Discussion: WOC mass start

Mass start at WOC by 2014 and could be included as soon as 2011 or 2012.

http://www.orientering.se/Nyheter/Klartmedmasstart...

http://orientering.no/t2.asp?p=63680&x=1&a=265949

I was wondering when the debate would start. Kill it now!

Bring it on! And maybe allow skipping a control!

Mass start will be interesting, but the *real* news is that Barbados was admitted to the IOC as the 71st member nation. Bonus points to anyone who can name the favorite fish taco flavor in the IOC's newest member nation!

Perhaps the ubiquitous flying fish?

What a joke, the IOF are such media whores.

Mass start for all disciplines, including sprint?

Is there a list of all member nations? Only 42 (I think) came to WOC this year.

Also, if there's a new IOF nation in North America, does that mean every 6 years the NAOC's will be warm & sunny? ;-)

I think if they were to implement mass start as a new disciplin, they should include it as a Night event, 70 minute winning time. Then they would have something pretty awesome to watch. Since it is a common practice both in the largest relays, Tiomila, Jukola, 7manna, Smålandskavlen etc., and perhaps Rogaines, it would be a relevant skill. Otherwise it seems like it would just be a hybrid of middle and long in a mass start.

Some scandinavian countries have made national night champs a mass start the last few years, although in this case its the other way around.

And they also awarded WOC-2014 to Italy.

well there you go, it'll be a Mess start ;-)

Was WOC 2015 also awarded and was Italy the only bidder? Sorry I'm out of the loop on this one.

Italy was indeed the only bidder. WOC 2015 will be decided by Council next year; Sweden and Great Britain are known bidders at this stage.

One interesting thing to come out of the Italian presentation is that they are considering holding the sprint in Venice, although I'll be surprised if they can pull this off with the summer crowds.

I think night champs has never been mass start in Finland. And it's interval start in Smålandskavlen too. In individual race you can't have spreading like in relay, because all need to run same legs. Thats why mass start isn't as good idea for individual race as it is for relay. If night gets to WOC it should be interval start to make it more exiting and fun to watch.

---

Take away middle distance. Convert "long" back to "classic", winner would be best day orienteer. No more wonderering between long and middle winner who is the king of the forest.

Add night race, interval start of course. Night race winner would be best night orienteer. Night O is where the action is and with gps tracking it can be shown to spactators.

Give sprint a face lift, make it a spectacle and put all new stuff there. Qualification would be mass start wihtout spreading, something like 6 heats, and five fastest would qualify to next stage. Longish second stage, individual start with forking. All runners would not run same legs. Then third and last stage,chase start. Part of it would be same as in stage two and there spreadings would be made even. First in finish would win. Winner would be king of urban tactics O.

And then relay.

Allow following. Use "the dead running" to make it impossible to follow same person too long. It is easily done if we want. One can combine it with some loops if even more spreading is needed. But still ban assistance, early starter would not be allowed to investiage tricky section of the course then come back and wait half hour of a team "capitain" and then help him trough the tricky section (and then dnf). Not likely, but still you never know what happens if you simply allow following and early starter makes big mistake in the beginning and notices his own race is already spoiled.

Then we would have something for everyone and races would be different enough, interesting enough and we wouldn't have to blame runners for doing their best.

The sprint face lift you mentions sounds like the Nordic Tour. The Nordic Tour is a great idea - but only if your a consistent Top 30 runner. It doesn't give weaker nations a chance. At least with 3 heats, everyone has a chance.

World Champs NightO would be a brilliant idea. But for finland during the summer, there would not be much of a window to allow a 2min start gap, so a mass start with loops for forking, if even needed, would be the best option.

You wouldn't have to have WOC in Finland at the same time as Jukola. We have well enough darkenss at this time of the year already.

Mass start with spreading loops would just make it less fun and less fair. Less fun to watch - less mistakes for following/pack running. And less fair because spreading would spread it to two/three trains and it's up to luck will your train be fast or not compared to other train(s). Or at least thats how it usually goes in night mass starts.

@ c.hill > Are international races for weaker nations to have a chance or for the best orienteers to race against each other?

The way it's going WOC is going to actually mean less and less. Nordics is much harder race to win, as is Europeans.

@ Jagge... To get rid of middle they would have to make the long race real orienteering. It's not been like that for a long time...

The way it's going WOC is going to actually mean less and less. Nordics is much harder race to win, as is Europeans

Look at the results of this year's EuOC and last year's Nordics. How did their winners do at the 2010 WOC?

Sprint: Hertner/Jansson; Hubmann/Kauppi. At WOC: Hertner 2nd, Jansson 2nd,
Hubmann 7th, Kauppi 4th.

Middle: Novikov/Niggli; Öberg/Jansson. At WOC: Novikov 6th, Niggli 2nd, Öberg 2nd, Jansson 4th.

Long: Hubmann/Niggli; Hubmann/Kauppi. At WOC: Hubmann 7th, Niggli won, Kauppi 5th.

The data seems to state that athletes who win the EuOC and the Nordics have at least as hard time at the WOC, or harder. Some can't manage a comparably high placing, and some can. If your line of arguing held up, one would expect the winners of EuOC and the Nordics to be able to win the WOC with more ease and/or higher margins. Another consequence one would notice if your argument indeed held up is that you'd see a lot of the 4th-and-below national Team members from the "strong nations", who are shut out of the WOC, place high at the EuOC and the NOC. This argument does hold for Switzerland and only for Switzerland (e.g. Müller 5th in Bulgaria Sprint, 4 SUI in top 5, 6 in top 10). If you exclude Switzerland, the one country with exceptional depth, and the home country Finland at the NOC for the Long Women only (Fincke 7th), no 4th team member placed higher than 10th (Haldin NOC Middle, Andersson EuOC Long) in these 12 minus one races.

Perhaps what you were really trying to say is that the Nordics is a much harder race to place 30th at?

Yes there are more Scandinavians at the Nordics. Looking at the results of Scandinavian teams in the past 8 years or so, this distinction may by now be nearly meaningless. The IOF put a lot of resources and wisdom into creating competitive conditions in which the former "weaker nations" would have a chance to grow a competitive program. France for one wouldn't have had much of a motivation to put money and effort into supporting Thierry and François in the early 2000s if at each WOC at the time, its runners would have faced 10×(FIN + NOR + SWE). Reducing this competition was a very wise thing.

The best will still win if it's 3 per country or 10 per country. Under present conditions, as the data seems to show, the 10th place will almost always still be the same if it's 3 per (+ Champ) or 10 per. Further down the list it does start making quite a difference. However, if the tradeoff is that as a result of this shift of emphasis, someone who is realistically 100th places 30th at the WOC, and in exchange you get strong, competitive O-programs in 10 or 12 countries instead of 4, I'd say we got a very good bargain.

The IOF has done good things to the sport in the past 8 or so years. For those who aren't happy with the shift of emphasis, there are Micr-O and Trail-O.

I think having an individual mass start race at WOC is an excellent idea. Do we
know what the winning time of this race will be? I started a thread a
month or two back on whether mass start races are the future and many interesting posts were made there. Not everyone likes the mass starts in cross country skiing but I like the idea of a race with different strategies to the normal intervaL start.

As far as I know the notional winning time for the mass start race is yet to be determined. Since the objective is to get TV coverage it would need to be capable of fitting into a reasonable TV timeslot, which probably means something short of a full long distance, but would need to be long enough to support multiple loops; I'd guess something around an hour, plus/minus a bit?

Having one or more races specifically designed around TV requirements might reduce some of the pressure to compromise the more "traditional" formats to suit TV (something which is getting a fair bit of discussion in other places here).

Yes that is my take too Blair but it may also mean we see no more quali races for long and/or middle with entries per country based on ranking.

