Discussion: Nor Am Relays Format
in: Orienteering; General
Jul 27, 2003 1:02 AM
#
Recently there was some discussion on the US (North American?) Relay format.
Anyway, at issue was whether there should be an open relay format. It was suggested that:
a) an open format would lead to improved 'elite' orienteerer performance.
Comments to this were:
b) our existing relay system works (it integrates all orienteerers into one system
c) An event designed with "elite" teams in mind serves only a small segment of the population here
Which led to the question..
d)--should the US "elite" (ie the Team) be more integrated with the wider orienteering community (ie USOF), or more segregated?
In response to point d) I would argue that our elites are more integrated into the wider orienteering community than you would see in other sports in North America. Everybody is at the same start, finish, banquet, etc. We are not segregated with our own Championship. F12 and M21 have the same awards ceremonies, etc. Moreover, Nor-Am 'elites' often host events, make maps, hold training camps (normally open to everybody!), set up really cool training/discussion group web sites like this etc. Try to get an 'elite' in other major sports to volunteer that amount of time and to offer training advice for free or a low cost! I can assure you that it just doesn't happen. So I would say our system is very integrated already.
For point b) --> I agree our system works in getting a large number of relay teams. More teams usually means more fun. It is a lot easier to host, etc. etc. But this doesn't mean that this system is the best to 'GROW' the sport (in general) or to increase 'elite performance', (specifically).
Mihai was the one that suggested point a) An open category would increase 'elite' performance. I agree with him. But maybe not 100% open. Using the currently adopted points system maybe the addition of 3 people/team and 2 points required/team category would achieve this. I also believe it has the potential to grow the sport!
The reason I agree with Mihai is because of the tremendous growth in 'team sports' in North America that were traditionally 'individual'. (trail relays, 24 hour MTB races, Adventure Racing, etc.) For example, I think one of the reasons that Adventure Racing has grown so quickly is that it is team based. Teams are usually made up of individuals of the same age group. If you have two people that want to form a team of three or four then you have to go out and get another person (advertise). Also, if your team wants to improve then ALL members of the team will need to improve (train, more races, etc.). The more people training improves performance, etc. etc. We get adventure racers doing Rogaine events because they can still race together as a team - they often can't race together in the existing relay format ... and that is unfortunate.
Having lived in Sweden I have seen how important it is to be on the club's #1 Tiomila team. The more people training at the club level for a common goal normally results in improvements. It is for this reason, in part, that GHO will enter Jukola in 2004. The 7th ranked person in the club is as important as the #1 and #2 person - all 7 are a part of a common goal, etc. etc.). We will beat the US Team! OK OK, that is for another thread...
Seriously though, under the current system if you are the 5th or 6th best in your club in M21 then you are on the club's 4th or 5th relay team. In a system that has an "elite" category you could be on the 2nd team. This statement is not elitest because the same statement could be made for the people in M45. Of course, we don't want to start adding more and more categories but three categories may suffice.
Anyway, to discuss point c) --> maybe the reason that elites make up a small portion of the population is because it is hard for those not at the very top to stay motivated or to train harder - maybe they don't feel part of something bigger like their second or third 2-point relay team.
Our existing relay format works well and I am not suggesting we get rid of it - merely modify it a little.
I am proposing that Canada and US adopt a common relay format that offers three categories (2, 5, and 8 points) to encourage club spirit across various age groups (including elites) AND at the elite level.
Points: <20, >35 = 1; <16, >45 = 2; <14, >55=3, etc.and female equals 2....
Perhaps something like:
2 point teams: Red, Green, Green
5 point teams: Green, Green, Brown
8 point teams: Green, Brown, Orange/Yellow??
I could go on, but this is long enough and I am off on holidays now....
-Mike Waddington
Anyway, at issue was whether there should be an open relay format. It was suggested that:
a) an open format would lead to improved 'elite' orienteerer performance.
Comments to this were:
b) our existing relay system works (it integrates all orienteerers into one system
c) An event designed with "elite" teams in mind serves only a small segment of the population here
Which led to the question..
d)--should the US "elite" (ie the Team) be more integrated with the wider orienteering community (ie USOF), or more segregated?
