertychnyi, Gavin Wyatt-Mair.

The two lists above add up to 34 Automatic and 4 Preferred Status entrants. With the addition of the 2013 U.S. Champs qualifiers and either the 2011 or the 2013 North American Champs (if for some reason the latter event happens), we are looking at most likely 60 to 70 Automatic and another 10 or so Preferred Status. Plus the World Champions Mike Kloser and Michael Tobin.

There are 8 IRF Member nations, so for a conservative 800-person limit (meaning 560 slots go to prequalified entrants), the U.S. seems well represented. (The list includes a number of athletes who represent Canada, Latvia, and other nations, so the actual number of U.S. prequalified entrants will be smaller.) Orienteering USA also gets to allocate between 5 and 10 wildcards (assuming 800 total entrants).

As far as I see it if you choose to compete in Masters Men than you can't compete in Open Men. If you want to compete in Open Men then you can't compete in Masters Men. That is how we do it in Adventure Racing.

Speaking as an adventure racer, I think rogaining handles categories better than we do. We rarely have Masters categories, and if we do, I almost always have to choose between "Masters (Unisex)" vs. "Coed/Female Open". My category ranking depends on making the right guess on which category to enter, and it isn't always clear that one will be "easier" than the other. Not that I'm racing to collect big prizes but bragging rights are always nice! :)

Speaking of the "easy" Masters Male category, remember that Mike Kloser and Michael Tobin won the last World Rogaining Championship on U.S. soil in 2004, and they were both in their 40s doing their first rogaine.

At the meeting of the Rogaine Committee of Orienteering USA today, it was decided that the CNYO Rogaine will not be the 2013 North American Rogaining Championships. If no other organizer comes forward with a 24-hour event before the end of the year, there will not be a 2013 NA Championships, and the 2011 event becomes a qualifying event for the 2014 WRC. In this case (not final, but likely), the following individuals are Automatic Pre-Qualified Entrants in addition to the 34 listed above:

Eric Bone, Bryan Chubb, Tom De Vries, Geraint Edmunds, Pam James, Catherine Hagen, John Harbuck, Wakana Heilman, Margo Mactaggart, Kathryn Mueller, Chris Oram, Louise Oram, Marion Owen, Mikhail Pekour, Leo Rankin, Pat Reddick, Christoph Rufenacht, Svetlana Sergueeva, Althea Shaw, Dennis Wilkinson.

And the following are Preferred Status Pre-Qualified Entrants:

Dan Crockett, Angela Forseille, Karen Lachance, Jean-Michel Lessard, Kevin Matrosovs, Robyn Rennie.

Together, these lists add to 54 Automatics and 10 Preferreds, and to my eye seem to contain more Canadians than Americans! (The two World Champions make it 56 Automatics. There are no USA or CAN qualifiers from WRC 2012 in addition to those already listed.)

On another note, it seems that there will be 5 or 6 24-hour rogaines in the U.S. in 2014, possibly equaling the high mark of 6 events in 2010, so the current drought may be over. This density brings along schedule conflicts. If your club or organization is seriously considering putting on a 24-hour event in 2014 and the Committee is unaware of your chosen date, please (1) pick the date and (2) get in touch with me ASAP.

Kadley I didn't say you shouldn't have earned a slot in Open and I certainly am aware that in AR and orienteering experience plays a big role and older doesn't mean slower. I regularly race with masters eligible racers that have no problem keeping up or pulling me when necessary. I was just commenting on how by taking a spot in both divisions you would be taking another qualifying spot from someone else. I enjoy seeing other people having the opportunity to succeed, participate in exciting events and represent our country just as much as I enjoy participating myself. The more companionship the better the experience.

I was referring to the 2011 US Champs at which kadley qualified. Since Tundra said they only took one qualifying spot it doesn't seem to have been an issue, but it could be at Regional Champs (maybe something to consider). Either way it does seem like there are quite a few US qualifiers. Hopefully we can defend our home turf!

