Training Log Archive: j-manIn the 7 days ending Nov 24, 2008:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| « | » |
| » now | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | Su | Mo | ||||||||
Monday Nov 24, 2008 #
Note
Some earlier DVOA-inspired thoughts, some serious, some silly:
(silly) http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
I wish I had recorded some of my thoughts in the months leading up to the SS finals at Hickory Run. Those were internalized, but unfortunately, not recorded on (digital) paper.
Also, I wish I had recorded some of my grandiose cajoling or calls to arms in the lead up to the the 2000 US Champs. I tend to think that those statements got me initially branded a malcontent and got me in the royal families' doghouse. I might be completely offbase with that, however. Who knows? I do know I was younger and naiver in those years. Today, I am older, no wiser, and no less firey. The only thing that is different is that I bite my tongue a little, and try really hard to just spout off here.
(silly) http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
http://www.attackpoint.org/viewlog.jsp/user_20/per...
I wish I had recorded some of my thoughts in the months leading up to the SS finals at Hickory Run. Those were internalized, but unfortunately, not recorded on (digital) paper.
Also, I wish I had recorded some of my grandiose cajoling or calls to arms in the lead up to the the 2000 US Champs. I tend to think that those statements got me initially branded a malcontent and got me in the royal families' doghouse. I might be completely offbase with that, however. Who knows? I do know I was younger and naiver in those years. Today, I am older, no wiser, and no less firey. The only thing that is different is that I bite my tongue a little, and try really hard to just spout off here.
Note
Going to break this into multiple posts. I would like to crystallize my thoughts less they get caught up in the flux and dynamism on the eboard. No ex-post edits to make my thoughts seem more prescient than they should.
Note
Wow--nice self-incrimination from one of the "lost" on the eboard. At least an admission of culpability, but, in my book, full dispensation for him would require several lifetimes of remorse.
Anyway, still a neat control location, clearly across the out-of-bounds boundary on the map. In a rational world, one might think that a rule could be constructed so that people would not place controls on areas marked OB on the map. Oh well. Rules are just so trite! He says: "that a rule would not solve all problems."
I have devised a really neat rule that would solve a lot, starting right there!
Anyway, still a neat control location, clearly across the out-of-bounds boundary on the map. In a rational world, one might think that a rule could be constructed so that people would not place controls on areas marked OB on the map. Oh well. Rules are just so trite! He says: "that a rule would not solve all problems."
I have devised a really neat rule that would solve a lot, starting right there!
Note
Subtopic 1:
It seems like a natural starting point to a discussion of event quality is to consider why we hold events. If we know why we do it, we will have a basis for evaluating success.
I think there are several, non-discrete possible explanations:
1) Generate revenue (and presumably profit?)
2) Attract potential members
3) Serving current members,
4) Furthering the mission/enhancing the brand
5) Entertain ourselves (holding events/setting courses because doing so is amusing)
6) Primal instinct--we just do this and don't know why
Given that we are a non-profit, 1 cannot really be a sufficient reason (legally or philosophically). While pursuit of money can be a primary objective, or the alpha and omega of a person or institution, I think in our case it is at best instrumental. If it weren't, we could charge more than $4 for a quality product. But, this is where it gets interesting. While I have thought that DVOA events are a real bargain at $4, and probably are much more valuable than that, even as currently delivered, I think if profit making were a goal, the quality of the product becomes germane. No need to go into business school cases, and while it is possible to milk the cash cow, the cow eventually dies. Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that I think if profit maximization (or NPV maximization more precisely) were a goal, poor quality events are a failure.
Why? Well, 2 speaks to that. By and large, poor quality in orienteering events manifests itself in unfairness or unpleasantness. Granted, there is a population that seems to have a high threshold for crap, and we may get some of them, but I fail to see how failing to deliver core aspects of the experience can be sustainable. Adventure racing is a little different and can make lemonade out of some wrinkles it seems. I feel that random adherence to standards very much confuses the value proposition. Orienteering is susceptible to this.
What about our current members (3). Well, they are getting older, but also fewer. I don't like to reason from anecdotes, but much as some volunteers have been turned off by the anything goes attitude, so have participants. Maybe not as acutely in DVOA, but it has happened here and elsewhere. I tend to think orienteering has the wind in its face. There is only so much appetite for organized hiking, which is the limit of bad orienteering. Still, it seems like given the lack of outrage, or at best token disappointment, bad events may not be a problem. But, remember, older and fewer.