In response to point d) I would argue that our elites are more integrated into the wider orienteering community than you would see in other sports in North America. Everybody is at the same start, finish, banquet, etc. We are not segregated with our own Championship. F12 and M21 have the same awards ceremonies, etc. Moreover, Nor-Am 'elites' often host events, make maps, hold training camps (normally open to everybody!), set up really cool training/discussion group web sites like this etc. Try to get an 'elite' in other major sports to volunteer that amount of time and to offer training advice for free or a low cost! I can assure you that it just doesn't happen. So I would say our system is very integrated already.
For point b) --> I agree our system works in getting a large number of relay teams. More teams usually means more fun. It is a lot easier to host, etc. etc. But this doesn't mean that this system is the best to 'GROW' the sport (in general) or to increase 'elite performance', (specifically).
Mihai was the one that suggested point a) An open category would increase 'elite' performance. I agree with him. But maybe not 100% open. Using the currently adopted points system maybe the addition of 3 people/team and 2 points required/team category would achieve this. I also believe it has the potential to grow the sport!
The reason I agree with Mihai is because of the tremendous growth in 'team sports' in North America that were traditionally 'individual'. (trail relays, 24 hour MTB races, Adventure Racing, etc.) For example, I think one of the reasons that Adventure Racing has grown so quickly is that it is team based. Teams are usually made up of individuals of the same age group. If you have two people that want to form a team of three or four then you have to go out and get another person (advertise). Also, if your team wants to improve then ALL members of the team will need to improve (train, more races, etc.). The more people training improves performance, etc. etc. We get adventure racers doing Rogaine events because they can still race together as a team - they often can't race together in the existing relay format ... and that is unfortunate.
Having lived in Sweden I have seen how important it is to be on the club's #1 Tiomila team. The more people training at the club level for a common goal normally results in improvements. It is for this reason, in part, that GHO will enter Jukola in 2004. The 7th ranked person in the club is as important as the #1 and #2 person - all 7 are a part of a common goal, etc. etc.). We will beat the US Team! OK OK, that is for another thread...
Seriously though, under the current system if you are the 5th or 6th best in your club in M21 then you are on the club's 4th or 5th relay team. In a system that has an "elite" category you could be on the 2nd team. This statement is not elitest because the same statement could be made for the people in M45. Of course, we don't want to start adding more and more categories but three categories may suffice.
Anyway, to discuss point c) --> maybe the reason that elites make up a small portion of the population is because it is hard for those not at the very top to stay motivated or to train harder - maybe they don't feel part of something bigger like their second or third 2-point relay team.
Our existing relay format works well and I am not suggesting we get rid of it - merely modify it a little.
I am proposing that Canada and US adopt a common relay format that offers three categories (2, 5, and 8 points) to encourage club spirit across various age groups (including elites) AND at the elite level.
Points: <20, >35 = 1; <16, >45 = 2; <14, >55=3, etc.and female equals 2....
Perhaps something like:
2 point teams: Red, Green, Green
5 point teams: Green, Green, Brown
8 point teams: Green, Brown, Orange/Yellow??
I could go on, but this is long enough and I am off on holidays now....
-Mike Waddington
Jul 27, 2003 12:55 PM
#
Hmmm... I like the sound of this. After running a few relays in Norway, I have really started to wonder whether our points system for relays is actually hurting our elite orienteers. While it does give the upper hand to clubs with more depth, it discourages clubs from seeking more elite level orienteers.
One of the biggest priorities in my club here in Norway, is to ensure that they will have the three best orienteers that they can get every year for their relays. Now this could mean that clubs may not be focusing enough on all members of the club, and only on their best runners, but this is not true. Instead of looking for runners worth points to validate their relay teams as we must do here in the States, they need to seek depth in their club in order to do well in such relays as the Tiomila and Jukola. Then there are also lots of relays here in Norway that feature all kind of weird points systems like ours in the States, and this is great for all of the non-elite members of the club, but when it comes to Championship relays, the best of the best are allowed to shine.
Now with the Jukola and Tiomila a club is forced to seek depth even though there is no point system, but simply because you need up to 10 solid runners. On top of that, you need up to 8 good night runners for Tiomila, something that my club in particular has been struggling with. This means that more experienced Orienteers are going to receive a lot of support as they are generally the best for the night legs.
Now in the States one of our biggest priorities is of course to expand the Sport, something that Scandinavians don't need to worry about, and this may be the reason that there is so little support for our Elite runners. I am not one to fully understand the issue, or supply advice, but I can make these observations: in the States we are focusing on bringing in new Orienteers for the future generations, but we may be forgetting about our current Orienteers. Anyway, I am digressing from the current topic. Just a few thoughts from my corner.
