Discussion: International Ranking List by Country - WOC 2003
in: Orienteering; General
Aug 8, 2004 6:48 PM
#
bmay:
The Motivation ...
At a recent US Team ESC meeting and subsequent US Team meeting, we spent some time discussing "Team Goals". We focused some attention on goals for WOC specifically.
Goal setting generally revolves around measures of performance (i.e., measuring what you have done in the past, and setting a goal related to what you want to do in the future). But, we have relatively few good measures of a Team's performance at WOC.
So, I have spent a bit of time trying to figure out a good way to measure team performance at WOC, using WOC 2003 as a past result, with WOC 2004 to focus on as a future goal.
Some candidate measures of performance:
* Medal count - Pretty poor as a measure of US performance because of poor statistics.
* Relay placing - Ok as a measure of Team performance, but ignores all the individual races.
* # of qualifiers to the finals - Ok as a measure of individual performance, but ignores relay results. Also, it ignores many good (but not great) individual performances (e.g., Erin's near-miss at WOC 2003).
What I want is a measure of performance that takes into account all performances (individual/relay, qualifiers/finals, etc.) by a country at WOC. Basically, take all the results, throw them into a computer and let it spit back out a ranking list.
I decided a point system would work well, with the conceptual framework as follows:
* Use a positive point system, i.e., any positive result yields a number of points, with more points being better. No results at WOC = 0 points; good results at WOC = lots of points.
* Base the # of points on placing within a given race. Given that qualifiers to the finals are based on placing, this seems reasonable. An alternative is to use % of winner's speed, but I think placing is more relevant to this measure.
* Use a scaling that takes into account the # of racers, e.g., 23 out of 23 isn't so great but 23 out of 100 is. This comes down to using a percentile measure.
* Sum results from all races: qualifiers, finals and relay.
At a recent US Team ESC meeting and subsequent US Team meeting, we spent some time discussing "Team Goals". We focused some attention on goals for WOC specifically.
Goal setting generally revolves around measures of performance (i.e., measuring what you have done in the past, and setting a goal related to what you want to do in the future). But, we have relatively few good measures of a Team's performance at WOC.
So, I have spent a bit of time trying to figure out a good way to measure team performance at WOC, using WOC 2003 as a past result, with WOC 2004 to focus on as a future goal.
Some candidate measures of performance:
* Medal count - Pretty poor as a measure of US performance because of poor statistics.
* Relay placing - Ok as a measure of Team performance, but ignores all the individual races.
* # of qualifiers to the finals - Ok as a measure of individual performance, but ignores relay results. Also, it ignores many good (but not great) individual performances (e.g., Erin's near-miss at WOC 2003).
What I want is a measure of performance that takes into account all performances (individual/relay, qualifiers/finals, etc.) by a country at WOC. Basically, take all the results, throw them into a computer and let it spit back out a ranking list.
I decided a point system would work well, with the conceptual framework as follows:
* Use a positive point system, i.e., any positive result yields a number of points, with more points being better. No results at WOC = 0 points; good results at WOC = lots of points.
* Base the # of points on placing within a given race. Given that qualifiers to the finals are based on placing, this seems reasonable. An alternative is to use % of winner's speed, but I think placing is more relevant to this measure.
* Use a scaling that takes into account the # of racers, e.g., 23 out of 23 isn't so great but 23 out of 100 is. This comes down to using a percentile measure.
* Sum results from all races: qualifiers, finals and relay.
Aug 8, 2004 6:57 PM
#
bmay:
The Algorithm ...
Having set the stage, let's define the system.
* Every competitor in every race gets a point score between 0 and 100 based on position in the race. The point score is based on position: the winner gets 100, the last place finisher gets slightly more than zero, any dnf/mispunches get 0.
* The algorithm:
PTS = (N+1-RNK)/N*100
where: N=# starters, RNK=rank in race, PTS = points earned. As you can see, if RNK=1, PTS=100; if RNK=N, PTS=100/N. Dnf/Mp's count as starters (i.e., in N), but get RNK=N+1 and
hence PTS=0.
