Discussion: Course setter's notes

Meet Directors' and Course setters' notes are posted on the meet web page. Also a Q&A.

Question regarding this:

Sprint:
Course Length Climb Controls
Long 3.7 km 25 m 19

Middle
Course Length Climb Controls Winning Time (100-pt runner)
Red 5.0 km 260 m 17 40 min
Blue 5.7 km 320 m 17 40 min

I haven't seen the results, but I'm curious how these were determined.

Were they set for international competition or US runners? What were the winning time expectations for the spint?

The lengths (just focusing on these excerpts, and from afar) look way too long.

What is the winning time for the middle distance supposed to be?

I tend to want a winning time of ~33 minutes for the winner. If the winner is expected to be Tero, a US winning time of 40 is 21% back, which would be a great run, but not impossible. But, I can't imagine this was the thought process?

Anyway, just trying to understand what prevailing expectations are.

[ed. note--please don't make sprints too long!]

Re: the sprint...

It looks like F–20, F–21+, F35+, F40+, F45+, F50+, F–Green, M–18, M–20, M–21+, M35+, M40+, M45+, M50+, M55+, M60+, M–Green, M–Red were on the long sprint.

a 15 minute 3.7 K sprint (forget 19 control of orienteering) is ~= a 20:15 5K. How many competitors at the A-event run a 5K that quickly?

Also, it is not necessary to aim to squeak in under the high end of the winning time range... Why not set a sprint targeting 13 minutes and have some wiggle room?

Again, I don't know what the terrain was like and maybe people did hit all the winning times--I'd just be surprised.

I don't think they were too far off in their estimates. On red, in the middle Sergey V and I went 40ish and 43ish, but Jordan and Keith were in the low and mid thirties. Yesterday, on the red long Sergey was 1:25ish (I think) and I was 1:35, while Keith was 1:23 and Jordan totally blew the curve and ran 66 I think. One could argue that Jordan should be on blue and isn't a good measure for red. But overall, and in spite of my grumbling while running about all the climb and side hilling, I say the BAOC folks know their terrain and weren't too far off from proper times (at least on red).

I think the fastest time on the Sprint was 15:30-ish by Jordan.

It was a long, flat sprint, with few obstacles. It didn't feel very sprinty to me, except for the last few legs. (But then again, I'm spoiled by the annual sprinty awesomeness that GVOC puts together...)

The fastest times in the middle blue were 38:xx by Ross, Jonas in 39:xx, Magnus in 40:xx.

Thanks for the update Tom. Hope you don't have blisters!

I guess I should wait to see the results before bloviating.

Also, long blue had Jonas in 88:xx, and Ross and some Norwegian guy within 3 seconds of each other at 92:xx.

The estimated winning times were announced about a week before the event, they were entirely in compliance with the latest published (i.e. EricW's) O USA course philosophy, and the times were hit pretty much dead-on. You should really give BAOC folk a bit more credit. After I'd say 2004 or so, all A meet courses I witnessed in this here land were excellent. There is a large base of accumulated expertise, outside consultants and advisers are used without hesitation, and most courses and legs are test-run at least once.

After courses and basic organization elements (e.g. e-punch) are taken care of, the next goal is to take A meet experience to the next level. This event was a significant step in this direction, with a central camping/social area, meals, a range of orienteering and non-orienteering activities outside the courses, and an arena at two of the three events. After the club masters this step, making the participant experience the best possible, the next target should be outside exposure, with much more promotion, media involvement, and sponsorship than there currently is.

(I was not involved in the organization, only working on event days as announcer.)

(And a very good announcer, thanks!)

Is there a link to this O USA course philosophy somewhere? I've heard about it, but I haven't seen it.

So, the winning time for US runners on blue middles is supposed to be 40 minutes? (Ross, at ~104 points-> 100 point time ~=40 minutes) I guess so, but that seems odd and I hope that this philosophy doesn't imply that.

What was the winning time for F50 on the 3.7 K sprint? Or F21 for that matter?

OK--I guess it is in here: http://orienteeringusa.org/sites/default/files/rul...

"Winning time for Middle race is 30 – 40min for M/F21"

That is a 33% range, which is large, but that is what it is.

So, a 40 minute time is OK, and I stand corrected. But, I still think that an ideal winning time for a middle course is closer to 33 minutes, and in general--and especially for a sprints--it makes sense to aim for the middle of the range rather than to just barely be compliant.

