Thought we needed a WUOC post just like there has been a WOC and JWOC one.
Starting with the US Team who arrived in Olomouc, Czech Republic on friday!
Tori Borish (COC)
Alison Campbell (DVOA/Edinburgh University OC, Heriot-Watt uni)
McKenzie Hudgins (USMAOC)
Giacomo Barbone (CSU)
Jacob Grant (USMAOC)
James O'Keefe (USMAOC)
Hans Sitarz (USMAOC)
Charles Whitaker (USMAOC)
Team Leader: Ian Jones
For additional information about the competition go to http://wuoc2014.cz/
Fri-Mon model events
Mon. 8/11 WUOC Opening Ceremony
Tue 8/12 WUOC - Sprint Mixed Relay
Wed 8/13 WUOC – Long
Thu 8/14 WUOC – Sprint
Fri 8/15 WUOC - Middle
Sat 8/16 WUOC – Relay, Closing Ceremony
We will try to update places but for a start here is my blog: theacrace.blogspot.com
where i have written a little of a preview and about training yesterday!
Thanks Alison! I'm looking forward to reading about the team's adventures and performances.
Blog post on the USA team blog from todays sprint relay. Short and sweet http://usa-orienteering.blogspot.cz/2014/08/world-...
Now that is a snazzy looking group! Nice photos and great work, team!
Nice work in the sprint relay guys! Seems like a totally solid result.
Emily Kemp St. Etienne
Tori Owen U of Calgary
Eric Kemp Carleton University
Damian Konotopetz U of Calgary
Graeme Rennie UBC
All but Graeme Rennie were members of the Canadian WOC team.
But Graeme is a reigning Cdn champion...the others are not. ;-)
Today was Opening Ceremonies, tomorrow afternoon the Sprint Relay. We're looking forward to another great result!
First Bus is leaving in 15mins to go to the sprint relay! Exciting times.
USA will be represented in this relay by:
Leg 1 – Tori Borish
Leg 2 – Jacob Grant
Leg 3 – Alison Campbell
Leg 4 – Charles Whitaker
The relay starts at 1530 Czech time so that’s 1430 Irish/UK time or 09:30 East Coast time.
for all race details
Can you explain what the test race is? Was it just making sure that all the equipment worked and whatnot, or were they just calling it that because it is something new? Is it the same format today?
Tori finished 16th on the first leg, 2 min behind Swiss winner.
Is the Live Results link working for you, barb?
Looking at the results you can see that they in addition to national teams also had lots of local teams participating - so that may have been part of the reason for adding the test race.
Seems like a g good way to let everyone try out the concept and get familiar with what´s needed - beneficial for both organizers and runners...
I see Emily Kemp was 5th after the first leg, 0:38 back.
Looks like US will be 22nd (JPN Disk on 3rd leg). Canada 17th.
Today was the Sprint Relay - a new, fast, exciting event! Tori Borish led off with a good solid run, finishing in 16:44 (16th), 1:53 behind the lead. Jacob Grant took the handoff but got off to a bad start losing about 3 minutes to the 1st radio, however, he rallied in rest of the race finishing in 24th place with a time of 17:33, 5:17 of the Swiss leader's pace. Alison Campbell kept the team in the race with 22nd place finish, 18:03 only 2:23 off the Swiss leader. Charles Whitaker anchored the team in a tight race with the runner from Japan, finishing in 23rd with a time of 15:57.
You can find all the results and splits at: http://wuoc2014.cz/result.html
. ; Photos and team comments are at: http://usa-orienteering.blogspot.com
Tomorrow's race is the Long, taking place in the morning. That means you'll be able to check results as soon as you wake up! Congratulations to the Team on a strong opening race!