* An exception for the relay, scale from 0 to 300 because there are 3 runners per team (and hence 3 performances).
* Take all the points earned by all competitors for a given country, add them together.
It is worth noting that qualifers and finals are counted equally in this scheme. A rationale is that good runs in qualifiers yield the ability to earn points in the finals; so basically the best runners are earning double points by being in both races.
Having set the stage, let's define the system.
* Every competitor in every race gets a point score between 0 and 100 based on position in the race. The point score is based on position: the winner gets 100, the last place finisher gets slightly more than zero, any dnf/mispunches get 0.
* The algorithm:
PTS = (N+1-RNK)/N*100
where: N=# starters, RNK=rank in race, PTS = points earned. As you can see, if RNK=1, PTS=100; if RNK=N, PTS=100/N. Dnf/Mp's count as starters (i.e., in N), but get RNK=N+1 and
hence PTS=0.
* An exception for the relay, scale from 0 to 300 because there are 3 runners per team (and hence 3 performances).
* Take all the points earned by all competitors for a given country, add them together.
It is worth noting that qualifers and finals are counted equally in this scheme. A rationale is that good runs in qualifiers yield the ability to earn points in the finals; so basically the best runners are earning double points by being in both races.
Aug 8, 2004 7:13 PM
#
bmay:
The Results ...
--------- MEN --------- -------- WOMEN -------- TOT
LQ LF MQ MF S R LQ LF MQ MF S R
1 NOR 281 257 284 286 156 251 245 241 363 312 169 279 3125
2 SUI 184 161 261 235 175 276 387 288 251 256 292 300 3065
3 SWE 256 243 258 175 58 300 281 257 282 272 188 289 2859
4 FIN 262 227 321 327 153 292 242 106 288 226 175 0 2619
5 GBR 243 127 203 124 164 284 229 165 209 126 154 246 2273
6 RUS 168 155 251 196 165 268 219 184 202 164 33 225 2230
7 CZE 262 188 150 108 187 186 206 175 211 90 52 257 2073
8 LTU 205 88 190 61 62 227 194 108 186 186 119 268 1894
9 AUS 169 80 269 67 158 235 194 137 138 66 117 171 1801
10 POL 49 0 202 102 98 219 97 90 251 194 140 236 1678
11 FRA 197 41 266 157 165 195 110 35 184 42 77 182 1652
12 AUT 215 118 203 94 84 178 97 0 178 30 135 214 1546
13 DEN 167 120 211 155 78 203 190 153 147 32 81 0 1538
14 UKR 251 165 174 29 135 259 168 51 152 68 56 0 1507
15 GER 180 78 91 0 60 211 194 143 155 44 44 204 1404
16 SVK 183 86 200 125 42 243 113 82 91 58 88 0 1312
17 EST 165 78 180 82 33 162 39 0 221 116 77 107 1260
18 HUN 177 67 182 51 95 154 161 61 116 10 37 150 1260
19 ITA 202 51 151 20 76 170 100 22 175 32 0 193 1192
20 LAT 164 45 177 78 16 105 187 45 154 16 40 129 1157
21 ESP 144 27 102 27 53 0 145 69 144 98 88 118 1016
22 BUL 174 73 188 22 80 138 123 10 98 0 42 64 1011
23 NZL 126 16 104 4 47 146 152 53 117 42 62 139 1007
24 BLR 186 65 128 24 38 122 74 0 116 2 29 96 879
25 ROM 43 0 0 0 22 0 155 73 159 76 71 161 759
26 BEL 128 0 117 0 0 130 110 18 74 0 0 86 661
27 JPN 114 0 94 0 36 97 123 0 82 0 58 54 657
28 USA 115 0 149 16 20 0 68 0 101 0 27 75 570
29 CAN 109 24 105 0 13 73 71 16 80 0 15 43 548
30 POR 87 0 117 0 56 114 13 0 3 0 48 0 438
31 CRO 87 0 123 37 31 89 19 0 9 0 23 0 419
32 IRL 90 0 73 0 25 81 35 0 15 0 17 0 338
33 RSA 38 0 63 0 45 41 19 0 22 0 19 0 247
34 ISR 68 0 68 0 27 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 228
35 KAZ 44 0 39 0 9 32 29 0 28 0 0 32 213
36 SLO 16 0 75 0 24 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 164
37 HKG 30 0 24 0 15 24 10 0 22 0 0 21 146
38 SCG 30 0 37 0 18 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 142
39 LIE 0 0 51 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102
40 NED 16 0 10 0 11 0 13 0 24 0 21 0 96
41 TPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Columns reflect points accumulated in Long Qualifier (LQ), Long Final (LF), Middle Qualifier (MQ), Middle Final (MF), Sprint (S), Relay (R) for Men and Women. Last Column gives the all important Total.
