Discussion: Withdrawing the Proposal To combine 18-20 racing categories
in: Orienteering; General
Oct 14, 2013 11:00 PM
#
Hi all After review of the current proposal we decided to withdraw our proposal to combine 18 and 20 Categories. Reasoning in the following paragraph.
Along with US Junior Team Coach, Erin Schirm, the Junior Team Executive Steering Committee (JTESC) has carefully reviewed feedback from the orienteering community on our proposal to combine the M/F 18 and F/M 20 categories, as well as reassign the courses on which these categories compete. After listening to the comments and issues that were raised, we have determined that the proposal does not adequately address our basic objectives.
Specifically, the junior program is looking to build a competitive atmosphere based on three core principles:
• Training for the relevant distances of world championship courses;
• The healthy growth and progression of navigational ability; and
• Providing fun opportunities to compete at a reasonable comfort level.
Training for the relevant distances of the world championship courses
Currently, all World Orienteering Championships are more focused on the sprint, middle and relay disciplines, than on long races. JWOC has a Sprint, a Relay, a Middle Qualification and Final, and a Long. WOC and WUOC are now moving to a format of, Long, Middle, Sprint Qualification and Final, Relay, and Sprint Relay. Therefore, in 2014, of the 17 races that will be run, only 3 will be long races, while the other 14 will generally have lengths in the range of 2-7km. This will include all sprint lengths, middle lengths, and relay lengths. In other words, less than 20% of all international championship competitions will be raced on long distances. Also, with the new WOC pre-qualification rules, only minimal numbers of athletes will get to compete in long races.
In the USA, the relevant lengths are comparable to the current sprint and middle Brown to Blue courses, and classic and long Brown to Green courses. Because of this, our objective is to focus on the distances that will comprise the bulk of competitions -- the sprint, middle and relay. With proper training and physical development, there is no question in our minds that the athletes will also be prepared for the long.
Healthy growth and progression of navigational ability
Our training strategy is to focus first on the ability to navigate at speed over the shorter distances. This way, they could increase their speed, and improve their technical skills, rather than focus on longer distances that take many years to prepare for properly. This focus would be both short term and long term. This approach would give athletes the time they need to physically prepare to take on a longer course and do it well, and, at the same time, develop the skills needed to be able to navigate at faster speeds than they could initially manage on a longer course. As our athletes mature and get ready to race the long, they should easily be able to step-up and run longer courses.
If you look at all endurance-type races for kids, they focus much more on shorter distances until the young athletes are in college -- and even there the longest race is 10km. Times for younger kids in endurance races are in the range of 15-30 minutes, max. It has been shown that peak conditions for 10K, marathon and half marathon distances happen in the late 20 years of age. These racing times range from 40 minutes to 3 hours. Current winning times on Green, Red and Blue Classic and Long races are in the range of 40-90 minutes. Of course, orienteering is a little different in that the distances are shorter and you are running slower. However, the physical strain has a different intensity due to running in terrain, and time plays a bigger role than distance.
Feedback on the proposal
In the original proposal there was also a secondary objective to create more fully populated competitive categories, so that juniors could experience more competition, in some cases against elite orienteers in the age-21 category. In reviewing the comments on the proposal, it appears that these aspects have received a disproportionate amount of attention, suggesting that our primary objective may not have been understood.
A number of points were raised in discussion against the proposal. There were issues about how rankings would work if M/F-20s were competing on different courses, which would have to be resolved. For some formats, there is a step directly from orange to blue from M-16 to M-20, and this was felt to be too large.
So, after due consideration, we feel it is best to withdraw our proposal. At some time in the not-too-distant future, we will submit a new proposal, with a broader scope that would focus on all three of the core principles stated above.
Finally, thank you for all the time spent carefully reviewing and discussing our original proposal.
Sincerely,
JTESC
Guy Olsen, Chair
Along with US Junior Team Coach, Erin Schirm, the Junior Team Executive Steering Committee (JTESC) has carefully reviewed feedback from the orienteering community on our proposal to combine the M/F 18 and F/M 20 categories, as well as reassign the courses on which these categories compete. After listening to the comments and issues that were raised, we have determined that the proposal does not adequately address our basic objectives.
Specifically, the junior program is looking to build a competitive atmosphere based on three core principles:
• Training for the relevant distances of world championship courses;
• The healthy growth and progression of navigational ability; and
• Providing fun opportunities to compete at a reasonable comfort level.
Training for the relevant distances of the world championship courses
Currently, all World Orienteering Championships are more focused on the sprint, middle and relay disciplines, than on long races. JWOC has a Sprint, a Relay, a Middle Qualification and Final, and a Long. WOC and WUOC are now moving to a format of, Long, Middle, Sprint Qualification and Final, Relay, and Sprint Relay. Therefore, in 2014, of the 17 races that will be run, only 3 will be long races, while the other 14 will generally have lengths in the range of 2-7km. This will include all sprint lengths, middle lengths, and relay lengths. In other words, less than 20% of all international championship competitions will be raced on long distances. Also, with the new WOC pre-qualification rules, only minimal numbers of athletes will get to compete in long races.
In the USA, the relevant lengths are comparable to the current sprint and middle Brown to Blue courses, and classic and long Brown to Green courses. Because of this, our objective is to focus on the distances that will comprise the bulk of competitions -- the sprint, middle and relay. With proper training and physical development, there is no question in our minds that the athletes will also be prepared for the long.
Healthy growth and progression of navigational ability
Our training strategy is to focus first on the ability to navigate at speed over the shorter distances. This way, they could increase their speed, and improve their technical skills, rather than focus on longer distances that take many years to prepare for properly. This focus would be both short term and long term. This approach would give athletes the time they need to physically prepare to take on a longer course and do it well, and, at the same time, develop the skills needed to be able to navigate at faster speeds than they could initially manage on a longer course. As our athletes mature and get ready to race the long, they should easily be able to step-up and run longer courses.