4 is the interesting one and worthy of its own chapter. The DVOA brand. Like America, a city on a hill. Like America a brand that has seen better days but still has equity. What is a brand? Off the cuff, I think it is a shorthand for a set of product attributes. It is something that allows a consumer to make a quick evaluation of a product by implicitly adding brand characteristics to salient characteristics. It is a standard. It is an identity.
Orienteering in the US has evolved much as has orienteering in the rest of the world. But, as a frontier country for the sport, we have always been behind. Technical standards here lagged Europe. But, we did other things well, and DVOA did better than most anybody. Our founding families, the Ringos and then the Franks offered a warmth and inclusiveness that made an impression on a lot of people and drew them in. I count myself among those people. However, this was largely achieved on a personal basis, and hence is not scalable. I still think we do this better than anyone and the culture is still oriented in this way. The club has a lot of friendly people in it, and I hope we always do. At the same time, I think that the insularity that affects all of American orienteering (and orienteering worldwide) is present in DVOA. It is the nature of the sport and the personalities involved. I don't think that the DVOA brand can just be about friendliness and openness. Because I think that it is only superficially.
I think that the DVOA brand grew to encompass quality as well (perhaps this is my conceit showing through?) We had the reputation of being like the Yankees. I saw that as a favorable comparison. For better or worse, I think this development was due to lucky endowments. We had an asset (Eric Weyman) that no one else did, and for 25 years he provided a technical underpinning, and in recent years, a structural steel foundation to all we did.
It is the combination of these different attributes: friendliness, scale, quality that are the touchstones of the brand. This brand wasn't fashioned consciously; it grew organically. Anyway, brands are associated with products. I always maintain that our product is an experience. It encompasses the outdoors, the controls, the running, walking, etc., the compass, the course, the prices, the results, etc., etc. We control those parameters. They further or hinder our brand and our mission.
About that--I think the DVOA mission is to promote orienteering as an enjoyable outdoor navigation activity. The Franks and others have been maniacal about doing programs, etc., and this has furthered the mission of promoting the sport. But, there are diminishing returns, and the marginal participant, much less the marginal member, is more elusive than ever. Presenting a strong brand is that much more important.
So, if the goal of holding events is to entertain ourselves (5) -- "ourselves" being the zealous club members who select themselves to volunteer, we may be doing OK. If this is the case, and the circle the wagons mentality suggests it is, all we are concerned about is indulging one another, and by that I mean the others in the "in crowd" of course setters and event directors. Because we certainly aren't focusing on the broader membership and certainly not the potential members. To me it seems obvious that turning off multiple members or participants should count as much as turning off a volunteer whose work or attitude detracts from the other objectives.
Finally, 6. This is the "we do this because we always have done this" mentality. Maybe that is why we are doing this.
It seems like a natural starting point to a discussion of event quality is to consider why we hold events. If we know why we do it, we will have a basis for evaluating success.
I think there are several, non-discrete possible explanations:
1) Generate revenue (and presumably profit?)
2) Attract potential members
3) Serving current members,
4) Furthering the mission/enhancing the brand
5) Entertain ourselves (holding events/setting courses because doing so is amusing)
6) Primal instinct--we just do this and don't know why
Given that we are a non-profit, 1 cannot really be a sufficient reason (legally or philosophically). While pursuit of money can be a primary objective, or the alpha and omega of a person or institution, I think in our case it is at best instrumental. If it weren't, we could charge more than $4 for a quality product. But, this is where it gets interesting. While I have thought that DVOA events are a real bargain at $4, and probably are much more valuable than that, even as currently delivered, I think if profit making were a goal, the quality of the product becomes germane. No need to go into business school cases, and while it is possible to milk the cash cow, the cow eventually dies. Anyway, this is a long-winded way of saying that I think if profit maximization (or NPV maximization more precisely) were a goal, poor quality events are a failure.
Why? Well, 2 speaks to that. By and large, poor quality in orienteering events manifests itself in unfairness or unpleasantness. Granted, there is a population that seems to have a high threshold for crap, and we may get some of them, but I fail to see how failing to deliver core aspects of the experience can be sustainable. Adventure racing is a little different and can make lemonade out of some wrinkles it seems. I feel that random adherence to standards very much confuses the value proposition. Orienteering is susceptible to this.