So we need a mass start format. Fun and exiting to to watch, fun and challenging to run, fair for runners, lots of route choice legs, no boring picking same controls over an over again, runners would run relatively close together to make it easy and fun to watch at GPS tracking (=not running loops in turns). Relatively easy to set up on any terrain/map.

How about this. We plan 8 nice courses, kind of variations of a one same course. Common controls, forked controls, courses with fast forking in the beginning, courses with fast last forking, up to planner. All about equally fast but not quite, up to planner.

At start each competitors gets these 8 maps in random order. Clock starts ticking, it is up to runner to pick the one he thinks is fastest or suits best his strategy. Fast end or start to get away early, or the short but tricky looking one (so one could expect Thierry takes it and one could follow...) and so on. Its up to competitor much time he uses to pick the course. One could pick any map at once and save selecting time. After picking one map one has to stick to it.

On average every 8th runner has same course. If tehre is no 8 countrol forking early on, so it will not get revealed who has same forking. Almost free amount of spreading and free course topology - one huge loop and no spectator legs or several spectator legs - all up to planner. It should be basicly quite fair, competitor can't blame anyone but himself for picking a bad course. Comparing courses isn't anything new for orienteers, we do it after each relay (and start whining the other team won just because they had faster last forking or something). Seven maps per competitor gets wasted, cost of that isn't big deal compared to TV production, GPS tracking and stuff. Should be fun to watch on TV, like relay, no need to go same boring loops over and over again to make forkings equal, so there comes new challenging legs and turns all the time during the race. No one can simply follow (and take same skip) unless he luckily had picked same course as the favourite. And favourite must be able to deal this situation too to win. First in finish wins.

Lets hope IOF gives this new race format a cool name instead of something like 'mass start longish middle'. GHO will hold a mass start race at GLOF on the 10.10.10 weekend. We call it O-Cross (better sound bite than farsta).

8 different courses eh. Works ok until team work enters into the equation. With mass start races enters the domestique into orienteering.

Hammer, could you explain? I can't see how team work makes any difference here.

Team mates can communicate to each other to pick the course that has the control furthest north or west or closest to the start or some other pre-determined 'signal' so that they all have the same course which allows them to run it together.

Half of the courses has the same northest control. Half of the courses has the fastest last forking and so on. Tehre can be equally short legs and so on, not easy to pick the nearest and so on. There is no any single identifying thing and using muitiple is dificult. Lots of common control and simple forkings (2-3 controls) here and there. They are not allowed to discuss during the map pick up. So, tell me how they do it? And if one team manages to do it, good for them! But well, what if it's course setters trap and that one is the bad one? Not problem if planner knows what he is doing.

OK, they can pick any map and servants can choose to disqualify from the beginning and run with the master even if they don't have that caurse. But then if master has bad day it will end up as disaster for that country, one bad result and dsq for the rest. And if you don't have the control on your map it's difficult to help, it takes time to explain where control / borrow map or so. Not worth it I's say.

[Note, I did not meant there would be 8 totally different courses. I had quite different approach in mind. And this "you can pick any course" is for getting rid of the need for having to have same legs for all thing that makes race boring.]

Ummm.... How about picking the course with the lowest control code for the first control... easy to work out, no fuss, no confusion. Then as we come back for our next map, again, map with the lowest control code for number 1.... etc.

Or, the domestique runs the course the the highest control code for number 1 a few times, has a break, and then drags the highest placed team leader round on their last loop.

i.e., i'm team bitch and drag round whoever out of Scott or GG comes back first.

If there is forked loops then it has to be decided before hand to stop people teaming up on the same loop. People will always work out a way. As I did in about 5 seconds.

In GBR we call it a Hagaby race, basically a 1 man relay, 3 forked loops of 20 minutes, no one will run the same combination.

3 options at each forking, 3 forkings per loop, 3 loops in total. Any maths bods wants to work out the combinations for that? I'm guesing it's more than 45...

Oh, and the last section should never be forked

>In GBR we call it a Hagaby race,

Exactly why IOF needs a better term (if they use that format).

O-cross counts good eh, people might think it's as exciting as board-cross

If the length of the course is not the same for all competitors I prefer to have mass start race as billygoat format or maybe just an extreme variant of score race model.
Let say to have 3-4 clusters of 4-6 controls and common last 4-6 controls (2km). It is competitor decision how to visit all clusters and controls inside it. When you finish one cluster you may go to the next one. Maybe "main control" which you have to pick twice (start, finish) and could be anyone. The last runner (or few runners) of the biggest train are out of the race at the end of the each cluster. I see much fun here as nobody will ever know how big the train or group in the cluster really is. Runners will be forced to change tactics, pick small trains or eventually soon or later start to read the map. After that you have just one common control in the centre of all clusters where you have an exchange of map for final common controls. At this point is it also possible to have additional elimination and just TOP 25 goes to finish. All others have final rank from 25 on. I think that for most of runners it is not important if they are 24th or 30th or 50th at WOC in this kind of format.

Not sure that this kind of training format could really have any good potential for WOC mass start course characteristics. Anyway it seems that these days orienteering need “casualties" already on the course. Qualifications incorporated, so “blood, tears and survival instinct” all the way to the finish. Lots of fun for our non orienteering TV friends with time to watch anything what looks like to be a sport combat.

Hagaby is not what I ment. In hagaby format all will run all legs in at the end, just in different order. and there is loops. I have no loops, no map exhange. Loops are boring, no long legs, same common controls three times and so on.

Last section can be forked here. There could even be two last controls, one slightly faster than the other. It's up to runner to pick the 5 sec faster last control if he likes. But that might mean the second last forkin may be 25 sec slow.

Well, if codes will be used we could always have two codes for each control. Only one of he codes will be printed on your map. You can't know what code numbers your team mates has. Or no codes at all, simple. Helper can of course make short cut, study last three legs, wait there and try to drag first team member. So what, any team can do that. Whats wrong with it?

Ok, lets imagine team Finland manages to pick same course by counting countors and picking the course with most climb. Soon after main group they leave the start area. Ikonen is fastest on flat forest, so he has to wait his mates. Haldin is strongest climber, so he has to take wait there. On road Föhr is fastest and has to wait for Ikonen, Pasi's back doesnt like fast road running. But they sure stay together!

The leader of the main group is TG. He picked the fastest looking course, about minute faster thatn the one Finns picked. He waits no-one, but just presses on. The rest just try to follow and if they notice they have different forking they try their best to get back to train after forking.

How do you think brave Finns will do, will they take home places 1-3? Do you think running with team members is faster than running with runners from other nations?

The point is, you can follow TG only if you manage to get same course. He may tell the his "selecting code" to his team mates. If they manage to do it, good for them, but the risk is they may not pick the fastest course. His team mates may try to get second place by followin him or some may try making shortcut and helping in the end. All teams can try doing it. This is mass start format and team work can be is part of it. If one team has one strong runner, whats wrong ith that.

The point from spectators view is getting rid of boring short leg loops to get race fair and equal. Nice courses with route choice legs, GPS tracking, some TV cameras here and there. Seeing live from tracking how teams tactics work or is there any. And so on. Is't that the goal for having mass start after all? We already have individual start formats, mass starts doesn't have to be like that at all. Am I missing here something?

What mass starts should not be is running boring loops over and over again (=hagaby). Or unforked (ore skip when you like) race where anyone can take grip of TG's shirt and simply follow (and "take same skips"). There needs to be something better.

This all sounds like complete crap.

Mass starts are. Thats why I am against mass starts.

Yup, with you on that one. The only way I can think of that it would be even slightly worth it is a mass start with a few loops as a quali for the real long final. A few running chancers would get in, but the big guys would still all make it.

This whole thing makes me really sad. Just increase the start intervals and do it properly.

Just increase the start intervals and do it properly

That has nothing to do with this. As far as I know mass start will not replace anything. Its a new additional race.

