Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: and kept walking

in: Charlie; Charlie > 2016-05-08

May 8, 2016 10:16 PM # 
Kind of impressive that you walked, and I ran pretty much AFAP, and you were only an hour longer.
May 9, 2016 12:44 AM # 
Nothing like having a good guide. More or less not a step wasted.
May 9, 2016 5:59 AM # 
I think it just means that for us OFs, AFAP isn't very F any more, even for still (seemingly) fast ones like coach. I walked most of a Brown yesterday (bad knee) and, amazingly, still had a couple of splits in the top three. Would've thought that had I run those legs, my splits would've been a LOT faster, but the truth is, probably not.

In any case, congrats to both of you for being out there and getting around the course in fine style!
May 9, 2016 6:08 AM # 
Just looked at the results. I take back what I said regarding "isn't very F" as applied to coach. What a fantastic run, Jeff! Well ahead of many good and much younger orienteers. Well done!
May 9, 2016 11:05 AM # 
coach is as close to ageless as we have.
May 9, 2016 1:05 PM # 
Yeah, he was going the same speed as the fastest woman, so...
May 9, 2016 2:36 PM # 
Never underestimate the motivation that comes from wanting to look good in front of your daughter!
May 9, 2016 3:55 PM # 
Pretty sure I could keep up with at least one of my daughters.
May 9, 2016 6:02 PM # 
"wanting to look good,(and not succeeding) in BACK of your daughter"
and pretty sure I CANNOT keep up with either of my daughters.....
May 9, 2016 6:57 PM # 
Well according to the A/P splits board, you made 47 seconds fewer mistakes than Peter. But you both seem to have beaten Sharon. I wonder if she too was walking?
May 9, 2016 8:21 PM # 
Sharon was, at the very least sprinting in the finish chute, only 3 seconds slower than I was.
May 9, 2016 8:30 PM # 
Sharon was running, more or less as she does. She made up a lot of ground on us in the last three controls, but not enough. The splits board is pretty intricate, given that Peter and I never deviated by more than about 3 seconds on any one leg. I see that it gave him a 31 second error on one leg where he was 3 seconds longer than I was. Maybe it factors in the well-known fact that Peter is way better than I am.

Of course, the real answer is neither one of us had any "errors". Peter was flawless, and I was glued to him. It's just that on the long trail legs we were absolutely walking, and therefore losing time relative to people who were going the same speed as we were when in the woods.
May 9, 2016 8:43 PM # 
Actually, we did have some lost time, virtually all my doing except perhaps for once. It was when one of us hit the deck. I think the final score was about a dozen falls for me, just one for Charlie.

And interesting that we had a tail for most of the time, Sharon's brother. He lost us in some thick stuff on the way to 21. The splits show that he was working hard to keep with us, by that I mean to go as slowly as we were, see his much faster splits on the last three lags. :-)
May 9, 2016 10:07 PM # 
The fall count was pretty instructive. I have wondered over the years why Peter falls so often. Now I think I know. While I usually have my eyes more or less fixed on where I am putting my feet, Peter is constantly looking around, gathering information, in short, navigating. So no wonder he falls more, and no wonder that so often I have only the most general concept of where exactly I am.
May 9, 2016 10:27 PM # 
I did a rogaine in '07 with Sharon. She fell enough to surprise me. It must come under
"intensity of purpose".
May 10, 2016 7:28 AM # 
Well done, glad to see the pair of you grumped around :)

This discussion thread is closed.