Bash - I was primarily referencing how USARA (the oldest US national AR organization) handles their championship event. I thought I specified that earlier in the post but forgot. This is one of the few races we compete in with a Masters division but it is a big one. And maybe I shouldn't have made the assumption that masters is easier but I think for the most part it holds true. I guess I am also referencing USARA again where racers will race in open/elite as opposed to masters if they feel they can compete/win because winning open/elite has been assigned more prestige. This in turn takes the top competitors out of the masters division making it less competitive. I would say this holds true in orienteering as well but just from my limited observations.

For Rogaine events, it's often (typically? always?) the case that you place in every division you're qualified for. So you might see a team win Superveterans, come in second in Veterans, and third in Open. Or, conceivably, win all three. Which is as it should be.

Agreed, everyone races on the same map with the same CPs and time limit so should qualify for everything thet they're eligible for. Orienteering is different because you run on a different course to younger competitors.

At our Australian Rogaine Champs held last weekend, the top three teams in both the womens' and mens' vets were also the top three in the open in each respective gender. There were bugger all womens' open teams, which explains why that happened, but there were a lot of mens' open teams so we just got pumped by the older guys. Well actually my teammate tried to kill himself on the course so took us out of the placings but the others were just not up there.

Well actually my teammate tried to kill himself on the course

No reflection on you, I'm sure. :)

I had nothing to do with it.

For Rogaine events, it's often (typically? always?) the case that you place in every division you're qualified for. ... Which is as it should be.

I must say, I don't get this. In many (most?) other sports, you pick a category on registration and that's it, you either place or don't place in your category.

In orienteering, we don't give out medals for "every division you're qualified for". For example, in the sprint race at US Champs, Sharon Crawford (I presume) didn't take home 3 gold medals, one each for F55, F60 and F65. Should Trisha and Linda have given up their gold medals (in F55 and F60) because Sharon (in F65) was faster? No.

The way to do it (in events like Rogaines where everyone does the same course):
1) Post overall results and give awards to the top X teams overall.
2) Then give out age group awards (with no double-dipping between age groups).

I presume the F55s, F60s and F65s all ran the same course, otherwise see my post from yesterday.

> Should Trisha and Linda have given up their gold medals
> (in F55 and F60) because Sharon (in F65) was faster?

Not saying that any medals already awarded should be changed, the rules that were in place are what matters. However:
Who was the fastest woman on that course over the age of 65?
Who was the fastest woman on that course over the age of 60?
Who was the fastest woman on that course over the age of 55?

It does happen but in the instance of orienteering, you decide your category beforehand. Our forthcoming sprint champs, the M21s, M35s and M45s all run the same course but if you nominate for M35s and are faster than the M21s, well that's too bad - only the M21 winner can be state champion. With our crop of competitors, there's unlikely to be a M35 winner because they'll all nominate for M21 anyway.

Exactly, you pick your category when you register - and only ONE category. Personally, I just don't "get" the idea that a person/team should be eligible in multiple categories simultaneously. If you have M21, M35 and M45, then 9 people should get the chance to go up on the podium. If an M45 beats the M35's or M21's, well done, but it doesn't mean he needs to be up on the M35 or M21 podium as a result.

[Which, of course, in my opinion, is directly analogous to the Super Vet, Vet, Open situation in Rogaining.]

Awards aren't entitlements. You have to earn them. What happens in a marathon? If a guy over 50 signed up as being over 50, and he wins the race, do they say the guy who came in second was the winner of the open category? Or do they say the second M50, who finished 25th, was the fastest over 50? (I honestly don't know the answer to that because I don't run road races, but it sure seems to me like the first guy was both the winner and the fastest over 50.)

I personally would like to see 17-20, Elite (Open) and 35-44 categories run the same sprint and middle distance course in Canada. Allowing 17-20 and 35-44 to challenge the elite (which is an open age group) for the 'overall' medals while still being ranked within their own age categories would increase competition. That is a good thing.

I think that already happens in Australia (running the same course in sprint) but again it's an age thing - you cannot win the 'open' if you register for the other one.

What happens in a marathon?

Ok, Grandma's Marathon was last weekend (www.grandmasmarathon.com):

1) Results:
Two separate sets of results are presented:
i) Overall Results list everyone who did the race.
ii) Age group Results list everyone by age group.
(Age group seems to be determined by ... your age, not by what age group you felt like registering in.)