Start time for tomorrow:
MEN'S LONG: length 12.40 km, climbing 680 m, points 24
Hans Sitarz 9:12
Charles Whitaker 9:48
James O'Keefe 10:36
Jacob Grant 12:04:00
LONG DISTANCE WOMEN: length 8.30 km, climbing 460 m, points 16
McKenzie Hudgins 10:01
Alison Campbell 11:27
Yes it seems as if everyone is mostly happy with our sprint relay. Tori had a great run to start us off, "could have lost a few seconds due to route choices, but planned ahead well. Enjoyed the forking as it made it interesting and didn't get elbowed for control punching." Jacob said he lost a bit of time at the start, but liked the city part at the end so had a solid end of race. I had a generally clean race, knew I wasn't going to have the speed in my legs for a fast result so went for clean. I think I picked the wrong route for the long control but hoping I didn't lose too much time and managed to push the last part through the city. and then Charles had a solid run to finish off our race. More to come and photos in a blog post from Giacomo!
Live results are up and running - works fine so far...
The USA seemed to have a fairly positive Long distance :) Everyone was upbeat when they finished although think we all found it very long and physically demanding. Tori is working on a blog post but here are results from the USA:
1. Tranchand Frederic France 79.14
2. Kyburz Matthias Switzerland 81.03 + 1.49
3. Kyburz Andreas Switzerland 82.30 + 3.16
84. O'Keefe James 139.47 +60.33
85. Whitaker Charles 142.17 +63.03
86. Sitarz Hans 152.44 +73.30
87. Grant Jacob 164.54 +85.40
1. Sund Goril Ronning Norway 68.06
2. Aebi Bettina Switzerland 72.29 + 4.23
3. Knapová Jana Czech Republic 72.52 + 4.46
52. Campbell Alison 92.07 +24.01
63. Borish Victoria 100.10 +32.04
83. Hudgins McKenzie 126.10 +58.04
Nice - thanks for reporting in!
The WUOC Long finished this morning with our women and men finishing tough courses. Top finisher for the women was Alison Campbell, ending up in 52nd place, 24:01 off the Norwegian winner. Tori Borish was 64th, 100:10, 32:04 behind the winner. McKenzie Hudgins ran 126:10, 58:04 behind. The women ran 8.30 km, climbing 460 m, points 16, a bit more than the usual 4% climb. The men were also challenged on their course, 12.40 km, climbing 680 m, points 24. James O'Keefe finished best for the men, 84th, 139:47, 60:33 from the French winner. Charles was close behind in 85th, 142:17, 63:03 off the winner. Hans Sitarz finished 86st, 152:44, 73:30 off the winner. Jacob Grant 87th, 164.54, 85.40 from the winner.
It appears that the initial results were not correct, listing 2 runners at the top of the list who should have been at the bottom...but they still haven't been corrected.
Great effort on the part of all of our runners on a very difficult course!
So I'm guessing you looked at the live results finish times and they aren't actually filtered I think that is just whoever punched the finished box as both of those guys are down as MPed on the PDF version of the results. Or this is my guess as to what happened there
Got it and fixed the post. I looked at the results before they posted the final. Looks like a lot of mispunches.
Yeah it was a tough course and i think people who are focusing more on the middle at least thought about not finishing the race :/
This is the line-up for tomorrow's sprint: time is European, 15:00=9AM EDT
Don't forget to check out the Team Blog http://usa-orienteering.blogspot.com
Leave a comment and let them know you care!
His log provides a little insight, sounds like he's injured.
My Long blog post (with a kinda attempt at map photo): http://theacrace.blogspot.cz/2014/08/wuoc-2014-lon...
Wow Emily!! She is in 5th, only 5 seconds behind 3rd and less than a minute behind the leader. Nice going.
Alison Campbell is top US in 53rd, 9:15 back.
Woohoo for Emily in the Middle!!!!
(Edited out my question about Emily in the sprint...thanks for the reply, Carl.)
5.!!!!! Emily Kemp !!!!!
83. Tori Owen
53. Damian Konotopetz
76. Graeme Rennie
82. Eric Kemp
And Emily's just 59 seconds back!
