= orienteering speed. Look at Thierry - he never thrashes, just runs strongly and steadily through the forest, and gets some decent results...
Agreed. Eliminating taking risks is a very easy way to cut out mistakes. Increasing the speed of navigation is slightly harder but it's nothing more than practice.
Out of interest, how often in a race would you take a risk? What about in training?
Risks in training are just that - trying to get faster technique, risks in race - depends on situation. Last leg relay, in touch with leader = take a risk for gold.
I don't think of risks now- its more a case of how fast i can execute any route/plan - the faster I try the greater chance of mistake. Like improving your OBLA means you can run faster with less lactate so improving your technical speed means you can orienteer faster for same "risk' of error.
For me, racing is about controlling the 'risk or error' and trying to stay inside of it. Yes, there may be occasions when you want to push the boundaries and 'take a risk', but then you're relying on luck.
An analysis of risks taken verses rewards gained would make interesting reading (and maybe help to identify at which point a risk becomes too risky?).
Personally I think I usually run how Jon described - as fast as I can to execute the plan. Whereas this race could be summed up with Marcus's idea of staying inside the risk of error.
In all cases it always feels like what I balance is the "feeling" of how much of time I have to read the map. I have the idea that the optimum place to be to get your fastest race is to feel like you are just managing to navigate, right on the limit of your technical speed. But know that that is high risk.
I don't know if the better way to do it is to feel like your normal is a safe amount below the red line of technical speed then "choose" areas in the race to up the speed and technical risk. Might be something to try in a few more races this year
Good idea to try doing the faster sections approach to some races - it might just work!