Is funny how so many - including me - think relays are great, including the first leg, but individual mass starts are crap.

If it's done like this. You feel like there is no forking, everyone you see is goinig to the same control as you, except at central control. It's not fun to watch either, you can't tell who is leading since competitors are at opposite sides of the map, no head to head race between them. Also no long route choice legs.

If it is done like this again no long route choise legs. Now this works almost as well as a first leg of a relay (except no long legs) for the fist loop but then it comes boring to watch and run, competitors taking same common controls again and again and if you use less common controls you end up at same as with the first example. No matter how you do it, it's the same. I think IOF is thinking something like that. I dont think they have free order clusters and controls in mind, those arent good either. You can simply follow, take same order as the one you follow. Elimination on last runners of each has no effect, you can simply stay close behind, second in your train.

Why is that, what is actually the difference between these individual mass starts and the relay? In relay's first leg competitors has not run same legs at the end of the leg. In individual race they have. In relay we have pre defined course and we have to live with it. In free order/skip event we can simply follow. That makes the difference. Individual race would be as intesting and fun as relay if we could do simiar setup as we have in relay. But we can't just like that assing different courses for competitor. Its not fair. The oly way I could figure to make work is not assigning courses for runners in advance, but giving them all options and letting them choose the course themselves. Then it would be fair enough, and we would have fun relay first leg like individual mass start race. I don't think teamwork makes any difference here. If it becomes a true problem, we could have only on start slot per nation, 40 runners, 40 nations. 40 best nations based on performance at long qual or something. Good for lesser O countries, makes it easier to make it to the final.

A small note about this year's relay at WOC. For me everything has changed and I was surprised to find that the relays were, well, kind of boring. This of course makes no sense, since they were two races filled with drama and excellent performances.

But the problem is that I have, in three short races, become addicted to having full tracking available on all runners. (this was obviously not available for the relay as the runners waiting to go out should not have access to this information, and there is no quarantine for the relay runners).

One of the super things about the tracking is to show one live track (say, Simone's) and then see where the competitors were at the same elapsed time in their race. In effect, creating a virtual mass start.

Maybe I enjoyed this more than most people, but the live tracking, with a 3-D rendering of the map - now that is something that is very exciting.

For me this meets all of Jagge's event requirements. But I think he missed one requirement in his list - and that one is not satisfied by this "virtual mass start" - the need for "first across the finish line is the winner". (which, to go off on a tangent again, is really probably the biggest reason for a mass-start format?)

Back to an earlier point of Hammer's - there is certainly some pressure to get rid of qualification races but one of IOF's key performance indicators is to maximise the number of countries at WOC, and getting rid of any form of qualification race runs strongly counter to that. A possible option (at least to me, not sure if it's been canvassed in IOF circles or not) might be to have some of the field pre-qualified based on rankings or some other indicator, and have the remaining places filled by a qualifying competition perhaps a week before the main World Championships (the same system as applies for Grand Slam tennis tournaments, although I'd want the proportion of places on offer through qualifying being larger). This would also open the option of ideas like some form of regional qualifying - it would certainly strength the Oceania or North American Championships if there was a WOC final place on offer to the winner...

Yep! WOC final spot on offer for regional championships. Now we're talking!!

"Elimination on last runners of each has no effect, you can simply stay close behind, second in your train"

Yes, but in this case everyone would like to be in 2nd position. So each runner is at risk that s/he will be eliminated before finish if he doesn’t run at front. In mass start races you will always have some followers or few groups with followers inside, so we must put pressure on them. If you are behind let say just 100-150m you have to start thinking also about other route choices to bet the train. You could also have very different approaches of elimination process, but if you go with the big train you could face with 3-4 elimination process in first part. One solution is that you eliminate also runners with the slowest times in each cluster, so everyone is at risk. Train, for sure will not stay together the whole 4 clusters. If you have two same big trains entering in second cluster at different point the slowest train could be out as whole. So, you must run all clusters in front and with high speed. It could be the case the all big names enter the same cluster and will be also fight between them. And then if you are slow and run in different cluster you will face problem of elimination in second or third cluster but even if slow runner survive he will face elimination at map exchange point where he could not enter Top 25. So, it is a lot of tactics for ones who are in lead or back in the train.
In my opinion the real problem is only a free order if we think that this kind of orienteering it is not fair at TOP elite level. I think that should be fair enough as all competitors know before the race what kind of format they are running and also if the like they could follow.
A little bit complicated at first but I like it as every race could develop very differently. Sport viewers don’t care about the length of the course as we do, they just want to see fight and who win/loose more times and not just at the end of the day.

I like Blair's idea! Blair, tell IOF about it.

If they insist on having a mass start, rather than doing the classic properly with splitting that actually works, then...

...it's about time to reinvestigate the idea of everyone running the same course. This has the same status as dog-legs and courses running legs in different directions. We can see the problem without bothering to go into the forest. It is obviously (a bit) unfair and like small children we're all brought up to boo and hiss about it (while still regarding coming back first on first-leg of a relay as a win). But how unfair is it?

Running in packs is obviously unfair (but not cheating). It's easy enough to crunch the numbers, and the gain from pure following is about 8%. Take the recent Fraser/Norburg example, it's probably worth about four and a half minutes for Scott, the difference between his stunning 6th and a still-impressive 12th.

Starting late is obviously an advantage too. Its quite hard to quantify in elite races because the fastest guys go off last. At the Scottish-six day (where everyone has early and late starts) the difference between first and last start is around 15%. It is very terrain dependent, and tracks probably help non-elites more than elites. Still, even at WOC, late start advantage is surely measured in minutes rather than seconds.

Meanwhile, any decent planner given the once-in-a-lifetime chance to plan WOC should be able to balance gafflings to within seconds. This is a tiny effect compared to the unfairnesses we already stomach, and would make for a much more interesting mass start race where blind following would be impossible.

So, pretty much what Jagge suggests, but without the faffing around at the start choosing which course to run.

kofols, as far as I can see followers would just try to stay well placed in train to not get eliminated. If they can't do it they are not fit enough and they will get eliminated. So what, at least they tried. Trying something like taking controls in other order or something while you still have tiny changes to follow would be giving up. No point eliminating 25+ runners far behind, they are not fit enough, no danger from them. Best(forst) followers are at top 5 spots anyway and I never get eliminated. I can't see the logics here. If strategy is to follow, of course you try doing it as long as you can no matter what, to the glory or bitter end, its about having chance to win or getting dnfed, there is nothing intresting in between. That's what try following is all about.

Note, if you plan goat race with 8 nice skips, then do 8 courses like that and give them to runners at start. They would have pick the one they like and stick to it. How is that different from regular goat race with one skip, other than you can't change your skip plan on the fly? And I believe that might make race just more intresting, makes following less easy and forces chase situations during the race. Thats about what I had in mind, except I making it a bit more complicated that just one skip. Maybe combination of a skip, and couple of farstas in different places to get more chase action there.

without the faffing around at the start choosing which course to run

Exactly what I proposed years ago for our ulta long mass start chaps. And for the response I got back then I now suggest this faffing to make it sound more fair, more acceptable and to make it less easy to blame course planner. But I agree with you. Maybe giving at first 1024 course variations instead of 8 would make it easier to undestand the fact that getting just one would do as well :)

In this kind of format (score model) elimination rules have to be very smart&easy so everyone could understand. If you have 150 competitors at start list and only 25 (or less) will survive to the finish you will have for sure a massacre in clusters. Not just between not fit enough runners and followers but also between the best. It is just an idea what might be discussed at this point. It is not that system may really work but at least it sound interesting for me.

Jagge, I still don't really understand what your proposal actually is... but I do understand that the key feature is a gimmick. "Goat" courses (whatever they are) also seem the feature a gimmick as their main attraction, the ability to miss out controls. If a format relies on a gimmick then it is just a clear indication that the format isn't good enough by it's own right.