One of the biggest priorities in my club here in Norway, is to ensure that they will have the three best orienteers that they can get every year for their relays. Now this could mean that clubs may not be focusing enough on all members of the club, and only on their best runners, but this is not true. Instead of looking for runners worth points to validate their relay teams as we must do here in the States, they need to seek depth in their club in order to do well in such relays as the Tiomila and Jukola. Then there are also lots of relays here in Norway that feature all kind of weird points systems like ours in the States, and this is great for all of the non-elite members of the club, but when it comes to Championship relays, the best of the best are allowed to shine.
Now with the Jukola and Tiomila a club is forced to seek depth even though there is no point system, but simply because you need up to 10 solid runners. On top of that, you need up to 8 good night runners for Tiomila, something that my club in particular has been struggling with. This means that more experienced Orienteers are going to receive a lot of support as they are generally the best for the night legs.
Now in the States one of our biggest priorities is of course to expand the Sport, something that Scandinavians don't need to worry about, and this may be the reason that there is so little support for our Elite runners. I am not one to fully understand the issue, or supply advice, but I can make these observations: in the States we are focusing on bringing in new Orienteers for the future generations, but we may be forgetting about our current Orienteers. Anyway, I am digressing from the current topic. Just a few thoughts from my corner.
Jul 29, 2003 8:20 PM
#
Forget about elite relays in NA! Orienteering is for recreational participants - that is how it is viewed by USOF and COF. This August USOF will vote to change relay rules to have 4, 8, and 12 point teams!!!
Unless elites will segregate and start doing own events (Open USA Champs and Elite Meets (ala this year USA Team Trials) are very good examples) - nothing would change for elites.
Speaking about youth, forget about it too. All (or majority) juniors I know are kids of the orienteerers. It is very frustrating to realise that the number of young participants is barely enough to keep the sport running in NA. There is no future growth in the nearest decade. There is no real program in place.
Strange to feel that you can successfully compete with 20-year olds at 40 or 50.
Unless something is done at school/university level on big scale (read support of the Olympic Commeettees) - nothing would drastically change. Money, money, money - we have enough volunteers.
Sergey
Unless elites will segregate and start doing own events (Open USA Champs and Elite Meets (ala this year USA Team Trials) are very good examples) - nothing would change for elites.
Speaking about youth, forget about it too. All (or majority) juniors I know are kids of the orienteerers. It is very frustrating to realise that the number of young participants is barely enough to keep the sport running in NA. There is no future growth in the nearest decade. There is no real program in place.
Strange to feel that you can successfully compete with 20-year olds at 40 or 50.
Unless something is done at school/university level on big scale (read support of the Olympic Commeettees) - nothing would drastically change. Money, money, money - we have enough volunteers.
Sergey
Aug 1, 2003 1:18 AM
#
So you see the inclusion of more people in the sport (through a 12 point category) as a bad thing for elites? What, does the very presence of slower people at an event somehow prevent you from running fast?
Orienteering is not so big that we should have a problem accommodating everybody who wants to do it!
Also, in this thread the desire for growth is seen as somehow contrary to support for elites. I think that this couldn't be more false! The reason is that the only viable source of money in this sport is through event entry fees. As alternatives, the Olympic Committee doesn't work because the sport is not in the Olympics, and corporate sponsorship doesn't work because poor international results in an obscure, spectator-unfriendly sport don't sell products.
But event entry fees, already the main source of revenue for clubs, increase with growth, and club profits increase even faster because the largest cost of an event (making the map) is fixed. Hopefully clubs would see fit to give some of that extra money to elites, through either prizes or grants. This year's classic US Championships, the first US event to offer significant prize money, is a perfect example of this. And money is what we want, right?
If the Team improves its image by making more of a positive contribution in the orienteering community, we can both contribute to this growth and make clubs more likely to want to share the profits with us (and hopefully make the rank-and-file orienteer not resent it). Or we can continue to shoot ourselves in the foot through bad attitudes and bad decisions (such as pissing off the very people who made this prize money happen). I hope we choose the former!
Orienteering is not so big that we should have a problem accommodating everybody who wants to do it!