(Sorry about the wonky formatting, for some reason I can't seem to get it to post in a monospace font.).
--------- MEN --------- -------- WOMEN -------- TOT
LQ LF MQ MF S R LQ LF MQ MF S R
1 NOR 281 257 284 286 156 251 245 241 363 312 169 279 3125
2 SUI 184 161 261 235 175 276 387 288 251 256 292 300 3065
3 SWE 256 243 258 175 58 300 281 257 282 272 188 289 2859
4 FIN 262 227 321 327 153 292 242 106 288 226 175 0 2619
5 GBR 243 127 203 124 164 284 229 165 209 126 154 246 2273
6 RUS 168 155 251 196 165 268 219 184 202 164 33 225 2230
7 CZE 262 188 150 108 187 186 206 175 211 90 52 257 2073
8 LTU 205 88 190 61 62 227 194 108 186 186 119 268 1894
9 AUS 169 80 269 67 158 235 194 137 138 66 117 171 1801
10 POL 49 0 202 102 98 219 97 90 251 194 140 236 1678
11 FRA 197 41 266 157 165 195 110 35 184 42 77 182 1652
12 AUT 215 118 203 94 84 178 97 0 178 30 135 214 1546
13 DEN 167 120 211 155 78 203 190 153 147 32 81 0 1538
14 UKR 251 165 174 29 135 259 168 51 152 68 56 0 1507
15 GER 180 78 91 0 60 211 194 143 155 44 44 204 1404
16 SVK 183 86 200 125 42 243 113 82 91 58 88 0 1312
17 EST 165 78 180 82 33 162 39 0 221 116 77 107 1260
18 HUN 177 67 182 51 95 154 161 61 116 10 37 150 1260
19 ITA 202 51 151 20 76 170 100 22 175 32 0 193 1192
20 LAT 164 45 177 78 16 105 187 45 154 16 40 129 1157
21 ESP 144 27 102 27 53 0 145 69 144 98 88 118 1016
22 BUL 174 73 188 22 80 138 123 10 98 0 42 64 1011
23 NZL 126 16 104 4 47 146 152 53 117 42 62 139 1007
24 BLR 186 65 128 24 38 122 74 0 116 2 29 96 879
25 ROM 43 0 0 0 22 0 155 73 159 76 71 161 759
26 BEL 128 0 117 0 0 130 110 18 74 0 0 86 661
27 JPN 114 0 94 0 36 97 123 0 82 0 58 54 657
28 USA 115 0 149 16 20 0 68 0 101 0 27 75 570
29 CAN 109 24 105 0 13 73 71 16 80 0 15 43 548
30 POR 87 0 117 0 56 114 13 0 3 0 48 0 438
31 CRO 87 0 123 37 31 89 19 0 9 0 23 0 419
32 IRL 90 0 73 0 25 81 35 0 15 0 17 0 338
33 RSA 38 0 63 0 45 41 19 0 22 0 19 0 247
34 ISR 68 0 68 0 27 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 228
35 KAZ 44 0 39 0 9 32 29 0 28 0 0 32 213
36 SLO 16 0 75 0 24 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 164
37 HKG 30 0 24 0 15 24 10 0 22 0 0 21 146
38 SCG 30 0 37 0 18 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 142
39 LIE 0 0 51 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102
40 NED 16 0 10 0 11 0 13 0 24 0 21 0 96
41 TPE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Columns reflect points accumulated in Long Qualifier (LQ), Long Final (LF), Middle Qualifier (MQ), Middle Final (MF), Sprint (S), Relay (R) for Men and Women. Last Column gives the all important Total.