I think we are forgetting that there is a big, elite, mass start race that lots of people enjoy; the blodslitet.

If mass start were to be used, it would have to be in this format. No gimmicks, no fannying about at the start working out what bits to miss, what bits to have last etc. You pick up a map, you run the course, you see different people at different times. You all run different combinations but the same course in the end.

As for pre-WOC qualifiers. You've got the idea half right. The top people should be pre-selected, but there is no way continental championships should offer a golden ticket to the final....

From Holger Hott's blog, after he failed to make the Norwegian team:

"I am of course frustrated about my own situation, but I get directly mad when I think about the currently 12th best ranked man in the world. With the current rules he is not good enough for WOC. I wonder what advantages IOF thinks this gives our sport? To me it is quite obvious that it’s time to evaluate the changes made in Leibnitz..."

Do you think that the Americans or Irish or Brazilians or Chinese deserve a starting spot at WOC and someone like Holger Hott doesn't?!?! But that is of course a problem in all sports, there are only 3 kenyan's and 3 ethiopian's in the olympic marathon. The top 33 marathon times this year are from Kenyan's, Ethiopians and 2 Morrocans...

But the World Champs (or Olympics) would be a boring event if only to top 100 ranked runners in the world were there.

The way forward? Well for me (an average runner in an average country) I think they should increase the final to 60. It works for JWOC, it can work for WOC. Like for the World Cup in the past, or the Cycling World Champs, your country gets a number of runners based upon the nations World Ranking. (This would, however need a big overhaul of the world ranking). So, top 5 nations get 9, next 5 get 6, everyone else get's 3 (just en example). That way, it is a World Championships, and the best orienteers are there. Probably have 4 hears of 15 to go through too.

When this was done for the World Cup Russia ended up with only 2 spaces because they didn't have a high world ranking as their runners find it hard to run races outside Russia. And lets face it, they are pretty good at this orienteering game.

You all run different combinations but the same course in the end.

Thas exactly the thing that makes it virtually impossible to design any good and fair races with good forking (unless race is really ultra long) and as long as we can't see this we will not have good one hour mass start races. We end up having unfair race, stupid loops and lots of shourt legs or virtually no forking at all. But I know most can't accept this fact so it leads to he fact we shoud not have mass start race at WOC.

Orientering is about navigating on your own. Mass start format relies on a gimmick. the gimmick is the mass start. Everything after that is nothing compared to it.

Nixon, you ran fist leg at Jukola. There was more than 8 courses for fist leg but imegine 8 equal ones picked for a individual race and those 8 maps were given to you at start, just like all other competitors. You'll have to pick one map and do your best. First at finish wins. How unfair or wrong is that? I guess you would rather be looping four times trough event center, not having any long legs at all and not getting to the challenging part of the terrain at all, just control near the field corners, changing maps after every loop and take same common controls over over again four times and run the elephant trails made by you and other competitors having round before you.

Orienteering is about navigating with a map and compass and because orienteering stuck to it's traditional format for so long (I.e., classic time trial) other sports developed such as Rogaine, mountain marathon and adventure racing. These are all variations of orienteering and the sponsors those events have attracted are pretty darn good.

Fortunately for orienteering we had the Park World Tour and for them we have sprint distance and urban orienteering. There are many that still don't accept this as real orienteering but it has helped develop the sport in many areas and has expanded the number of people interested in the sport.

So a mass start race is just another format of the sport that incorporates navigation by map and compass. Following is inevitable but that is happening anyway but the athleticism is pretty awesome to watch

I think we've got bogged down in the "how" a bit too much, what's more important is the "why"

The "why" is money. The IOF want money, they get 60,000 euros from the vent organiser, and if they can sell TV rights then they can make even more money.

Maybe we should form ROF, the Real Orienteering Federation...

@ Jagge... Without my mistakes I know I couldn't have come back at the front because I had the long forking early on, but then I knew my team-mates wouldn't have it, so it's not important. And in reality, it's better to have the long forking early, because you can run back up the line a bit, but if you have the long forking late on, when there is not such a big group, then you lose more time.

I'd rather run the OO Cup than WOC Mass-Start

Nixon,

The 12th ranked man Holger is referring to is, presumably, Baptiste. Switzerland chose not to take him to WOC even though they had 7 slots available on their WOC team and only took 5 men. The next-highest ranked man who didn't go to WOC was Holger in 37th, and that really is a shame. However, in how many sports do you actually see every single one of the top 50 runners competing in the World Championships? The 60 finalist idea will never fly with IOF because it goes against the idea of spectator-friendly organization.

It will never fly because it won't get them any extra money, adding 30 minutes to the start block isn't exactly a nightmare for spectators...

I am a supporter of the billygoat concept, but has a billygoat event with a good representation of, say top 20 world ranked orienteers ever been held? Not to my knowledge. Before it is used at WOC I think we need to see what happens when the top orienteers in the world run billygoat races regularly. My suspicion is that most would use the same skip (either they would all pick the best one, or they would all be watching each other too closely), and the race would be decided on a last-gasp sprint. Maybe that's not a bad idea for sprint/middle distance, but not what you'd want to wait 90 minutes to see.

@Nixon - why would IOF want money - not for its own sake surely, but to use it to develop the lesser and new nations for the greater good of the sport, and surely thats a good thing?

@BorisGr - the grand slams in tennis and the golf majors would certainly have all of their top 50 (except those injured). But other individual sports are unlikely to achieve the same levels of tv dominance (ie $$$). I agree that in athletics, cycling, swimming, triathlon, orienteering, etc. its down to your national selection trials to make the worlds or the olympics - but everybody accepts this - there's always next year if you miss out (hope to see Holger in 2011, but it will be tough now with Kaas, Nordberg and Lundanes in such good form).

>The "why" is money.

And in North America it is the sports that get money that also get the participation and spectators so is that a bad thing?

If a mass start race can take the 'pressure off' the long race to be spectator and TV friendly then perhaps it will be possible to go back to longer start intervals, remote start locations, longer legs, etc. So the best of both Worlds no? Preserving the traditional long/classic format and attracting money at the same time.

Is 3 on 3 basketball 'real basketball'? Nope. But did it increase participation and $$. Yes. Is the traditional basketball format (invented by a Canadian I must add) preserved? Yup.

When skipping was first introduced at The Billygoat Run back in 1990, there were predictions that suggested it would not be interesting, such as the idea that everyone would simply wait and skip the last control, but that's not how things have turned out at all. I do agree that before putting a race like this into WOC, it should have more exposure, particularly on the elite level, so the IOF should encourage some goat races in Europe and Scandinavia that will attact top runners (perhaps some with skipping, some without), and see how well they are received. Maybe it will just be a lot of following, maybe not, but actually holding the race would be a lot more revealing than simply speculating. It's not even that complicated an event to put on, especially if you don't give out T-shirts.

In IOF short report I noticed that mass start and mixed relay are described somehow as must for next WOCs. Are we talking about two new disciplines? I can’t see mixed relay as real race WOC format. Skiing introduced very similar team relay at few WChamps ago. It is more TV show (with not all best skiers) than a real skiing race even if they get medals at the end. What is fun and maybe works at World Games could be a joke at WOC. Start list in Trondheim tell us that from 42 only 29 nations have relay team. So this event probably will not stimulate smaller nations to come to WOC or send more competitors as problems are elsewhere. One relay race is quite enough.
http://orienteering.org/index.php/iof2006/News/XXV...

I wonder what advantages IOF thinks this gives our sport?

Lack of dominance by power nations and geographic spread. I'm not going to rewrite the rest.

Russia ended up with only 2 spaces because they didn't have a high world ranking as their runners find it hard to run races outside Russia.