2) Awards:
Awards are given by Age Group, except for Open category which is based on Overall results.
Open - top 10 get award
Age group - top 3 get award

A couple notes ...
i) The age group 19-34 is included in Open, so those individuals have to compete against the older and younger athletes to get awards. But, the awards in Open go 10-deep, so that increases the odds a bit.
ii) For older and younger athletes, there is the chance to "double-dip", i.e., get awards in both Open and Age group.
iii) There's no indication that "triple-dipping" is allowed, i.e., winning awards in multiple age groups and Open.

JJ - I think what some people are saying is if the 50 year old who won the race thinks he can win, or wants to be ranked in, the Open/Elite/M21 (whatever you wanna call it) category then he should register in that category and not the Vet/SV. There is nothing preventing him from doing so. I would have mad respect for that. And if he does well or wins, even better.

Wouldn't awards in the Vet/SV category be what you labeled an "entitlement" by excluding those under the age limit. You could argue that someone older has "earned" the right to be in the category but I think it seems more like an entitlement.

And if you are going to provide entitlements to some then provide them to all, i.e., restricted age groups for all. And if you want, have an overall winner as well. This is typically how road racing and triathlon does it. I think this is a fair structure. (As a note, professional cycling does have a young riders jersey just for younger riders who can also win the overall, which does happen)

I completely agree with bmay's point about podiums.

Another thought, if older racers are capable of winning (which clearly they are from empirical evidence) then why do we need a special category for them? And why are we so hung up on age. This sport relies not just on physical ability but also skill. Maybe categories shouldn't be based on age but skill (similar to cycling categories). This would be an easy shift since you already have different courses for different skill levels. Why does an older race have to race a shorter easier course if they are capable of competing on the longer tougher one. Or a younger racer a longer course. I know Joe, who commented earlier, now races Red courses for his age group but I know he can still compete on Blue. It's definitely shorter than a 24hr ROGAINE.

http://www.ingnycmarathon.org/Results.htm
The New York Marathon provides awards to every age group individually as well as overall (and USA only).

I am sure awards vary from race to race dependent on what the RD chooses, but I imagine standards for national and world qualifying races are pretty standard in each sport.

There are as many arguments for "everything you are eligible for" as there are for "the class in which you registered".

Another model that has not been mentioned is simply "the fastest teams win". This is how NSF Adventures does it, and in the 3 events of theirs I have been to, I have seen veterans and co-ed teams win, and superveterans and women's teams on the podium.

The practice of rolling awards is very standard in running and multisport. Everybody is eligible for open. If you get an award there, that's it, you're done. Otherwise, you move to the next most competitive classification you are eligible for (typically, Masters which is 40+ in the running world). Still nothing? Maybe there's a Senior (50+) category. If you still haven't won anything, you are then thrown into the AG mix where you are ranked in the AG you signed up as (typically 5-year increments, but sometimes 10).

So, for example, last year at Pere Marquette, I "won" the 45-49AG even though there were two guys my age or older ahead of me. One was the overall winner and the other took the Masters prize, leaving me with the AG plaque.

I've never run Grandma's, so I can't say, but if they do allow double dipping, they are a very odd exception (odd, because it's a fairly prestigious race so you would expect them to stick to the standard). Sometimes the results page shows everybody in the AG, but it's exceedingly rare that someone who scored in both overall and AG gets two plaques (or checks, as the case may be).

You can win multiple jerseys in pro cycling, but it's viewed as very bad form. Obviously, nobody holds it against a 23-year-old who happens to win a Tour since there's no way to not be 23 if that's what you are, but to win, for example, both the yellow and polka-dot jersey is considered greedy.

There is the other side of the coin too. I've entered many orienteering events on the top course and because of my age have been demoted either to M19 (as it was then), M35-M50 and not counted as an open competitor. If you run the same course on the same day you should get counted (and I'm not even referring here to the dreaded B finals).