84. Giacomo Barbone
103. Charles Whitaker
106. Hans Sitarz
109. James O'Keefe
53. Alison Campbell
74. Tori Borish
93. McKenzie Hudgins
The WUOC Middle results are in. Our team ran strong and with a lot of heart. Giacomo has put in his first appearance of the event with a good run. Alison and Tori keep trading places as to who finished ahead while the men are fairly consistent. Full results and maps with courses are found at http://wuoc2014.cz/result.html
The final event, the relay, is tomorrow. For the women, Tori leads off followed by Alison then McKenzie. Men's team will lead off with Charles who hands off to Giacomo then Hans. This should be an exciting event!
It strikes me that the middle features some of the fastest per k times I've ever seen in a middle and the sprint some of the slowest.
you can see the maps at the results link that Linda linked above. Interestingly, the sprint had twice as much climb as the middle (on a much shorter distance), so that probably has something to do with it.
The middle map just got posted. That course looks like so much fun.
The big difference, aside from climb, is that you run straight on that middle, but actual distance covered is much longer than the straight line on the sprint.
Which is why sprint shouldn't measure the distance straight line. It's not like you wouldn't need to take into account the actual covered distance anyway to properly plan the course and design legs. Point to point distance for sprint can be meaningless for maps with a lot of OOB, so why record it? Shortest legal/sensible route should be checked anyway to properly plan and can be done with minimal effort/time.
and can be done with minimal effort/time
Just one more thing for the course planner to do in his/her spare time.
Why care what the distance is - the question is how fast will the fastest runner complete? I think the straight line is "good enough" information for the runners to prepare. Especially nowadays when probably all the top sprinters have studied the terrain intensively beforehand - they'll know what a straight-line km will mean
Just sayin' - as a course planner I get the straight line distance for zero effort from the software. If someone wants me to tell them the shortest sensible route then I'll want a really good reason for it ;-)
@Delyn - actually you are in agreement with the IOF rules which say that the course length should be measured on the straight line except to go around impassable objects (such as buildings we can presume). But I'm not sure that I've seen anyone measure it like that at any Sprint that I've run and would expect quite a lot of confusion if it were.
The only place I've personally seen sprint distances measured that way is at WOC. As long as it is advertised which way the distance is measured I dont think it matters too much which way it's done. The only difference I can think of at the moment is that with the classic straight line distance it's very easy go draw test courses with the same stats. With the shortest route distance it becomes quite difficult and a lot of work to try to match the course stats... Then again it's not actually important that they match exactly as long as they are similar enough to give you a feel for what you can expect from the race.
Last years' O-Canada Nationals sprint distances at McMaster U. were measured around impassable objects as a request by our WRE controller "to follow the rules". We obeyed.
WUOC ended today with the relay. You should note that each country is allowed one official team but can enter a 2nd team unofficially to give all runners a chance to run. The relay, as well as the other events, proved to be challenging for our team. Tori, Allison and Giacomo showed their international experience, gaining places. The rest of the team gained a lot of international experience.
Complete results are here: http://wuoc2014.cz/result.html
...and check out the Team Blog
for more commentary from the team.
25. United States A 144.27 +50.57
Whitaker Charles 48.21 (43)
Barbone Giacomo 42.20 (34) 90.41 (39)
Sitarz Hans 53.46 (37) 144.27 (36)
US team B
Grant Jacob 62.14
O'Keefe James 51.03 113.17
No 3rd runner
20. United States 131.23 +39.54
Borish Victoria 34.20 (17)
Campbell Alison 36.43 (21) 71.03 (21)
Hudgins McKenzie 60.20 (30) 131.23 (27)
I would only apply this as a necessity for national and regional championships where you are trying to design to a winning time. How can you not look at the possible routes and potential actual distance covered by the athletes and consider you have properly planned courses?
For a local meet whatever.