That's a bunch of baloney. There aren't many WR events in Russia proper because of the regrettable situation with the Federation and all that follows, but Russia isn't, you know, far from, you know, most other countries. Anyone with a few thousand dollars travel budget and a few free weekends can hit at least a half-dozen of high-quality events. It's unfortunate that the second-tier Russian Team members aren't thinking that, but that's their personal problem (and the Federation's).

And, Russia really doesn't have the depth of the Scandinavian countries nor Switzerland. Down at the 20th-ranked Russian level it's almost certainly worse than GBR or France.

Maybe we should form ROF, the Real Orienteering Federation...

Good luck funding it.

I keep thinking more that the Trondheim Middle Final (and perhaps Relay) could have been a case of sabotage by a Nixon-minded course setter?...

Reading all this, a non-TV friendly qualifying stage with long start intervals followed by a TV-friendly chasing start sounds very good.

A chase start does sound good... avoids some of the voiced issues about a mass start but retains the 'first over the finish wins' aspect. And you have to earn your advantage.

Chasing starts are fun, I enjoy them a lot. But they're essentially a single leg relay, and we already have one of those.

I just don't think I understand any of this.

I just don't think I understand any of this.
Yes, we do seem to be getting a lot of solutions without anyone actually saying what the problem they're trying to solve is. Personally, I'd like to know who is the "Best orienteer in the world", and at the moment I trust the Ranking List seems more than WOC results (which is really sad, given how dodgy ranking lists are).

@ Tundra/Desert

You've highlighted the point I was making. Any Russian with a few thousand dollars and a weekend to spare would, for example, go to the Portugal O-Meeting. It's the biggest and best domestic WRE in the world with great racing and training. There were 3 Russians and 18 Britons. There aren't many British people with a few thousand dollars to spend, I think there are even fewer Russians. And let me assure you, Russia is certainly equal to GBR in depth. Kostylev was beating our best runners when he was running for Russia in the WC and EOC in 2008.

And you've missed the point I was making purely to be argumentative. I was saying that WOC would be a better competition if everyone could take 3 runners, and the top nations could take more. I was simply pointing out that the current world ranking event system has some slight bias issues.

What minded course-setter am I?

I think that WOC has had poor standard courses just so it makes good TV. Forgive me if I want a World Championships to actually have some technical orienteering in it, rather than nearly a mile of taped routes and half the controls in open terrain for TV cameras.

@ Tundra/Desert

You've highlighted the point I was making. Any Russian with a few thousand dollars and a weekend to spare would, for example, go to the Portugal O-Meeting. It's the biggest and best domestic WRE in the world with great racing and training. There were 3 Russians and 18 Britons. There aren't many British people with a few thousand dollars to spend, I think there are even fewer Russians. And let me assure you, Russia is certainly equal to GBR in depth. Kostylev was beating our best runners when he was running for Russia in the WC and EOC in 2008.

And you've missed the point I was making purely to be argumentative. I was saying that WOC would be a better competition if everyone could take 3 runners, and the top nations could take more. I was simply pointing out that the current world ranking event system has some slight bias issues.

What minded course-setter am I?

I think that WOC has had poor standard courses just so it makes good TV. Forgive me if I want a World Championships to actually have some technical orienteering in it, rather than nearly a mile of taped routes and half the controls in open terrain for TV cameras.

i.e. first controls in long and middle... pointless!!!

Jukola and 10mila both manage to balance the technicality/TV aspect generally very well - I don't really see why these guys felt so restricted.

Nixon, it costs as much to go to Portugal as it does to Ekaterinburg. I won't mention Vladivostok (it's almost always more than New York).

Anyone who wants to be in the top 100 should be prepared to spend several thousand dollars a year on travel (I include everything related to the trip in the several thousand). I bet all in the top 100 do, no matter how much their Federations support them. There are indeed some remnants of "the Federation should pay all my expenses if they want me to represent this country" thinking among the Russian second-tier people, but then they only have themselves to blame if they can't get into WRE-selected events. No Federation I know, with again the exception of the Swiss, supports their second tier well if at all.

Yes, we do seem to be getting a lot of solutions without anyone actually saying what the problem they're trying to solve is.

We are getting a bit carried away. I'd like to see what IOF proposes and THEN start complaining and proposing alternative solutions.

P.S. I was talking depth at the 20th runner, not at the 8th. The IOF uses the top 20 ranked people for a country's ranking. It looks like the point average at the 20th level for both GBR and RUS is about 1000, but the 20th or so RUS athete has about one run and GBR, 3. I think this proves all of my points. Had these athletes moseyed over to any of the neighboring Eastern European nations about twice a year, they'd be happily ranked where they belong.

What are the points you are trying to prove exactly?

That GBR and perhaps France have more depth than RUS beyond the 20th runner level, and that RUS second-tier athletes should only blame themselves if they can't get into World Cups.

GBR 1 = 1364, RUS 1 = 1407
GBR 3 = 1276, RUS 3 = 1363
GBR 5 = 1203, RUS 5 = 1313
GBR 10 = 1008, RUS 10 = 1257
GBR 15 = 861, RUS 15 = 1143
GBR 20 = 889, RUS 20 = 1019

GBR top 20 average = 1090
RUS top 20 average = 1151

I think CZE are also a country with good depth, but it is very subjective, as all we can use is world rankings, and these are more a show of who goes to lots of events...

UKR were even worse, before IOF changed the rules they were only allowed 1 spot, so Ushkvarok wouldn't run because of Olmeltchenko, same for SVK, Bartak would have to wait for Davidik to retire... luckily the IOF saw sense and gave everyone 3 runners...

But back onto mass starts....!!!

A census of the WOC runners might reveal what they think about it, not sure if IOF consulted elite runners.

A mixed relay (e.g. a relay where the teams consist of two women and two men) sounds like an excellent idea to me, and in fact I've been calling for it for many years. Among other things, I think it would be the most likely format to be a possibility for the Olympics, for anybody who cares about that.

GBR 15 = 861
GBR 20 = 889

You are sorting by total points but then quoting the average. You should use the same metric.

these are more a show of who goes to lots of events...

Four events (for full ranking) are not "lots". Three in your home country, and one in a neighboring country. If you are in RUS, the other way round, one in home country and three in Ukraine. If you can't make these four, perhaps you shouldn't complain they won't let you run World Cups?

I'll leave you to your dead horse, flog away!

With all respect, you are the one who seems to bring up subjects that you yourself then deem irrelevant to the topic. Please don't be so disappointed with shown fault in these arguments, however relevant.

Eh, no.

Nixon: "What are the points you are trying to prove exactly?"

Tundra/Desert: "That GBR and perhaps France have more depth than RUS beyond the 20th runner level, and that RUS second-tier athletes should only blame themselves if they can't get into World Cups"

I think you brought that up, not me.

I brought up the case of Russia because Blair suggested there could be pre-qualifiers, maybe continental ones. I pointed out that in the interest of competition it would be better for the race to have the best runners in the world. I then used Holger Hott (slightly incorrectly) as an example. I then brought up Russia because a few years ago the IOF decided to limit World Cup entrants and I remember them being ranked very low down, despite being the reigning relay world champions. UKR and SVK were also very low down. You have been on a mission to prove that Russia is weaker than GBR and FRA (they are not), and you have been trying to say that they don't deserve WC starts because they don't go to WREs, which they clearly are unable to do.

You used just the 20th ranked runner as an example and claimed that 889 is about 1000, but then have the audacity to say my arguments are faulty?

What part of "beyond" don't you understand?

Russia is weaker than GBR and FRA (they are not),

Weaker beyond the 20th place.

them being ranked very low down, despite being the reigning relay world champions.

Ranked low because the 6th through 20th (OR SO) people don't want to participate in WREs.

which they clearly are unable to do

What part of "unable" can you document?