(Sorry about the wonky formatting, for some reason I can't seem to get it to post in a monospace font.).
Aug 8, 2004 7:21 PM
#
bmay:
Some Interpretation ...
Well, what can we say?
* Countries like Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland appear near the top and have lots of points ... not too surprising :-).
* USA and Canada are close (very close!) at 28th/29th out of 41, i.e., about 70th percentile.
* USA beat Canada! And, thus accomplished one of our goals for WOC 2003. But, with the way we've been kicked around this season (North Americans for example!), repeating that accomplishment may be a challenge.
* Like Mike Eglinski's list of "Peer" nations, this gives us some idea of who we should be beating on a routine basis, i.e., who we should be comparing ourselves too.
* Given that we are 70th percentile countries, any results better than 70th percentile should be viewed as good, top half outstanding, qualifying for a final as absolutely brilliant.
* We can do better - WOC 2004 is right on the horizon and I expect an improvement!
Well, what can we say?
* Countries like Norway, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland appear near the top and have lots of points ... not too surprising :-).
* USA and Canada are close (very close!) at 28th/29th out of 41, i.e., about 70th percentile.
* USA beat Canada! And, thus accomplished one of our goals for WOC 2003. But, with the way we've been kicked around this season (North Americans for example!), repeating that accomplishment may be a challenge.
* Like Mike Eglinski's list of "Peer" nations, this gives us some idea of who we should be beating on a routine basis, i.e., who we should be comparing ourselves too.
* Given that we are 70th percentile countries, any results better than 70th percentile should be viewed as good, top half outstanding, qualifying for a final as absolutely brilliant.
* We can do better - WOC 2004 is right on the horizon and I expect an improvement!
Aug 9, 2004 8:12 AM
#
Thanks Brian for doing this.
Anybody willing to enter the data since the early 80's to allow us to track the US and Canada's ranking through time? Not an easy undertaking.
Like Spike's peer nations it demonstrates why we needs to make sure our best race at WOC!
Anybody willing to enter the data since the early 80's to allow us to track the US and Canada's ranking through time? Not an easy undertaking.
Like Spike's peer nations it demonstrates why we needs to make sure our best race at WOC!
Aug 9, 2004 3:43 PM
#
At the Team meeting while Peter was talking about goals and the need for them, I was listening but not doing too much thinking. Since then I've had the chance to think about it a little. Brian's table crystallizes in a nice way Peter's comment that while someone might not qualify for the final in a particular race, but that doesn't mean that they've failed to achieve anything, and that finishing 17th is a whole lot better than finishing 20th, and that 20th is a whole lot better than 25th, and so on. As usual, Peter is making a great point for those of us who will be soon racing in Sweden.
It sure would be nice to see that in a similar table for WOC 2004 that we had a bigger point total and that we had moved up in the rankings!
It sure would be nice to see that in a similar table for WOC 2004 that we had a bigger point total and that we had moved up in the rankings!
Aug 9, 2004 4:16 PM
#
Worth to mention that single outstanding athlete can make the difference for the "peer" nations. Just look at the Romania's results. Zuzha made most of those points.