I keep recalling a certain eastern TT sprint that drove this point home to me.

So, BAOC delivered exactly what was advertised and it was fair and I have no complaints there. But j-man is going to get us started on a bit of a thread wander and I will gladly join in.

I think it's okay (not ideal) to have just one A-meet sprint course for Blue-Red-Green, but I think if you're going to do that then the course should be on the short side (not even just in the middle of the range) for the blue runners. That way more people actually get a 'sprint' experience. It's okay for Jordan to run 12 minutes (that's still a sprint!) if that means a lot more people will be <20 minutes.

This event was a significant step in this direction, with a central camping/social area, meals, a range of orienteering and non-orienteering activities outside the courses, and an arena at two of the three events.

I think BAOC totally nailed this. I think it makes for a more memorable weekend when you easily can bring people together. With arenas, people stick around and watch/listen. With a centralized camping/social area with activities, people will congregate, intermix, and enjoy the experience even more.

I have a short list of my favorite orienteering events, and they are all very "community centric". This weekend definitely makes the short list.

Feel free to move this to a new thread, and leave this one clean. This meet rekindled my bloviating, but didn't inspire it.

I don't mean to pick on BAOC--I look forward to attending their meets and do so as often as I can. (I do stay out of the oaks, though...) Anyway, I think my issue is more general, as Cristina kindly pointed out.

Okay, back on topic, I agree with Tundra/Desert and Pink Socks - the atmosphere was really great. It helped that the weather and the scenery were awesome, but the setup was well thought-out and organized and allowed for a lot more socializing and O-talk than most meets. I can't say that I'd go out of my way for another visit to the terrain, but another well-organized and activity-packed event with centrally-located funtimes would certainly have a lot of appeal.

What is the topic exactly? It sounds like it was a fun weekend, and I'm looking forward to seeing results!

Neil, Here are the results: http://baoc.org/wiki/Results/2011/O_In_the_Oaks_20...

An epic Bay Area Long course for Blue: 690m climb; 30 controls; 1.4 km!

'only' 50% climb. That is some cliff. (I couldn't resist!) :)

Honestly, I'm very sorry that I couldn't fit this meet into my spring schedule.

Are team results available anywhere?

I think they are still working on making them pretty, not sure though.

Fairly certain the DVOA girls club team won the club section. (however we did not stay for the awards so if I'm wrong someone please correct me!) No idea about the rest.

It was indeed a fine meet, but back to the topic of sprint course length: As j-man pointed out before the meet even started, 3.7km (3.6 on the clue sheet) is WAY too long for a Green sprint. No M50+ ran under 20 mins despite the presence of many top notch Green runners. All other A-meet Sprints I've attended had Green share a course with Brown and Orange rather than with Blue and Red as was done here. Green-Brown-Orange makes more sense for a Sprint.

I keep recalling a certain eastern TT sprint that drove this point home to me.

For the record, there was no intent to be compliant. The fact that even that goal was a failure was 100% my fault, and not indicative of systemic or process issues in general, or apt to the BAOC meet in particular. Hopefully after three years we can get over it, as we have the actions of certain eastern clubs :)

I'll admit its a bit disheartening to see the results here being criticized before they are even published, but that's always been the USOF way -- take the unpaid labor to the woodshed whilst the paid labor is given a free pass (while at the same time joining the chorus bemoaning the lack of unpaid labor -- duh). But, with two full years and counting of actual results (or lack thereof) from the latter, perhaps the criticism barons may find more fruitful fodder there for a change, should there be a lull in the activities of the unpaid labor, or we tire of filling the time with three year old meets :).

Wow, this thread is fun. AP affords me the chance for us all to be obscure, but not too obscure.

Don't worry--I agree with you on many things, Randy. And I often agree with Vladimir. But, some healthy disagreement is just that.

Ex ante, ex post. I think my critique is valid in both contexts, but I demur to say more.

And I'm taking notes and thickening up my skin for the upcoming onslaught :)

Please do no refrain from thoughtful criticism of our event. But also tell us what you liked about it and ideas for the future. A/P is the best forum for this type of discourse.