If you look at all endurance-type races for kids, they focus much more on shorter distances until the young athletes are in college -- and even there the longest race is 10km. Times for younger kids in endurance races are in the range of 15-30 minutes, max. It has been shown that peak conditions for 10K, marathon and half marathon distances happen in the late 20 years of age. These racing times range from 40 minutes to 3 hours. Current winning times on Green, Red and Blue Classic and Long races are in the range of 40-90 minutes. Of course, orienteering is a little different in that the distances are shorter and you are running slower. However, the physical strain has a different intensity due to running in terrain, and time plays a bigger role than distance.
Feedback on the proposal
In the original proposal there was also a secondary objective to create more fully populated competitive categories, so that juniors could experience more competition, in some cases against elite orienteers in the age-21 category. In reviewing the comments on the proposal, it appears that these aspects have received a disproportionate amount of attention, suggesting that our primary objective may not have been understood.
A number of points were raised in discussion against the proposal. There were issues about how rankings would work if M/F-20s were competing on different courses, which would have to be resolved. For some formats, there is a step directly from orange to blue from M-16 to M-20, and this was felt to be too large.
So, after due consideration, we feel it is best to withdraw our proposal. At some time in the not-too-distant future, we will submit a new proposal, with a broader scope that would focus on all three of the core principles stated above.
Finally, thank you for all the time spent carefully reviewing and discussing our original proposal.
Sincerely,
JTESC
Guy Olsen, Chair
Oct 14, 2013 11:07 PM
#
Here is a link to the previous rules discussion to see more. http://attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/messag...
Oct 15, 2013 12:59 AM
#
One thing I don't understand is the criticism stating that kids would be jumping directly from orange to blue or red. Obviously a new orienteer (of whatever age) needs to follow a progression as their skills develop. The criticism stated that kids would enter the course that their age group is designated on, regardless of their current skill level, and that therefore the course is too long if this results in kids taking on a course too hard for themself.
A number of red flags go off in my head when I try to comprehend this leap of logic:
1. These are juniors we're talking about. Isn't someone (parent, coach, both?) paying attention to what they're signing up for before signing the waiver for them? If the kid is signing up for a course they're not ready for, why is it necessarily the course that is wrong?
2. In the past there used to be "A" and "B" courses for each age group that solved this progression issue reasonably well. When the B classes were abolished it was stated that the OPEN classes would still be there to provide a path of progression for those not yet ready for their "A" course. Has this been forgotten? Do we need to resurrect "B" courses for Long course days just because people don't understand that OPEN is ok?
3. We now have a professional coach who is putting an incredible amount of thought and effort into both developing the junior program and working individually with all the juniors, not just those on the designated teams. I find this amazing.
I also find it curious that when he tries to make a structural change to improve junior development we see criticism from people who aren't juniors, parents of juniors, or coaches of juniors questioning whether A meets should be aligned in support of junior development pipeline objectives, and even whether his development strategy is sound. I would like to ask before people run for their calculators that they first try to understand the goals the junior coach is aiming at and then try to understand how his proposal supports those goals. You may find more than meets the eye if you follow his logic beneath the immediate surface. The vast majority of us are not professionally trained coaches even though we frequently play the part in our local clubs.
4. Several weeks ago I listened in on a presentation about this year's JWOC when one of the faster kids who ran the long course stated flatly that he "was not prepared". There's more to a course than the # of km on the straight line. If you look at the map you will see that it was a very physical course. Since that time I've seen this kid running M21 pretty much exclusively.
I'm glad to hear that while this proposal is being withdrawn, there will be another one sometime soon. When it appears please consider not just what it means on any single day of competition but what it is aimed at accomplishing over the long haul.
A number of red flags go off in my head when I try to comprehend this leap of logic:
1. These are juniors we're talking about. Isn't someone (parent, coach, both?) paying attention to what they're signing up for before signing the waiver for them? If the kid is signing up for a course they're not ready for, why is it necessarily the course that is wrong?
2. In the past there used to be "A" and "B" courses for each age group that solved this progression issue reasonably well. When the B classes were abolished it was stated that the OPEN classes would still be there to provide a path of progression for those not yet ready for their "A" course. Has this been forgotten? Do we need to resurrect "B" courses for Long course days just because people don't understand that OPEN is ok?
3. We now have a professional coach who is putting an incredible amount of thought and effort into both developing the junior program and working individually with all the juniors, not just those on the designated teams. I find this amazing.
I also find it curious that when he tries to make a structural change to improve junior development we see criticism from people who aren't juniors, parents of juniors, or coaches of juniors questioning whether A meets should be aligned in support of junior development pipeline objectives, and even whether his development strategy is sound. I would like to ask before people run for their calculators that they first try to understand the goals the junior coach is aiming at and then try to understand how his proposal supports those goals. You may find more than meets the eye if you follow his logic beneath the immediate surface. The vast majority of us are not professionally trained coaches even though we frequently play the part in our local clubs.
4. Several weeks ago I listened in on a presentation about this year's JWOC when one of the faster kids who ran the long course stated flatly that he "was not prepared". There's more to a course than the # of km on the straight line. If you look at the map you will see that it was a very physical course. Since that time I've seen this kid running M21 pretty much exclusively.
I'm glad to hear that while this proposal is being withdrawn, there will be another one sometime soon. When it appears please consider not just what it means on any single day of competition but what it is aimed at accomplishing over the long haul.
This discussion thread is closed.