... and Boris said

The next-highest ranked man who didn't go to WOC was Holger in 37th, and that really is a shame. However, in how many sports do you actually see every single one of the top 50 runners competing in the World Championships?

Holger of all people should stop complaining because he's eligible for at least one other passport, which would give him representation in perpetuity. Taking out Rollier and Hott, the next down are Topi Anjala and Jarkko Huovila. That's it: 46 out of top 50 represented at the WOC, which has a 45-man Final.

What is your remaining point, Nixon? that the 40th and 50th places should be fairly contested? perhaps your Real OF can put on a fascinatiing competition for the 41st place.

Posted Aug 16, 2010 4:00 PM
Tundra/Desert: "Down at the 20th-ranked Russian level it's almost certainly worse than GBR or France."

Posted Aug 16, 2010 5:57 PM
Tundra/Desert: "I was talking depth at the 20th runner, not at the 8th. The IOF uses the top 20 ranked people for a country's ranking. It looks like the point average at the 20th level for both GBR and RUS is about 1000, but the 20th or so RUS athete has about one run and GBR, 3."

Posted Aug 16, 2010 5:57 PM
Tundra/Desert: "BR and perhaps France have more depth than RUS beyond the 20th runner level"

I don't understand the part of "beyond" where it only crept into your posts later on in the discussion...

My point was that someone winning the North American champs and gaining automatic entry into the WOC finals (suggested by Blair, supported by Boris) would be a bit unfair. How many North American men qualified the finals this year?

... and now for something completely different....

Apparently there a number of people who are very eager to have orienteers but not necessarily orienteering on television.

OK, you've changed your post...

Did you actually think I want to set up my own federation called ROF, or perhaps it was a jibe at the fact that the IOF, often lead by Norway, seem to be dragging orienteering further away from it's traditional forms...

i.e. Mirco... Macro... Time bonuses for fastest splits...

You used just the 20th ranked runner as an example and claimed that 889 is about 1000, but then have the audacity to say my arguments are faulty?

You are comparing apples and oranges. I trust you understand the difference between average and total? The 20th-ranked Brit you cite (889 pt. average) has 3 runs, but there are plenty whose total is well below his and the average is well above this person's. If you take the runner who has the 20th average for GBR, I believe that's Peter Hodgkinson, average 979, just short of 1000 (I am not counting zero-point runs, consistent with the IOF).

For Russia the person with the 20th average is Rafik Yakupov with 997. Presumably you are basing your arguments on the "real strength" of the runners, so using the average is appropriate. By this metric, the 20th runner for both countries has about the same strength. If you look further down the list, BEYOND 20th, you'll see more depth for GBR.

IOF, often lead by Norway, seem to be dragging orienteering further away from it's traditional forms...

Obscurity has quite a tradition in orienteering. In particular before 2000 or so.

You see the WRE points for GBR, I see the names, that is why we will always disagree.

But seriously, with mass-start at WOC, any thoughts?

"omeone winning the North American champs and gaining automatic entry into the WOC finals (suggested by Blair, supported by Boris) would be a bit unfair"

That said, I'm sure it would make the NA Champs a much bigger and competitive event as a consequence... Maybe that's the way to help NA develop?

Wait, don't stop yet, I had just grabbed my popcorn!

Best argument I can see for a format change is not these incremental changes that people will bicker about. Slightly better TV coverage? More or less inclusiveness. Advantage to country X? These things are important at the secondary or even tertiary level. Unless you're actually competing in WOC, you don't really care.

But WOC is still important - you've got to think big picture! The role of WOC for a regular Joe, more than anything else, is to define "what orienteering is". It needs to reflect the essence of the sport, and changes to WOC format change the soul of the sport. It is with respect to some ideal of international competition that people say Activity X is "not real orienteering." Personally, I think the IOF would do well to think long and hard about how orienteering is currently defined, and how this definition effects it's attractiveness.

In my mind, the international elite seems to be drifting toward shorter courses, more technical maps, finer control features, more intricate forking. Anybody remember MicrO? The change supports a definition of "orienteering as map reading".

Is it possible then, that IOF is emphasizing the rather wonky aspect of map reading, and inadvertently demphasizing a the equally important aspect of orienteering - that of "running through terrain".

I do not mean to say that map reading is unimportant. But running through terrain is a captivating concept. Flying down hills, jumping logs or picking the best line around a thicket. That challenge of man vs nature is quite an amazing and almost primal thing that captures the people's imagination. Think of all the movie scenes of people running through a thick forest, or the commercial photos of a runner silhouetted on a ridge.

Seems to me that a mass start event, which emphasizes running strength, endurance, and highlights physical skill, has a potential to shift some focus back toward these very marketable and attractive aspects of orienteering.

Blegg raises an interesting point. The running and terrain is as important as the map. Would orienteering not benefit as much from putting tv controls at stunning vistas as from spectator controls at a crowded arena? One of the reasons we all travel to major international orienteering meets is because of unique and captivating terrain. This would have the added benefit that course quality doesn't need to be compromised to include spectator friendly controls. We might as well make use of modern technology to show true orienteering.

My other thought was that a chase event has many of the advantages that a mass start event has but without many of the complications. Granted there are some drawbacks but compromises will need to be made for a change like this.

Of all of the things raised here, I like the prologue/chase concept the most. Even the name "chase" sounds exciting to a casual viewer.

A: "It's a chase because they are all chasing the lead runner."
B: "But how did the leader get to start early?"
A: "Because he had the fastest time in the qualifying heat."
B: "Ah, that makes sense."
A: "First guy across the finish line is the winner."
B: "Makes sense, too."

It's uncomplicated, and it's simple enough for a casual viewer. All of these multiple course, multiple forking crazyness is overcomplicating a sport that is already complicated enough to the average Joe.

Blodslitet is long and very very tough rave held in Norvegian terrain. It is so cool race because it is so tough, not because it has mass start. With the same course & forkings they could use 1 interval start and still call it Blodslitet and runners would be relatively happy (at least comapred to if they turn it into a 50 minutes mass start race). We already have WOC long. We can't have an other long or uber long without hurting the original long/classic.

kupackman, prologue/chase is fine format. But where is the mass start in it? I'd be happily to get prlogolue/chase there instead of mass start. But no, it wll not do, IOF wants mass start.

Here is my mass start format ranking:

1. the 3 stages format I described in my first post. You can set it in true forest too.
- mass start heats, X best qualifies to next stage. Possibly giving bonuses, 15s to winner, 10 sec to second and 5 sec to third to make competitors race all the way to the finish line. No forking.
- interval start race. No forking.
- chase start final, based on interval start race times and mass start bonus seconds. No forking.

2. Simple mass start race, no forking. As simple as it gets. Long route choise legs with about equal choises. One can try simply pull away, or follow leaders and strike at finish chute or try staying a bit behind at10-20th place and try taking different route choice and break away. Someone can follow all the way to gold, and that is great, well done and good for him. It isn't that easy to follow right persons and make right moves at right times.

3. any format where runners will not run same legs and and runners themselves have to pick the variation, even better if they have to pick it in advance. 8 map format, skip or what ever.

4. Traditional mass start race with forking loops.

5. score-o and free order format, free order clusters etc.