Course stats being the same straight line don't mean anything. And if you don't care what the distance is because it is meanless, why report/record it at all?
In an urban environment you could plan 2 course one being 2.0k and the other 3.5k and have a similar winning time for the same class. While that might tell you there will be a lot of non-straight routes on the shorter one, realistically that isn't much help.
Conversely if sprint courses are reported at as shortest runnable route and you notice a course is a bit shorter than the average you might think there could be lots of twist and turns or terrain to slow you down or significant climb. Or if the runnable course length is longer than usual more certain there would be sections that you will be running flat out. That is if you trust the organizers to properly plan to the winning time and probably looking at previous maps and courses of the area are more informative.
Checking a sprint course for runnable distance should be 2-3 min and maybe you have to do it a few times as you revise points and legs. If you have someone double checking for a serious event and independently get distances upto 100m off, good enough. You don't need great accuracy, just a good estimate of actual distance covered, similar to climb.
The point is you need to be considering actual distance covered on each leg anyways to plan a course for important championship events aiming for a winning time. Just leaving a meaningless straight line distance is...meaningless.
I think if it's an important race, you test run the course and that tells you whether you've got the distance right or not. No course setter is going to rely solely on either straight-line distance or around-the-buildings distance to decide they've got the course length correct. As a competitor, I'm happy enough with course setter reporting straight line distance. I'd rather he/she spend his/her efforts designing an interesting course with lots of direction change and navigational challenges than fretting over whether or not the course is exactly the right length to some arbitrary specification. On the course, I start at the little purple triangle and run as hard as I can until I get to the double circle, regardless of what number is in the box at the top of the control description.
I agree with bmay. There are lots of ways for a course planner to check that the winning times are going to be correct, but the best by far is test running and that should be done multiple times for important races.
Take the super-important Canadian Champs long distance that I was controller for in Whistler a couple of weeks ago. It is a brand new map in unique terrain so no previous data to go on. So, thinking the terrain is quite fast, we set a test course of around 13km. Our test runs showed this would be a horrible experience and the top runners would be over 2.5 hours. We were shocked, so we cut the course length down to 10.5km and test ran again. Still too long. Okay the test runners were all a bit sick, but how could this possibly be taking so long? In the end we set the course at about 9.5km and got the winning time bang on (91 minutes). Measuring the length of the course along the shortest sensible route would have been a complete waste of time in this case. And in every case, it is at best a useful approximation. Nothing can compare to having some good test runners. (all numbers are approximate and from my poor memory, but the gist of the story is accurate)
By the way, I have a spreadsheet that gives ratios for the different age classes, so we only needed to get one age class right, then the rest fell into place based on these ratios.
The situation with a long is somewhat different - the IOF rules (implictly) say that courses should be measured according to the shortest legal route (which, from what I've seen of the Whistler maps, may not necessarily correspond to the shortest sensible route :-). In a forest event this will normally be the straight line unless there's an area of OOB to divert around. Sprints normally have a lot of OOB to divert around.
The rules on course distance measurement for sprint are certainly the most frequently ignored in orienteering. As others have said in this thread, there's no substitute for test running; test running at an early stage will also help you find things like maps surveyed at the wrong scale (as happened for a sprint I was controller for last year - I knew there was something wrong when I ran a "3km" course in 13 minutes....).
True, there is no substitute for test running, but if the rules say that the distance stated should be the shortest legal route, then why aren't sprint distances stated that way? I agree with Delyn that it shouldn't take very long at all to figure that out. (5 minutes maybe?)
I don't do it (state distance along shortest sensible route) because I don't see any point to doing it. I remain unconvinced that it is important to the runners. Loading extra work on volunteers has to have a significant benefit to somebody - and I don't see that this rule does.
As for the argument that it doesn't take much time - well, it still takes some time. And it takes time for each of multiple courses, and must be redone if ever a course design changes. And it is more than just time - it is also the stress of "one more thing to get right". Compare this to the straight line distance which takes zero effort, zero energy - it just comes for free with the software.