For where the sprint was set i feel as if the length of course was alright because there could be fast running. That being said the sprint I felt was a bit easy navigation, and that the troubles I had at the end I feel were more from unclear mapping. Control 18 on the long for example did not look like there was going to be a rock wall around it so I ran right past it :/

However enjoyed the meet greatly and thank you! It was great to be able to see the last few controls of the courses at the finish and having an announcer was great!

Meet was well organized and courses were well-thought of, planned, and of proper difficulties and lengths (at least for red courses I ran).

The only negative comment may be about map symbol sizes for 1:5000 sprint map (1:15000 symbol sizes were used) and color shades for middle course. Sunday map printing was perfect.

Now I need to heal my blisters and think creatively on how to beat those young guys :) Although not a chance competing head to head with Jordan - he is already in elite league. Which is so good and shows what proper training may do :)

I also truly enjoyed the meet. I especially liked the model terrain and model map. I used it both days during my warm up. The flags were nicely hidden behind each feature which was needed for such a high visibility area as has been mentioned already, the announcing was good. The event headquarters (Casa de BAOC) was a special touch and had great social atmosphere. If one thing could be improved, I would suggest finding a clever way to condense the awards giving or somehow make it more enthralling... perhaps it's just my ADHD acting up but my attention started to wander.

I'm not an elite orienteer or a fast / well-conditioned runner by any stretch of the imagination, and I was totally happy being on the Long Sprint as an F-40 / Green participant. In sharp contrast to the Middle and Long terrain, the Sprint area was flat as a pancake, which compensates (in my opinion) for what some might consider a too-long course design.

Troy and I both had a fantastic time at all three days of the meet, both on the courses and at the social events. I hope all the volunteers who helped put on the meet aren't too put off by comments that pick apart their efforts. I thought it was an excellent meet.

p.s. I have a few random photos of a few random people at the meet -- https://picasaweb.google.com/bbrookemann/20110415B...

I like when prize-giving is a match-making ceremony, so same age group males and females share the podium... the younger ones get to hold hands and the elders engage in wife-swapping... always good for a laugh, and speeds things up a lot!

I really liked the social aspect and the organized catering/campground.
The terrain was tough and physical. As it was expected.
And as Ross said even in this open terrain the controls were placed with much (at least for the Blue) care so that I would be running and approaching the feature knowing thats where the control should be and seeing it only as I arrive at the feature.
Announcing is always a good thing if we want to create some athmosphere at the finish area. Music could add a lot to that atmosphere too.

Thanks for a well produced event. And the chance to experience temperatures over 50 degrees for the first time this year. Back here in Seattle we live in the alternate universe of 36 - 48 degrees range :(

Music could add a lot to that atmosphere too.

Vlad had music! When I finished the middle distance, REM's "Bad Day" was playing through the system, which was pretty appropriate for how I handled my last 3 controls....

Yep, there was definitely music. I thought the atmosphere was great at the meet.

Ok. I have no recollection at all. I guess I was that tired when I finished...

You looked totally and completely spent when you finished the middle, so I wouldn't doubt diminished hearing and/or memory. ;-)

All the courses are now available on RouteGadget. Visit http://baoc.org/wiki/RouteGadget for introduction or go directly to http://baoc.org/gadget/cgi/reitti.cgi to draw your route.

To see other RouteGadget events worldwide, visit http://www.routegadget.net

Do you know if the club is going to upload splits to AP? Or should we go ahead and enter them ourselves?

During the Pacheco Long course competition I hiked through the courses to make sure the controls were still OK. This was also an opportunity to take a few pictures of the competitors and the courses. Take a look at

http://www.kodakgallery.com/gallery/sharing/shareR...

Enjoy!

Cristina, if someone will tell me how to upload the splits to Attackpoint, I will do it. I have all the data from OE2010. Or maybe Tapio can, if it's in the same format he sent to RouteGadget.

Not all people have the rights to upload splits to AP. Go to RACING, and if you see UPLOAD RESULTS, then you can follow the steps from there. If not, you can either contact Ken and ask him for rights, or I would be happy to upload the results for BAOC. Ideally, the leg length files are available as well. These are the same files needed for RG from the course setter for each day. AP splits can be loaded without the leg lengths, but it is nice to have them, when possible.

OK, Attackpointers, the splits and course data are uploaded now. I didn't include the White and Yellow courses, as no one on Attackpoint ran those. Let me know if there are any problems.