What about our current members (3). Well, they are getting older, but also fewer. I don't like to reason from anecdotes, but much as some volunteers have been turned off by the anything goes attitude, so have participants. Maybe not as acutely in DVOA, but it has happened here and elsewhere. I tend to think orienteering has the wind in its face. There is only so much appetite for organized hiking, which is the limit of bad orienteering. Still, it seems like given the lack of outrage, or at best token disappointment, bad events may not be a problem. But, remember, older and fewer.
4 is the interesting one and worthy of its own chapter. The DVOA brand. Like America, a city on a hill. Like America a brand that has seen better days but still has equity. What is a brand? Off the cuff, I think it is a shorthand for a set of product attributes. It is something that allows a consumer to make a quick evaluation of a product by implicitly adding brand characteristics to salient characteristics. It is a standard. It is an identity.
Orienteering in the US has evolved much as has orienteering in the rest of the world. But, as a frontier country for the sport, we have always been behind. Technical standards here lagged Europe. But, we did other things well, and DVOA did better than most anybody. Our founding families, the Ringos and then the Franks offered a warmth and inclusiveness that made an impression on a lot of people and drew them in. I count myself among those people. However, this was largely achieved on a personal basis, and hence is not scalable. I still think we do this better than anyone and the culture is still oriented in this way. The club has a lot of friendly people in it, and I hope we always do. At the same time, I think that the insularity that affects all of American orienteering (and orienteering worldwide) is present in DVOA. It is the nature of the sport and the personalities involved. I don't think that the DVOA brand can just be about friendliness and openness. Because I think that it is only superficially.
I think that the DVOA brand grew to encompass quality as well (perhaps this is my conceit showing through?) We had the reputation of being like the Yankees. I saw that as a favorable comparison. For better or worse, I think this development was due to lucky endowments. We had an asset (Eric Weyman) that no one else did, and for 25 years he provided a technical underpinning, and in recent years, a structural steel foundation to all we did.
It is the combination of these different attributes: friendliness, scale, quality that are the touchstones of the brand. This brand wasn't fashioned consciously; it grew organically. Anyway, brands are associated with products. I always maintain that our product is an experience. It encompasses the outdoors, the controls, the running, walking, etc., the compass, the course, the prices, the results, etc., etc. We control those parameters. They further or hinder our brand and our mission.
About that--I think the DVOA mission is to promote orienteering as an enjoyable outdoor navigation activity. The Franks and others have been maniacal about doing programs, etc., and this has furthered the mission of promoting the sport. But, there are diminishing returns, and the marginal participant, much less the marginal member, is more elusive than ever. Presenting a strong brand is that much more important.
So, if the goal of holding events is to entertain ourselves (5) -- "ourselves" being the zealous club members who select themselves to volunteer, we may be doing OK. If this is the case, and the circle the wagons mentality suggests it is, all we are concerned about is indulging one another, and by that I mean the others in the "in crowd" of course setters and event directors. Because we certainly aren't focusing on the broader membership and certainly not the potential members. To me it seems obvious that turning off multiple members or participants should count as much as turning off a volunteer whose work or attitude detracts from the other objectives.
Finally, 6. This is the "we do this because we always have done this" mentality. Maybe that is why we are doing this.
Bike 1:00:00 [2] 17.24 mi (3:29 / mi)
Level 7 hills.
Sunday Nov 23, 2008 #
Event: QOC: Avalon
Event: DVOA Brandywine
Note
[Reader discretion advised. Circumlocution is over. Innocent eyes will not be spared. There will be blood. The gloves are coming off. This is negative in tone.]
This will be a long post. It will probably metastasize and evolve over the next day or so. I may regret saying certain things, so I may auto-"censor" them and consign them to the electronic waste basket. I will say some things that may be offensive. I may criticize, but I invite criticism as well. If I am giving it, I'll take it. Bring it.
It is not intended to be public. But, I am posting it here. I can't control where it goes.
Of course this rant is motivated by DVOA. (And the flare up by what is likely to flare up on the eboard today. I had kind of gotten over things to an extent.) I had the outside opportunity to attend 4 orienteering events yesterday (SVO, QOC, DVOA, and the Traverse.) I can honestly say, a priori, the DVOA event was the one I wanted to attend least, but logistics didn't allow for any of the others.