We should be trying to make the sport easier to organize. it is incredible how many volunteer hours are required to organize an event, and "we" should be doing all we can reasonably do to reduce this. Rules that add work, no matter how quickly it can be done, while providing no benefit to anybody should be changed (or at least ignored). IMHO.
I would certainly agree with "change the rules", but not with "ignore the rules".
The map symbols are suppose to give the runner information on speed of an area and same for the planner.
Come up with ratio for thicker vegetation and climb compared to flat open and trail, then calculate a flat open running distance. (more likely working backwards the other way)
Think of this like the ratios you have for age classes you only have to work out one to save time test running courses. With a better estimate you save time getting it right the first time than having to revise things after several hours of test run time.
To do this very thoroughly 30min-1hour but simple calculation for a longer course 5-10min and should already be considering routes as you are planning legs anyways.
You are completely over thinking this if you see it as a burden.
The benefit is primarily to the planner
Of course it is just an estimate, but it will probably save your test runners several hours on a 13.1k course.
Test running seems a very poor bang for buck timewise. Takes several hours and have to include making time to get to the map. These are single data points with their own margin of error. What if the runner makes mistakes, think any error time estimate would be poor without a field to compare.
Keep in mind that Canadian forests typically have a lot of OOB areas. It can be a real drag to have to follow the rules up there.
Just sayin' :)
@Delyn - I will stand by my record of getting the winning times correct (which, if I do say so myself, is quite long and excellent). It is done by test running and careful analysis of the test runner's performance. Personally I'd say that test running is one of the great joys of being on the course planning team. There is of course much more data you get from a test run - such as how much fun and enjoyment the course provides, and whether the map accuracy supports the course design, and other really useful information. Really excellent bang for the buck in every way
Ditto to Adrian's comments, when I test run GlenT's courses even as a Brown course runner. I can provide feedback on whether areas may be too steep or dangerous for the older competitors, as well as giving a "speed" benchmark (which he can correct for based on my US ranking (disregarding or adjusting for legs with mistakes..."yeah, I thnk I lost three minutes at that control").
It's hard to judge an area's speed just looking at a map.
"The map symbols are suppose to give the runner information on speed of an area and same for the planner.
Come up with ratio for thicker vegetation and climb compared to flat open and trail, then calculate a flat open running distance. (more likely working backwards the other way)
You can bet I already have a spreadsheet with these ratios in it ;-)
I use it when designing a leg with very important route choice - I will use the ratios in the way you describe to check the estimated time for each route choice on the leg. I will then tweak the start & end points of the leg until I get the desired alternatives.
You can see how I use these in this powerPoint presentation that I gave in 2008 at the Orienteering Canada conference
- check starting at about page 20. (note that the number in the speed ratio spreadsheet are based on Canadian results and I might have updated them since 2008 (I'm not sure))
It's hard to judge an area's speed just looking at a map.
This is precisely what the map is intended to depict.
ratios are called out in ISOM
The BOF also have have course ratios and speed ratios in their planning documents
for assistance to course setting.
- you should and are doing this anyway when planning legs
- it is minimal time/effort to your benefit
- gives a more meaningful number compared to a potentially very meaningless one
Test runs shouldn't not be done, but you should be able to give them a course that would be within 10% of the final course using this planning that can save a lot of time in the long run and give the runner better info on the actual distance expected. Yes, minor but [see points above]
The BOF course planning guide
is an excellent document. Every course planner should give it a read.
Interestingly though in section 2.7.2 where it talks about getting the distance correct it only mentions two techniques: a) comparison with previous events in similar terrain, and b) test running.