Also, in this thread the desire for growth is seen as somehow contrary to support for elites. I think that this couldn't be more false! The reason is that the only viable source of money in this sport is through event entry fees. As alternatives, the Olympic Committee doesn't work because the sport is not in the Olympics, and corporate sponsorship doesn't work because poor international results in an obscure, spectator-unfriendly sport don't sell products.
But event entry fees, already the main source of revenue for clubs, increase with growth, and club profits increase even faster because the largest cost of an event (making the map) is fixed. Hopefully clubs would see fit to give some of that extra money to elites, through either prizes or grants. This year's classic US Championships, the first US event to offer significant prize money, is a perfect example of this. And money is what we want, right?
If the Team improves its image by making more of a positive contribution in the orienteering community, we can both contribute to this growth and make clubs more likely to want to share the profits with us (and hopefully make the rank-and-file orienteer not resent it). Or we can continue to shoot ourselves in the foot through bad attitudes and bad decisions (such as pissing off the very people who made this prize money happen). I hope we choose the former!
Aug 1, 2003 2:05 AM
#
The main problem is,that, (based on 10 years of orienteering in US and 20 overseas) the USOF was started with no concept of orienteering as a high performance sport(elite), like most of the other national fed. did, so it developed as a mass sport, with the subsequently consequences.So is kind of tardy now to make that adjustment, so late in time, without having the right federation structure.First of all, the way the USOF is functioning would need to change,and we have to remember that we live in US, where pretty much everething is possible, given the right circumstances
Anyhow ,I personaly belive that a 0 or even 2 point relay with 3 members/team would be well accepted by orienteers, in conjunction with any major North American meet or at the relay champs.
Anyhow ,I personaly belive that a 0 or even 2 point relay with 3 members/team would be well accepted by orienteers, in conjunction with any major North American meet or at the relay champs.
Aug 2, 2003 2:34 AM
#
I think DanSH is the only one here who is "doing the math.", and recognizing the reality of sports funding and organization in the US. The team (comp folks) cannot function independently of USOF because of $ and organizational manpower, to say nothing of the personal politics involved. To me this is so self evident, that I don't have a clue how to substantiate it. I am very sympathetic to the frustration behind seperatist thinking, but realistic solutions do not flow from here.
I am glad the team trials were well received, but let me point out that it was an incredibly inefficient use/ waste of organizational manpower, for the $income/ participation level. I think this "elite only" format needs to be questioned as a practical, sustainable form of competition. It should be no more than a "last resort" that sometimes turns out well. Furthermore, exclusivity does nothing to foster good will.
The relays from a strictly competitive point of view- I think the 4pt min system clearly results in more competitive, exciting events, My guess is that this system can be shown to pack 2- 4x the number of teams within a given % behind leader. (Any takers to do this math?) Sure there are slower runners involved, but the faster and slower are bunched together, and on the same legs. The result is more people experiencing the excitement of head to head relay running, which is the whole point, right?
Like it or not, we are all in a symbiotic relationship. Orienteering wouldn't have any appeal as a "real" sport without the competitive folks. The mixing of all age groups and comp levels is one of the charms and strengths of our sport. For competitive people, the reality of the bottom line depends on broad based financial/ organizational support for maps and events. In addition, where do future competitive folks come from? The "breeding" program doesn't appear to be doing the job.
Just as many have pointed out some diappointing competitive results, I think the same amount of questions need to be directed at the the core(?) non comp USOF for not living up to expectations of growth and developement. The first thing I question is the commitment to, and understanding of promotion and growth, among self descrided non comp USOF people. To me there seems to be a preponderence of "feel good", "leave well enough alone" attitudes, and I suspect many quiet "no growth" opinions lying low. These attitudes do not accomplish anything in theory or reality.
Anybody want to unearth that "feel good growth plan" from some years ago. Shouldn't we be nearing a million by now? Growth does not happen via calculators.
I think both comp and non comp people are too busy looking for shortcuts and "new ideas" before learning or doing the basics, which, to a great extent means simply more hard work and commitment than we "soft Americans" are motivated for. I think progress starts with public service cliches like "get informed", "get out the vote", and "get involved".
I am glad the team trials were well received, but let me point out that it was an incredibly inefficient use/ waste of organizational manpower, for the $income/ participation level. I think this "elite only" format needs to be questioned as a practical, sustainable form of competition. It should be no more than a "last resort" that sometimes turns out well. Furthermore, exclusivity does nothing to foster good will.