»It needs to reflect the essence of the sport, and changes to WOC format change the soul of the sport.«
"I do not mean to say that map reading is unimportant. But running through terrain is a captivating concept.«
» Seems to me that a mass start event, which emphasizes running strength, endurance, and highlights physical skill, has a potential to shift some focus back toward these very marketable and attractive aspects of orienteering.«

I really like bleeg’s thoughts. As he pointed out (maybe I am wrong) than Blodslitet is not what we are really looking for a mass start format. Do we look for a totally new concept or with mass start IOF just want to develop the old concept that we already have with World Orienteering Marathon Trophy? http://web.quick.cz/ca.ocean/ob/trophy00.htm

Did IOF forget to develop this attractive discipline with TV and media potential? Now other federations and events lead in this area which are very successful and sponsor/media attractive. Are we looking to grab some TV audience from them? (rogaining, adventure races, alpine marathons, skyrunning marathons, trekking events ....) In this format we are probably talking about courses over 20K or better 25K/30K with winning time over 3-4 hours, map scale 1:25.000 and not so challenging orienteering. It is also option to have exchange of map (1:10.000) with some short real orienteering and forking and then back running on map 1:25.000 with long route choices. From security reasons it is now easier to have individual races instead of team event such we have had till 2000.

Just to mention. We still have such an orienteering marathon in Slovenia one time per year and it is very popular. People like it because of length and challenge to run on not very well known terrain. Terrain as whole is not so good for orienteering maps but have other natural or topography aspects that attract people.

It could be like at the Athletics World champs where last event is marathon or first event where athletes would finished before/after official opening ceremony.

That will for sure demonstrate and show some esense of sport (orienteering&physical skills).

Hammer, the best of both worlds you say? Do you honestly believe mass start will not replace long? Itn't it quite clear it is the plan. Read the orientering.no news, as far as I can understand, individual start will stay (= middle).

Replacing long with mass start has been in the air for long. One of the reasons to for not developing long (as graeme stated above) may have been the plan of replacing it with mass start.

Take a look at this opn.no article. They take it quite granted mass start will replace long and they think Lundanes is most likely the last ever Norvegian long/classic.
http://www.opn.no/fellesstart-paa-vm-programmet.48...

This is what will happen. We will have middle as it is today, mass start (most likely ultra long without forking), facelifted sprint, and two relays.

Well that would indeed be unfortunate. I was hoping this new event would replace the long qualifier and not touch the long. A nice WOC program could be

sprint qual and sprint final -interval
middle qual and middle final -interval
mixed sprint relay -mass start
long (classic) -interval start entry based on ranking
relay - mass start
ultra long - unforked mass start

I think latest ultra long mass start at elite level was 2002 world cup at Idre. Here is IOF's apology to runners after the race for arranging such a bad race. Comments from elite athletes is worth raeding. It's difficult to believe runners see it any differently todaay.
http://www.alternativet.nu/alternativet.asp?id=197...

What is so important about the actual start of a Mass Start? I thought the motivation was to create a "first across the line" race. But is the actual start important for "olympic credibility" too?

Maybe orienteering should angle for the X Games. After, we all say how "extreme" the sport is.

X-Running

we do seem to be getting a lot of solutions without anyone actually saying what the problem they're trying to solve is.

If IOF likes plays with WOC, why wouldn't we do the same?

Heres yet an other happy and careless nonsense. Let's make room for one more final by taking away one qual race. IOF likes to have 8 days, so it could be like this:

Day 1: qualification
Day 2: classic final
Day 3: rest
Day 4: sprint final
Day 5: night final
Day 6: rest
Day 7: middle final
Day 8: relay final

Team max size 7 men, 7 women. First day is The Qualification day, ~50 min race with both middle and long character. 7 heats, 6 best to classic final. Easy and simple. It would be ok to have 7 finalists from same nation in the classic final.

For middle and night the same qual race results are used. In those races max 3 runners per nation would be the limint. Earned places would be assigned to nation, not individual runner. So if Swiss runners won all heats they would get 7 slots for classic, 3 slots for both middle and night. By placing 4-9-16-33-33-DQ-DNS team OUSA would get one individual slot for classic and most likely two team slots for middle and night final - the 9th place would be enough if there is enough runners from same nation placed better than 9th (max 3 limit). Of course up to how many runners are taken to middle/night finals (if more are taken to middle and less to night for shour darkness it could be 2 middle slots and only one night slot).

So, OUSA got now two slots for middle and night. They could name any runner they want to to the final. Even the girl who got DQ for punching too fast at last contol might run the night final if team thinks she still is the best night racer.

If IOF likes to use WRE rankings somewhere to get some use of them they could use it for qualificatuon start times, best ranked would start last. For finals qual placings would be used instead, so the night finalist who got DQ at qual race would have to start in the very beginning.

Sprint would have it's own qualification, or what ever knock out heats sprinters like to have.

Like this we would have more intresting races.
- one qual race with lots of stakes
- one final over others - Classic - all the best would be there and winning that would be the thing.
- max 3 limit would make middle and night more internatonal and makes it easier for lesser O nations to get to the final. Also start list for classic and middle wouldn't be the same even if same qual race is used.
- we could get night final without having to have night qual (it would be difficult to get two night races in programme, we need to sleep too you know).
- if team has a bad qual day and get no final slots at all, they wuold still have sprint and relay races left.
- if there is nation with only one strong runner, she would use the team slot as she likes. So there is no need to have strong team to do well (compared to the 20th WRE ranked issue).
- nations team leaders would have to choose runners for middle and night. That's nothing new, teams already choose three runners for qual races.
- there is already mass start and two chase starts in relay. If some insist having yet one mass start more, let's have it in sprint.

Of course there´s a lot of "nonsense" going on in many discussions but I´m beginning to like many of the suggestions here. I actually think Jagge has put forward some of the most interesting and innovative ideas, i.e. the one with 8 courses and the one above. I guess the mass start issue is still to solve since there´s no mass start the way IOF (probably) would define it...

IOF wants to have new interesting qualification system for all races not just for long but on the other hand a lot of people want to keep the old system just for middle distance. So IOF should think about best quali system which could also suits to smaller O nations.

I would say that in this case also middle distance could be part of these changes.

MIDDLE
Qualification race = all runners could start = morning = combat of two runners = 25’ (q: winners + 5 lucky losers with best times). Pairs based on WRE (first-last).
Final = afternoon = chase start = 35’

LONG
Runners q for middle final get national slots for long Final. = Interval start 3’
+ Additional 5-10 places distributed only among nations with one or no slots. Best Quali middle time from these runners counts for selection. Time behind must be less than 15% of winner time. Max. one additional runner per country.

In this case all small O nations still have chance to qualify for long final.

MASS START = Additional race
25 best at Middle & Long get national slots.

Combat of two runners
(q: winners + 5 lucky losers with best times).
Pairs based on WRE (first-last).

If I'm reading this right, then it could advantageous to be ranked lower to get one of the lucky loser spots. If there are 100 runners and 50 combats, then #1 would be paired with #100, #31 with #70, etc. If you're ranked either #70 or #100, you probably won't win your combat. However, if you're #100, you're running with the best in the world (with potential to follow). If you're #70, you're not. I think the #100 ranked runner may have en easier time getting one of the lucky loser spots than #70.

This is a really interesting concept, though, and would make for an entertaining and exciting qual!

If you want 45 best in middle final than this system doesn't work because you should also have national quotas as max. 50 pairs could start at qualifications. At least two runners per country must be the min. no mather which quali system will be confirmed.

The same system as it is in ski jumping valid for New year tournament.

Courses must be equal. Designed with spreading methods so you let say already in second control have no chance to follow. As course is short and if runner make mistake in those controls than he will probably loose contact.

You have three extreme situation:

1. Low ranked runner will probably loose or he will be beaten let's say just for 2'' but his time is good enough to be among 5 best loosers and he qualify. Maybe his time is just 2'' slower than winners time. In this case he will start second last in final.

2. If batter ranked runner make mistake than low ranked runner have good chance to beat him. Now good runners make mistakes in q but they still somehow grab 15 spot. Mistake must be punished already in q. At the end his time could be still good enough to be among 5 best losers and he q.

3. Than you could also have runner who win with bad time. He q for the final bacause he won the battle but his time could be slower that 6th best loser. It is not 100% fair but all runners have chance to qualify.