Averaging higher among "peer" nations is good. But it will be know AFTER the races. I think personally all WOC competitors should aim for the finals and good relay results. Good points will follow. Lets hope that someone will qualify! Good luck in your WOC preparation and races!
I am very glad to see a number of young athletes who are approaching NA elite. John, Leif, Robert - keep up! Team needs your talent!
Averaging higher among "peer" nations is good. But it will be know AFTER the races. I think personally all WOC competitors should aim for the finals and good relay results. Good points will follow. Lets hope that someone will qualify! Good luck in your WOC preparation and races!
I am very glad to see a number of young athletes who are approaching NA elite. John, Leif, Robert - keep up! Team needs your talent!
Aug 9, 2004 8:09 PM
#
bmay:
Ok Hammer, you've tempted me just a bit. I had the WOC 93 results sitting in a directory on my machine, so I churned them through (a 10 year retrospective; on home soil; plus I was there).
For an ASCII text file (which views much better in my browser):
http://bmay.d.umn.edu/USTeam/rank93.txt.
The results:
--------- MEN --------- -------- WOMEN -------- TOTAL
LQ LF MQ MF S R LQ LF MQ MF S R
1 SWE | 0 373 443 432 0 270 | 0 363 483 386 0 300 | 3050
2 NOR | 0 352 440 440 0 250 | 0 343 363 308 0 286 | 2782
3 FIN | 0 259 461 226 0 280 | 0 359 437 392 0 271 | 2686
4 SUI | 0 309 372 192 0 300 | 0 311 394 266 0 229 | 2373
5 DEN | 0 322 397 164 0 240 | 0 163 363 216 0 214 | 2079
6 GBR | 0 227 415 214 0 290 | 0 273 294 152 0 186 | 2051
7 TCH | 0 263 383 94 0 230 | 0 251 349 198 0 257 | 2025
8 RUS | 0 217 331 134 0 260 | 0 262 292 148 0 243 | 1888
9 HUN | 0 176 359 46 0 150 | 0 178 303 106 0 200 | 1518
10 LAT | 0 206 306 164 0 190 | 0 220 236 30 0 143 | 1495
11 FRA | 0 106 281 42 0 220 | 0 149 265 122 0 114 | 1299
12 LTU | 0 128 283 102 0 170 | 0 99 254 102 0 157 | 1295
13 GER | 0 114 232 0 0 160 | 0 193 329 50 0 171 | 1249
14 AUS | 0 97 276 18 0 200 | 0 150 242 8 0 129 | 1120
15 NZL | 0 95 229 82 0 80 | 0 196 141 0 0 86 | 909
16 AUT | 0 171 292 30 0 180 | 0 98 100 2 0 0 | 872
17 EST | 0 142 322 114 0 140 | 0 46 70 6 0 0 | 840
18 POL | 0 92 202 12 0 210 | 0 78 142 44 0 0 | 780
19 BUL | 0 100 160 0 0 100 | 0 78 225 0 0 100 | 764
20 USA | 0 74 205 4 0 70 | 0 124 185 18 0 71 | 752
21 IRL | 0 57 217 0 0 130 | 0 37 70 0 0 57 | 568
22 CAN | 0 78 223 0 0 120 | 0 63 77 0 0 0 | 562
23 SVK | 0 113 204 46 0 90 | 0 34 17 0 0 0 | 504
24 JPN | 0 50 204 0 0 0 | 0 27 119 0 0 43 | 443
25 SLO | 0 38 131 0 0 50 | 0 28 81 0 0 29 | 357
26 ITA | 0 12 190 0 0 110 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 311
27 BEL | 0 36 189 0 0 30 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 255
28 ROM | 0 77 117 0 0 60 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 254
29 CRO | 0 23 78 0 0 20 | 0 5 17 0 0 0 | 144
30 ESP | 0 10 82 0 0 10 | 0 9 31 0 0 0 | 142
31 BLR | 0 20 69 0 0 40 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 129
32 NED | 0 6 45 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 51
33 RSA | 0 2 22 0 0 0 | 0 6 17 0 0 0 | 48
34 ISR | 0 3 41 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 44
USA/CAN 20th/22nd, respectively out of 34 teams ~ 62nd percentile (i.e., better than in 2003). CAN presumably could have done a bit better had they bothered to send 3 women! I haven't done the comparison with 2003 to see who has left us behind.