@Delyn - sure, the method you talk about will work, but it is way too much work to be practical. I personally would rather test run a course that is way too long than sit at my computer for a couple of hours measuring how much of a course is in green, white, uphill, on trails, etc. If you prefer to do it that way that's not my business. I just don't think it is the practical way that these things get done. Like at the Canadian Champs long, we had at least four very experienced orienteers thinking about the terrain speed and we basically came to the wrong conclusion. That happens on new maps (edit: of new and unusual terrain). Next time we set a course on that map we'll have the right distances to start with
Delyn: I think you are missing one very importan aspect of the mapping standard. White on an orienteering map is "Typically open runnable forest for the PARTICULAR TYPE OF TERRAIN." So there's no way of knowing exactly how fast "white" is on an orienteering map in an unknown terrain type. White, flat forest could be 4 min/km or 5 min/km or 6 min/km for an elite runner and then all the various shades of green will vary even more according to the percentages they are assigned.
Guys, there are very very few threads on Attackpoint that actually discuss elite Orienteering performances by North Americans. Why bring inside baseball course measurement stuff into this one?
In the Relay, Canadian Men were officially "18" but behind a bunch of B teams. Canada only had 2 women so not an official team, but Emily Kemp had a top ten lead-off leg.
Probably Canada's best ever WUOC. Great to see Canada's HPP make this a priority and for our student athletes to perform so well. Emily had another World class performance and her lead off relay performances have Been nothing short of awesome. Damian ran a strong lead off too. Great job team!
@Nev-Monster - really? You think this is "inside baseball course measurement stuff"? I strongly disagree, or I would if I knew what that meant ;-) I'll assume it has derogatory intent though and take offence. I personally think that discussion about course planning is really important and I'm a bit disappointed that people haven't gone "wow those links that AZ & Delyn posted are full of amazingly useful stuff that will really improve orienteering". So sorry to have brought it up. Actually I didn't - it was j-man or carlch. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves ;-)
AZ, Nev is requesting it move to another thread. Far too often threads about athletic achievements in elite racing get replaced with discussions on rules or misplaced controls or *gasp* out of bounds.
Quick question about WUOC. How is the bidding for hosting done?
I know he is. Sorry.
WUOC is a bi-annual event (taking place in even-numbered years). It is one of the more than thirty-two World University Championships, which are organized under the sanctioning of FISU (International University Sports Federation).
Here is their webpage
. I don't know how to bid for WUOC but I think sending a quick email to Ola Kaberg will give you a quick answer.
I like where you're going ;-)
I should really know more about bidding for WUOC than I do, but the basic things to consider are something like this:
- Cost and sponsorship, there's a fairly strict regulation for how much the organisers are allowed to charge the athletes and federations and it's calculated as "all-inclusive" (start fees, accomodation, transport, food).
- Cooperation between an orienteering club/federation and a local university is more or less necessary. Exactly who does what in the organisation is up to you, and I imagine North-American universities are much better at dealing with elite sports than Swedish universities generally are.
- Being anywhere outside of central/eastern europe probably increases your chances of winning the bid. But then there's also the risk of reduced attendance because you are too far away from central/eastern europe...
Back on sprints... The IOF haven't bothered to change their rule for measuring course length since sprint came in. If they can't be bothered to even think about the rule, despite it being time consuming and pointless when applied in this "new" context, why should we bother implementing it?
If I plan a sprint course on flat urban terrain, M21 will be 3.5km. I'll be using my time to test run it.
The BOF rule (quoted by AZ) for sprint courses is based on straight line. It means that if you combine a W21 WRE with M45, then the women's course distance is typically 30% longer EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE SAME COURSE!! It makes it hard to take the rules seriously...
As someone who has actually tried to change the IOF Rules I can say it is not easy, in fact extraordinarily difficult. Better not to apply IOF Rules when they are not needed (anything other than IOF events)
Simple - straight line course length is meaningless for an urban sprint. So just leave it off, who cares?
@JJ. I just looked at the rules - it doesn't say what units the length should be quoted in. Henceforth, I'll be using minutes :)
This discussion thread is closed.