Why? Well, 1) Brandywine, never a great map, has aged. (I've had my own personal greatest course setting failures there at the US Night O champs back in the 1990s.) 2) Yesterday's course setter is known to be recalcitrant and to read from the book of anti-orienteering (as I see it.) 3)Finally, (this is an irrational reason), the last Brandywine event I attended was quite frustrating due to at least two misplaced controls and the fact that I attempted to offer private (and I will say completely constructive and positive feedback to the novice course setter) which was rebuffed. This was one incident, of several, that have made me highly sensitive to, and dismissive of the notion that course consultants will achieve anything in DVOA. [need to offer some other examples.]
[Discursion] On the subject of criticism (sorry, here comes a name) I am bemused to see Randy lobbing some up there on the eboard. You go! If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander! (Randy has prickled at some criticism directed at his course setting efforts. More recently, he went to some length to stomp out the fires of criticism on the eboard, enunciating the prevailing, implicit DVOA mantra ("hear no evil, see no evil.") Well, I guess if the evil (almost) literally bites you on your ass, you will feel it and see it. That is a start.
Anyway, leaving him alone now... it is easy to criticize. Dasha notes I am good at it. But, despite my aspersions, and antipathy towards DVOA, I really like it and want the best for it. I am not sure (yet) that the best solution is euthanasia. (As I was running my course, for the first time, I kept thinking DVOA sucks. That was disturbing, and a first.)
I decided I was going to send an unsolicited (nice) letter to the DVOA officers from the perspective of a consumer of product. But, my quill is still too sharp, and I will try the shriller version of things here. Perhaps the vitriol can be diluted by a factor of 100 and then the solution will be suitable for their consumption.
I am going to put down my draconian ideas here, so that the intellectual solvency of my ideas can be judged as harshly as necessary.
[note]
I was going to pounce on the eboard. I resisted. It will go here.
Ed Scott writes: "I don't think the problem will be fixed with a rule." OK--I agree with that. The problem will be fixed with judment and common sense. Since those are in short supply, a rule is a good start.
Rules are important. We impose rules on our children before they are granted lattitude. It is easier, yes, but justified until children develop judment, discernment, and common sense. There is very little judgment evidenced by DVOA. Eric epitomized judgment. DVOA is doing a 180.
This will be a long post. It will probably metastasize and evolve over the next day or so. I may regret saying certain things, so I may auto-"censor" them and consign them to the electronic waste basket. I will say some things that may be offensive. I may criticize, but I invite criticism as well. If I am giving it, I'll take it. Bring it.
It is not intended to be public. But, I am posting it here. I can't control where it goes.
Of course this rant is motivated by DVOA. (And the flare up by what is likely to flare up on the eboard today. I had kind of gotten over things to an extent.) I had the outside opportunity to attend 4 orienteering events yesterday (SVO, QOC, DVOA, and the Traverse.) I can honestly say, a priori, the DVOA event was the one I wanted to attend least, but logistics didn't allow for any of the others.
Why? Well, 1) Brandywine, never a great map, has aged. (I've had my own personal greatest course setting failures there at the US Night O champs back in the 1990s.) 2) Yesterday's course setter is known to be recalcitrant and to read from the book of anti-orienteering (as I see it.) 3)Finally, (this is an irrational reason), the last Brandywine event I attended was quite frustrating due to at least two misplaced controls and the fact that I attempted to offer private (and I will say completely constructive and positive feedback to the novice course setter) which was rebuffed. This was one incident, of several, that have made me highly sensitive to, and dismissive of the notion that course consultants will achieve anything in DVOA. [need to offer some other examples.]
[Discursion] On the subject of criticism (sorry, here comes a name) I am bemused to see Randy lobbing some up there on the eboard. You go! If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander! (Randy has prickled at some criticism directed at his course setting efforts. More recently, he went to some length to stomp out the fires of criticism on the eboard, enunciating the prevailing, implicit DVOA mantra ("hear no evil, see no evil.") Well, I guess if the evil (almost) literally bites you on your ass, you will feel it and see it. That is a start.
Anyway, leaving him alone now... it is easy to criticize. Dasha notes I am good at it. But, despite my aspersions, and antipathy towards DVOA, I really like it and want the best for it. I am not sure (yet) that the best solution is euthanasia. (As I was running my course, for the first time, I kept thinking DVOA sucks. That was disturbing, and a first.)
I decided I was going to send an unsolicited (nice) letter to the DVOA officers from the perspective of a consumer of product. But, my quill is still too sharp, and I will try the shriller version of things here. Perhaps the vitriol can be diluted by a factor of 100 and then the solution will be suitable for their consumption.