For an ASCII text file (which views much better in my browser):
http://bmay.d.umn.edu/USTeam/rank93.txt.
The results:
--------- MEN --------- -------- WOMEN -------- TOTAL
LQ LF MQ MF S R LQ LF MQ MF S R
1 SWE | 0 373 443 432 0 270 | 0 363 483 386 0 300 | 3050
2 NOR | 0 352 440 440 0 250 | 0 343 363 308 0 286 | 2782
3 FIN | 0 259 461 226 0 280 | 0 359 437 392 0 271 | 2686
4 SUI | 0 309 372 192 0 300 | 0 311 394 266 0 229 | 2373
5 DEN | 0 322 397 164 0 240 | 0 163 363 216 0 214 | 2079
6 GBR | 0 227 415 214 0 290 | 0 273 294 152 0 186 | 2051
7 TCH | 0 263 383 94 0 230 | 0 251 349 198 0 257 | 2025
8 RUS | 0 217 331 134 0 260 | 0 262 292 148 0 243 | 1888
9 HUN | 0 176 359 46 0 150 | 0 178 303 106 0 200 | 1518
10 LAT | 0 206 306 164 0 190 | 0 220 236 30 0 143 | 1495
11 FRA | 0 106 281 42 0 220 | 0 149 265 122 0 114 | 1299
12 LTU | 0 128 283 102 0 170 | 0 99 254 102 0 157 | 1295
13 GER | 0 114 232 0 0 160 | 0 193 329 50 0 171 | 1249
14 AUS | 0 97 276 18 0 200 | 0 150 242 8 0 129 | 1120
15 NZL | 0 95 229 82 0 80 | 0 196 141 0 0 86 | 909
16 AUT | 0 171 292 30 0 180 | 0 98 100 2 0 0 | 872
17 EST | 0 142 322 114 0 140 | 0 46 70 6 0 0 | 840
18 POL | 0 92 202 12 0 210 | 0 78 142 44 0 0 | 780
19 BUL | 0 100 160 0 0 100 | 0 78 225 0 0 100 | 764
20 USA | 0 74 205 4 0 70 | 0 124 185 18 0 71 | 752
21 IRL | 0 57 217 0 0 130 | 0 37 70 0 0 57 | 568
22 CAN | 0 78 223 0 0 120 | 0 63 77 0 0 0 | 562
23 SVK | 0 113 204 46 0 90 | 0 34 17 0 0 0 | 504
24 JPN | 0 50 204 0 0 0 | 0 27 119 0 0 43 | 443
25 SLO | 0 38 131 0 0 50 | 0 28 81 0 0 29 | 357
26 ITA | 0 12 190 0 0 110 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 311
27 BEL | 0 36 189 0 0 30 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 255
28 ROM | 0 77 117 0 0 60 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 254
29 CRO | 0 23 78 0 0 20 | 0 5 17 0 0 0 | 144
30 ESP | 0 10 82 0 0 10 | 0 9 31 0 0 0 | 142
31 BLR | 0 20 69 0 0 40 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 129
32 NED | 0 6 45 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 51
33 RSA | 0 2 22 0 0 0 | 0 6 17 0 0 0 | 48
34 ISR | 0 3 41 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 44
USA/CAN 20th/22nd, respectively out of 34 teams ~ 62nd percentile (i.e., better than in 2003). CAN presumably could have done a bit better had they bothered to send 3 women! I haven't done the comparison with 2003 to see who has left us behind.