There are two different issues here:

1) Pre-qualification for World Rogaining Championships:

If an UltraVet (65+) team is ranked in the Open, Veteran and Super Veteran categories, will that team's success reduce the number of qualifying teams from the event? I don't think it should. So if the UltraVet team finishes 3rd overall of the Mixed teams (like Eric Smith and Sharon Crawford did at the 2012 North Am Rogaining Champs), then there should still be 3 pre-qualified teams from each of Open, Veteran, Super Veteran and UltraVet Mixed categories - assuming that enough teams entered the event. That may involve some consultation with IRF but I'd suggest that pre-qualification should work that way.

2) Ranking in the event:

Keep in mind that we're not talking about big prizes or cash. Sometimes we're not even talking about medals. Most of the time, we're just talking about names on a spreadsheet that will be posted on the Internet.

Here's the one view, summarized well by Mayer22:
Wouldn't awards in the Vet/SV category be what you labeled an "entitlement" by excluding those under the age limit?
...if the 50 year old who won the race thinks he can win, or wants to be ranked in, the Open/Elite/M21 (whatever you wanna call it) category then he should register in that category and not the Vet/SV. There is nothing preventing him from doing so. I would have mad respect for that. And if he does well or wins, even better.

Trust me, when it comes to athletics, there is little "entitlement" involved in getting older!

And sure, you can force masters athletes to guess how competitive they will be in a given event on a given day against a set of competitors they may not know but that is somewhat random and unfair. Open competitors aren't asked to make choices in advance based on whether they "think they can win". If a 50-year-old pulls off an unexpected PB and wins the race, I think it's appropriate that he/she is ranked 1st in Open and Masters in the event results.

What happens to medals and prizes and Overall vs. age category podiums is a different matter - and isn't really important. Do any of us actually need more $3 medals?

will that team's success reduce the number of qualifying teams from the event? I don't think it should

I disagree. I think that if an Open team is getting beaten by Ultravets to the point of not making it into qualifying slots, the Open team should run faster. The olderfolk-takes-qualifying-places-away rule serves to make the qualifying standard across nations and continents more even; at the ERC, there won't be many Ultravets beating out Open teams. If the situation occurs with some frequency in North America, it means that the field is comparably weaker, so fewer teams deserve to qualify.

Remember, the qualifying rule kicks into effect if the event is oversubscribed, so the IRF/organizers aren't seeking to include as many people as possible; there are enough already. If the event isn't oversubscribed, then the qualifying scheme is moot.

The IRF is also seeking to increase participation and interest in weaker and under-represented rogaining nations. And we in North America are trying to get a wider variety of people interested in rogaining to the point where they want to make WRC a priority for 2014.

This debate about ranking began with the concern that a talented masters team could take away a pre-qualification spot from a younger team. That evolved into the discussion about older athletes needing to demonstrate their confidence by guessing which category they should enter in a field of teams they may not know, rather than granting them the ranking they have earned. Before we move to that scenario, I'd rather deal with the original concern.

My point is that the U.S. and Canada are weaker, but not underrepresented. If they are well represented, then why represent the weaker teams (from the home nation) even more?

Giving more people from a country the chance to participate may grow the sport in that country.

It may. But there are factors to balance off, such as the willingness of hosts to organize events for over a thousand people, with associated permitting logistics and environmental impacts. Or, consider that giving weaker teams a preference may kill the enthusiasm of better teams in more developed rogaining nations, thus possibly cooling the enthusiasm of the media and government authorities, and leave the IRF with less media exposure and less national charter fees.

The U.S. is well past IRF's underrepresentation and underdevelopment criteria, which apply more to nations that are just starting to organize their first 24-hour events. Well qualified people who choose to not show up for national events, and then all of a sudden regain interest when the World Champs come around, are perhaps not the ones IRF is mostly concerned about.

Oh, this is so silly, Unless there is actual cash money on the podium, who cares? Just post the names, the times, and the class, and the readers can do their own semiosis of who is over-achieving, who is winning, and who are poseurs. Post it in a spreadsheet format for easy sorting for the semiotically-challenged.

If qualifying for another race depends on this data, then the fastest qualify, regardless of class. Duh. If the rules don't allow this, the rules are broken and need to be fixed.

HTH

Giving more people from a country the chance to participate may grow the sport in that country.

Tell that to the IOF.

Perhaps having the ability to conduct more than a handful of events plus hold a national champs would also grow the sport in the country?

Publicity!