It is batter drama already in qualification as also favorite runners must run full power and not as today; lots of them saving energy for final. Chase start for final is important if you want that all runners run from start fo finish full power.

In this system is also somehow difficult to have A, B, C heats. As it is just one course for 100 runners than last runners have already tracks.

We really establish complicated sport but q still could be done without chase format for final.

I got a copy of the report which was presented at the General Assembly, and I've also discussed the issues with people who are close to the process. Take a look in this write-up for more facts, and discussions/speculations which I think are closer to reality than some of the things discussed above:

http://news.worldofo.com/2010/08/20/woc-of-the-fut...

Jan's write-up is excellent = full of "real" facts and considered thought - and is required reading for anyone wanting to make a further post in the thread ;-)

Sound like they were surprised long was the best format for TV. Haven't they been doing their homework? This is third year the same GPS-TV concept is used here. We commonly regard night has the best potential for TV, then long, middle and sprint is the worst. All mass start TV productions has been unsuccesfull.

hammer: X-Running

We have already been using that, kind of, for decades. Have you ever thought what "Rasti" means? Right, it's cross, "X". We have lots of clubs with that name, like Kalevan Rasti. Also events, for example Rastijahti, "X-Chase" (or "X-Hunt") arranged by club Rasti-88.

I am not sure, but I guess it originates from old maps with places marked with X , treasures or what ever. So X-Running makes sense, as cross county and as X as a control point.

Indeed Jan's article is a great read. Also in the voting options my choices were always the least or second least popular among voters. Guess that's what comes from introducing four different 'first across the finish' race formats here in Ontario.

personally I feel the alternating bi-annual WOC makes the most sense.

WOC Sprints 2017 to Vancouver/Whistler?!!!!!

Jan,

It is very nice from you to present official information and your ideas. I like some of them and hope for more information especially for your idea of Sprint WOC week.

Could you be more precise about your idea of splitting WOC on two parts?
Currently we have four official disciplines (sprint, middle, long, relay) organizing each year in same race format. You mentioned also that is room just for one more in current annual WOC format.

What is IOF/maybe your proposal for new disciplines and race formats? Now it is a big confusion as someone writes about mass start/chase start as separate discipline and others only as possible new race format for middle and long.

Sprint WOC
- KnockOut sprint
- Forest sprint
- Urban Sprint
- Sprint relay
- Mixed relay

I have same question here. Is this proposal meaning new disciplines or disciplines with different race formats? I see only two disciplines here (sprint and relay) with different race formats. Combined result for final classification. I think PWT came with similar idea some years ago. To have more races and the best is king of sprint.

If this is important for growth than I think Sprint WOC is a good idea only if we won’t get an inflation of official IOF disciplines.

AZ, maybe not qulifying just like that, but I can't see much harm if we would have some sort of qualification advantage option to give continental championships winners. For example "5 places advantage", 15 best at each qual heat gets to final at woc (45 total). Now if NA long winner would gets 5 places or less behind the line he/she would qualify as 46th finalist. Like this he would not get rest day compared to others, he would have to show some decent quality and he would have to start first if he qualifies like that. And if he is better than 15 he would qualify anyway. And he would have to get to the team, of course.

These continental champs would have to be open, of course, so maybe European runners who think qualifuing will be close call might find it not so bad idea to go to NA/Oceaninan champs and try taking the advantage. This all would be nice local publicity tool for continental champs, more international runners, all the talking about world champs and stuff. And it wouldn't harm anyone and most likely qualifying like that wouldn't happen often.

Jagge: I am not sure, but I guess it originates from old maps with places marked with X , treasures or what ever.

A Finnish word "rasti" (X) originally means a stamped notch in a tree. Also "pilkka".

"Veistä pilkut pitkin maita,
rastit vaaroihin rakenna,
jotta tunnen, tuhma, käyä, äkkiouto, tien osoan
etsiessäni ereä, antia anellessani!" (Kalevala)

"Notches make along the pathway,
Landmarks upward to the mountains,
That this hunter may not wander,
May not fall, and falling perish."

WOC 1: Middle, Long, Relay as is. Total of 5 days (+2 qual).
WOC 2: Sprint, Mixed Relay, Chase/Mass Start, Elimination Sprint. Total of 4 or 5 days (Sprint Qual on the same day, Prologue is the same or a separate day).

Cheaper to organize, and countries like Canada may be able to play.

Ski-WOC, Sprint-WOC, MTBO-WOC, JWOC and true WOC.

Presentation at NORD meeting in January. Looks very promising.

http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/...

Are you allowed to skip the fork?

This seems silly. I note they are going to try to hide the boxes at #1 so no one can see them, but can that really be done? And if the forks are equal, then what difference will it make a few controls later? And if not, then most will pick the same fork.
I don't know if mass start (goat) races are popular throughout the O world, but the US has been doing many for over 30 years, and chase/prologue races for almost 20 years.
I would think some data and opinions could be gotten from runners and organizers there, and a bit more experimentation with this format by others would produce some informed opinions rather than much speculation.

"Are you allowed to skip the fork?"
Yes, but then you have to go to 2 a,b & c !

We just had a weekend which featured a mass start long race and a mixed relay -
Attackpoint event with AP names
Both went off very well, with many APers on board and reportedly liking both, even though many times blew out in the heat. No discussion I've seen so far of any following issues. The 3.5km road leg to number 1 didn't really split up the pack very well - but the rest of the course certainly did.
event website with maps and results

O-ing where are the maps? Doesn't appear to be a link on the website, except for the Sprint all controls map. Are they going to put the maps on Routegadget?

Well, I don't know - but Bruce has posted the M21E long map

Looks like there will NOT be a mass start at WOC after all. The IOF appointed "WOC in the future" project group have now presented its proposal to the member nations.

Mixed Sprint Relay and Prologue + Chase are proposed to be added. Traditional Middle and Long with individual start to stay in program. Middle Q and Long Q removed. More medals, each competition day awards medals. Same number of guaranteed starts for all nations, as with the current system. However, small nations get only 1 guaranteed start in the Middle and 0 guaranteed starts in the Long. Not clear what system to use to qualify for Middle and Long finals, World Ranking, past WOC results, combination of both, something else?

I think the proposal says world ranking is the qualification tool, with one extra place for current champion.

The proposal states the following, so I still up for debate.

"Additional slots up to the maximum can be earned by the nation’s strength measured by either World Ranking or performance in earlier WOCs. This principle of measurement is still subject to discussion and has not been finally concluded"

From the proposal "Qualification events should be removed from WOC with the exception of sprint"
Exactly the opposite of what is sensible. Sprint can be run as a single Final and will take a shorter time to organise than a qualification and final on the same day, unless there are an outlandish number of entries. A straight final will also give a better result - i.e. one more reflective of "Who is the best at a 12-15 minute flat out effort". So the Sprint qualification race should be the first race to be dropped from the WOC programme.

More cynically, two sprints = two good easy opportunities for TV coverage. Unlike boring as batshit viewing for TV land of orienteers 'trudging' through the forest.

Support from Marcus Millegård, Holger Hott and Daniel Hubmann to the idea of WOC alternating years between sprint and non-sprint focus. See worldofo.com for their comments.

Something like:

Sprint: forest sprint, park sprint sprint relay, knock-out sprint
Non-sprint: middle qual and final, long qual and final, relay, chase

This solution makes the most sense and it would allow a lot more countries to host the 'sprint WOC' as well.

Vancouver-Whistler Sprint WOC anybody?

Mass start ultra long..... That'd be fun!

Control point = Rasti (in Finnish), means also cross, "X".
We experienced this cp last wednesday at Korttelikuppi Final:
http://yokuppi.kuvat.fi/kuvat/2011-03-23-Tiilikang...
(course setter and pic: Hirppa)