The relays from a strictly competitive point of view- I think the 4pt min system clearly results in more competitive, exciting events, My guess is that this system can be shown to pack 2- 4x the number of teams within a given % behind leader. (Any takers to do this math?) Sure there are slower runners involved, but the faster and slower are bunched together, and on the same legs. The result is more people experiencing the excitement of head to head relay running, which is the whole point, right?
Like it or not, we are all in a symbiotic relationship. Orienteering wouldn't have any appeal as a "real" sport without the competitive folks. The mixing of all age groups and comp levels is one of the charms and strengths of our sport. For competitive people, the reality of the bottom line depends on broad based financial/ organizational support for maps and events. In addition, where do future competitive folks come from? The "breeding" program doesn't appear to be doing the job.
Just as many have pointed out some diappointing competitive results, I think the same amount of questions need to be directed at the the core(?) non comp USOF for not living up to expectations of growth and developement. The first thing I question is the commitment to, and understanding of promotion and growth, among self descrided non comp USOF people. To me there seems to be a preponderence of "feel good", "leave well enough alone" attitudes, and I suspect many quiet "no growth" opinions lying low. These attitudes do not accomplish anything in theory or reality.
Anybody want to unearth that "feel good growth plan" from some years ago. Shouldn't we be nearing a million by now? Growth does not happen via calculators.
I think both comp and non comp people are too busy looking for shortcuts and "new ideas" before learning or doing the basics, which, to a great extent means simply more hard work and commitment than we "soft Americans" are motivated for. I think progress starts with public service cliches like "get informed", "get out the vote", and "get involved".
Aug 21, 2003 5:52 AM
#
Thanks Hammer for the original post—we, the """elite""" (enough quote marks Raven?) people, do much more for O than an average USOF/COF member. There are more myths going around since the beginning of time...
Myth 1: Growth/large numbers bring elite success. Orienteering, see French/Australian men (feeble numbers + a World Champ/WG winner) and Russian women (Swedish numbers + not even close results). Other sports, see... say... US luge. Or archery. Correlation, not causation (thanks William). Surely government support (wisely used) played a role with the French system. But the US is a richer country.
Myth 2: Team must please the fatso-nutso USOF member (you know who). Give me a break. Plainly, most of "those" people have no appreciation for what we do even though they happen to do something remotely similar. They never will even if we do triple flips backwards at the end of the finish chute. Expecting $ from them for putting even more time into O than we do is pearls before swine. I would only go as far as to elect to be polite with such.
Myth 3: US """top"""-level orienteers need to do more technical training. Brian has been able to do as well as he has done on barely a 75-min half. Several of my (non-selected if you know what I mean) Russian friends have run 69s and 71s, have been orienteering since early childhood, and have no chance of an O-result remotely comparable to Brian's.
What I know is that money breeds success, running makes one a faster runner, and time is finite. No, I haven't been drinking today.
So, where to get the money? Hold events, rogaines, adventure-racer clinics, all as a quasi-separate organization. Use the money to support those who have a fighting chance to hang on with the best. And once we have those results repeatably, recognition will come.
Myth 1: Growth/large numbers bring elite success. Orienteering, see French/Australian men (feeble numbers + a World Champ/WG winner) and Russian women (Swedish numbers + not even close results). Other sports, see... say... US luge. Or archery. Correlation, not causation (thanks William). Surely government support (wisely used) played a role with the French system. But the US is a richer country.
Myth 2: Team must please the fatso-nutso USOF member (you know who). Give me a break. Plainly, most of "those" people have no appreciation for what we do even though they happen to do something remotely similar. They never will even if we do triple flips backwards at the end of the finish chute. Expecting $ from them for putting even more time into O than we do is pearls before swine. I would only go as far as to elect to be polite with such.
Myth 3: US """top"""-level orienteers need to do more technical training. Brian has been able to do as well as he has done on barely a 75-min half. Several of my (non-selected if you know what I mean) Russian friends have run 69s and 71s, have been orienteering since early childhood, and have no chance of an O-result remotely comparable to Brian's.
What I know is that money breeds success, running makes one a faster runner, and time is finite. No, I haven't been drinking today.
So, where to get the money? Hold events, rogaines, adventure-racer clinics, all as a quasi-separate organization. Use the money to support those who have a fighting chance to hang on with the best. And once we have those results repeatably, recognition will come.
This discussion thread is closed.