I am going to put down my draconian ideas here, so that the intellectual solvency of my ideas can be judged as harshly as necessary.
[note]
I was going to pounce on the eboard. I resisted. It will go here.
Ed Scott writes: "I don't think the problem will be fixed with a rule." OK--I agree with that. The problem will be fixed with judment and common sense. Since those are in short supply, a rule is a good start.
Rules are important. We impose rules on our children before they are granted lattitude. It is easier, yes, but justified until children develop judment, discernment, and common sense. There is very little judgment evidenced by DVOA. Eric epitomized judgment. DVOA is doing a 180.
Run warm up/down 5:00 [1]
shoes: Olways
Really short warmup.
Orienteering race 58:30 ***
shoes: Olways
Brandywine Red. [No need to comment here on the deficiencies of this event. From a personal perspective, my diminished expectations were exceeded. I enjoyed it. From a DVOA perspective, they were yet again dashed.]
I knew one control was mishung and one control was missing. I found the mishung one OK and did not attempt to invite myself in for tea to punch the missing one.
I found everything else mostly OK. Did a lot of 90 degree bails to trails. I was on trails for most of the course, and maybe should have used a trail to 1.
Ran pretty well, but got tired of pushing towards the end, and with my thoughts consumed by noski, I kind of jogged in the last two controls. Still, a solid hour of exercise and with a map.
I knew one control was mishung and one control was missing. I found the mishung one OK and did not attempt to invite myself in for tea to punch the missing one.
I found everything else mostly OK. Did a lot of 90 degree bails to trails. I was on trails for most of the course, and maybe should have used a trail to 1.
Ran pretty well, but got tired of pushing towards the end, and with my thoughts consumed by noski, I kind of jogged in the last two controls. Still, a solid hour of exercise and with a map.
Saturday Nov 22, 2008 #
Run 51:30 [1]
shoes: Salomon XCR
Very easy run with Kolya, Teressa, and Dasha at Tyler. I ran home solo.
Friday Nov 21, 2008 #
Rowing Machine 1:00:00 14.35 km (4:11 / km)
A good row. Strong.
Averaged ~20.67 spm. I would always bring it down when I hit 21.
The hands suffered but they were overcome.
Averaged ~20.67 spm. I would always bring it down when I hit 21.
The hands suffered but they were overcome.
Thursday Nov 20, 2008 #
Run 57:30
shoes: 9 2007 Adidas
TNT. Got there late and did my own warmup and slow laps. That took 1833.
I then ran with Tom. He is a machine. He basically in lane 1 and me in lane 2. He said he was going to run slow. I guess he did--slightly slower than last week. But, his pacing is very good.
It did feel pretty good; I felt better towards the end. However, he did run his last lap hard, and I was pretty much done after trying to hold him off. My final two solo laps were 150s.
Representative segment sample?
144
149
148
145
148
146
142
143
143
143
141
142
142
142
140
139
135
I then ran with Tom. He is a machine. He basically in lane 1 and me in lane 2. He said he was going to run slow. I guess he did--slightly slower than last week. But, his pacing is very good.
It did feel pretty good; I felt better towards the end. However, he did run his last lap hard, and I was pretty much done after trying to hold him off. My final two solo laps were 150s.
Representative segment sample?
144
149
148
145
148
146
142
143
143
143
141
142
142
142
140
139
135
Run 2:30 [1]
shoes: 9 2007 Adidas
Bounding and twisting for one lap.
Wednesday Nov 19, 2008 #
Rowing Machine 1:00:00 [2]
Easy row. This time at 24 and above. It is neat how acclimating oneself to row at <20 makes the higher spms feel so light. I wasn't working that hard (but did do a 10 minute period at 30 and around 200) but it did feel decent.
I actually wore gloves for this, as I did the night before. Majorly lame. While they did allow me to overcome the most acute blisters, I got alternative ones.
Should be the last rowing for a little while, so the hands should recover.
Thinking last night about the possiblity of achieving my erging goal over the winter...
I actually wore gloves for this, as I did the night before. Majorly lame. While they did allow me to overcome the most acute blisters, I got alternative ones.
Should be the last rowing for a little while, so the hands should recover.
Thinking last night about the possiblity of achieving my erging goal over the winter...
Tuesday Nov 18, 2008 #
Rowing Machine 1:00:00 [2]
An easy row, probably at 22-23.