Well, so that is interesting that you point that out. I thought that the standard measure of a good orienteer is 10 min/km of the straight line distance of the course. I recently went back to this thread
to look for strategies of improvement. A number of people indicate that it is good to be sure to get to the 10 min/km on less advanced courses before moving up to more advanced. Something I have not really done to date. But it seems ambiguous to me what that standard is, or maybe I have incorrectly interpreted it based on the speed of elite orienteers.
When I analyzed my race from Sunday, I realized that I certainly need to eliminate mistakes like the +5 minute one that I had. But discounting that, I asked myself, what could I do to go from ~43 minutes down to 37 (it was a 3.7 km orange) on that course. My initial math told me that I could increase my average speed by 14 %. That seemed unlikely without a great deal more training and weight loss. Then it occurred to me that I traveled ~42 % more distance than the straight line. That seemed like much lower hanging fruit to go after. So tonight's goal was to mostly ignore trails and try to take the most direct route possible and see if I could beat my time from Sunday and get closer to my version of the 10 min/km. While I did cut down the extra distance, I got much slower and hence was 2 minutes longer than Sunday. From that standpoint, it seemed a failure.
If I am correct in my interpretation of the standard 10 min/km, it would seem that it is too difficult of a standard for me to go after. I could be running on orange for a long time going after that.
I note that I have gotten worse in my orienteering and for a while I was taking some classes with UCONN. But I don't have that excuse anymore. I would be interested in your take if you have thoughts on it.