Aug 10, 2004 2:00 PM
#
I haven't done the comparison with 2003 to see who has left us behind.
JPN, BEL, ITA, ROM, ESP, BLR, SVK. Also, UKR
debuts above us. It does not appear that we have
passed anyone in the 2 sets of results, tho POR, KAZ,
HKG, SCG, LIE and TPE debut below us.
JPN, BEL, ITA, ROM, ESP, BLR, SVK. Also, UKR
debuts above us. It does not appear that we have
passed anyone in the 2 sets of results, tho POR, KAZ,
HKG, SCG, LIE and TPE debut below us.
Aug 13, 2004 6:17 AM
#
SVK, ESP and BLR seem to have made the biggest jumps from below to above NA standings. And ROM, mostly due to Zuzha Fey, as Sergey pointed out.
This is really interesting, thanks Brian!
This is really interesting, thanks Brian!
Aug 15, 2004 2:41 PM
#
Comparing the NA men's results from '93 to '03 only. Canada dropped from 20/34 to 29/41. The US dropped from 23/34 to 30/41 (both going from ~60th to 70th percentile). But perhaps more disturbing is that in 1993 Canada and US had 83 and 70% of the point total of the 50th percentile nation(s). This was 53 and 49% a decade later.
Sport Canada had a policy they would not send a team unless the athletes/team could finish in the top 50%. I think that policy killed athletic development in orienteering and many other sports in Canada (reducing depth and stagnating athletic development). If my memory serves me right Canada did not send a relay to WOC in 1985 (M/W), 1991 (M/W) and 1993 (W). Canada also did not send full teams to the World Cup races hosted IN Canada in 1986 and 1990. Many people quit at that time and now our elite numbers have decreased. It is time to reverse the trend and to build NA elite orienteering again. Canada and the US need to work together in a friendly (but supportive) rivarly to make that work and elite athletes need to get all of the orienteering community involved. By O community I mean orienteers as well as individual from other 'similar sports' - trail running, adventure racing, etc. where could hopefully get people to cross over and train for WOCs.
Sport Canada had a policy they would not send a team unless the athletes/team could finish in the top 50%. I think that policy killed athletic development in orienteering and many other sports in Canada (reducing depth and stagnating athletic development). If my memory serves me right Canada did not send a relay to WOC in 1985 (M/W), 1991 (M/W) and 1993 (W). Canada also did not send full teams to the World Cup races hosted IN Canada in 1986 and 1990. Many people quit at that time and now our elite numbers have decreased. It is time to reverse the trend and to build NA elite orienteering again. Canada and the US need to work together in a friendly (but supportive) rivarly to make that work and elite athletes need to get all of the orienteering community involved. By O community I mean orienteers as well as individual from other 'similar sports' - trail running, adventure racing, etc. where could hopefully get people to cross over and train for WOCs.
Aug 16, 2004 3:08 PM
#
Worst is ahead of us. Looking at the number of juniors (especially 10-14 years old age) at the meets anyone can predict even farther decline! Each athlete must take responsibility to bring young ones to the sport and help them coaching and nurturing. Local club work and local club support of young generation is vital for the sport development. Do more for your local clubs!
Only having decent pool of young talents NA elite can resurect itself.
Only having decent pool of young talents NA elite can resurect itself.
Aug 18, 2004 3:51 PM
#
In respect to Mike W. comments I have same impression that competitive level in NA declined last decade. What can we do more to increase the level?
We need major sponsorships so 2-3 young most talented athletes can dedicate their nearest 10 or so year to the sport.
USA Weekend publication about Olympic hopefuls indicate that there is potential (New Balance, Nike, Power Bar?). What can we do in this respect?
We need major sponsorships so 2-3 young most talented athletes can dedicate their nearest 10 or so year to the sport.
USA Weekend publication about Olympic hopefuls indicate that there is potential (New Balance, Nike, Power Bar?). What can we do in this respect?
This discussion thread is closed.