Discussion: Silly seeded start.

I'm controlling next year, and there is a lot of wriggle-room and ambiguity in the rules as written. How should it be done?

I suggest 4 minute intervals with 'no-hopers' (look out for fast runner types) in the gaps. If M45 and M50 are sharing a course then identify the top 16 M45/50's (rankings, previous results and any other evidence). At a guess this might be 6 M45 and 10 M50. The 6 M45 should be randomly allocated 1200, 1204, 1208, 1212, 1216 and 1220. The 10 M50 then randomly allocated 1224, 1228 to 1300. This assumes all seeds ask for late starts. If (like Quentin yesterday) they don't, it's easy to keep the others at least 4 mins apart.

Can I be a no-hoper in the gaps please, preferably towards the end? I promise not to be a fast runner type.

I've no problem with that.
What needs avoiding is the situation whereby a late starting M45 gets slotted between 2 seeded M50's and gets a silver medal as a result.
Look at Splitsbrowser race graph if you want to see what I mean.

To be fair to Laurence, he would have done pretty well anyway. He got a medal last year without any help from anyone. But yes, it is silly to separate the seeds by 2 mins and then put somebody of comparable speed in between them.

At a proper middle champs we would only allow entrants who are highly ranked (top 30?) to enter the event and we could apply 3 or 4 minutes start intervals because the field wouldn't be so large. If the middles are to stay an Autumn fixture then this would make a lot of sense.

hadn't realised Laurence was slotted in between M50 seeds, that's an oversight on the part of the start time/organizers, open starts have to go out before or after the seeds and, as Charlie suggests, the seeding should be per course

Also to be fair to Lawrence, the two M50's seemed to go around together and he looks like he did his own thing...... he passed Jon where Jon was obviously messing up and the was passed by Jon, when Jon was with Dave...... then he passed both Jon and Dave when they were both messing up!!

He would probably be the first to admit he would not be quick enough to stay with those two, but his nav more than makes up for it

And next year it would probably be something like 12 M50's and 4 M45's!!

Ahhhh, so that's how you find splitsbrowser. Never noticed that button.

To be fair, I'm amazed at how few trains developed ... some good navigation going on.

No need to be fair to Laurence, it's just an example of what not to do with seeding and open starts

It took my years to discover that Splitsbrowswer too, Ricky. Also there's a button in RG player which displays relative lengths of the routes along with split times, which can be a useful.

(look out for fast runner types) in the gaps

How is an organiser supposed to do this? You might know who you think is a fast runner with questionable navigation who is likely to benefit from a tow, but the organiser would have to have this knowledge across every class/course combination. And there are some fast runner/questionable navigation types with very high rankings because their skills are suited to urban courses.

I realise that and to be fair o Chas, Lawrence's line does get straighter when near Jon and Dave, so did get a bit of help, even if just pushing harder

If Laurence hadn't have been there, Clive would have won, as Dave was obviously led into no. 13 ;-)

I think it's against the spirit of the sport for trains to develop like this. I've no idea why this has happened, but surely the purpose of forest orienteering is to navigate yourself, solitary, through the woods, making your own decisions. THAT is the challenge.

If people start with the likes of Clive 2 minutes behind them, then a) it creates stress, affecting performance, b) once caught, the effects of a fluctuating race are nullified as people stick together and rarely are gaps formed again with runners of similar abilities. c) people then start to say stuff like, oh he came 2nd/3rd/ whatever, but he wouldn't have had he not had Clive to hang on to. (this is an example not a fact).

We've got relays for the exciting stuff with trains & catching people up; and people on here have probably seen how much I personally love that, especially when going off behind other teams..... (let's say TVOC & SYO B teams ;) ) - but I'm happiest in a good proper long-ish forest course, eg. JK Sunday this year, doing my own thing all the way to the finish & not noticing ANYONE else. That's (my) orienteering. It's not "exciting" though. Does it need to be?

I'm also going to "fair to Lawrence" - he's a very good Middle distance orienteer - at the Lakes 2 days last november (sand dunes), check out his result! He started 5 minutes behind me and went past me easily and I gave him no help at all (i was stamping about lost at the time).

So 2 years on nothing changes. Start list for Sunday :
Me, Quentin, Clive at 2 mins intervals. ...
Open area where visibility is probably 2 mins in places :-/

Noddy event anyway. Open area for a middle event? Almost as bad as an open area for a Long Distance event ;-)

All seeded veteran men should be required to run naked, to prevent following.

Time to wheel out this again:
https://youtu.be/26cq16X7kq4

(The relevant bits are at the end for this discussion)

I'm with Adolf. 4 mins would have been fine today.

When the assessor veteoed Longstone Moor, he notes that butterfly or phi loops would be a solution but 'people don't like them'. Do we not like them? Would that not solve the train problem? (apart from using better areas obvs)

When the assessor veteoed Longstone Moor, he notes that butterfly or phi loops would be a solution but 'people don't like them'. Do we not like them? Would that not solve the train problem? (apart from using better areas obvs)

A lakes forest in Spring is my preferred solution ;-)

May your wish come true!

4 mins would have been fine. I had 4 mins between me & serious contenders - Nigel B ahead, Graham P behind - and it was all ticketty boo as we were too far apart to see each other.

So 2 years on nothing changes.
No fair, we did it right last year and no trains. You should have come!

Sorry Graeme, I was injured last year. Didn't you pass on your best practice to this year's organisers?

I had quite a lot of discussion with Ranald about various specific stuff last year, e.g. MW16 distances and map scales. I passed on feedback about start times to the BO events committee, so it wouldn't be lost after one year.
Apparently this meant it got lost after zero years :(
At least they've finally got rid of this silly sprint&middle combination from next year.

There is nothing more tiresome than having company on a course. Just give a proper start interval. 5 mins ideally on long. Middle at least 3. Double that on an open area. And 2 mins on a sprint as it will always be open in nature. Catching / being caught / being knocked down the results by people running in packs. None of it is the point of the sport, and just devalues the competition for everyone.