Discussion: NAOC race formats

At the November USOF board meeting, I will be proposing
that future North American Championships hosted by USOF
consist of single race championships in IOF sprint, middle,
and long race formats for classes M/F 20, and M/F 21.

This issue has come up in sanctioning, been raised by
clubs inquiring about sanctioning, been requested by some
I represent on the board, and been requested by some
Canadians. As a point of reference, the format for the '06
NAOC hosted by the Canadians will have this format for
classes "elite" (which I assume means M/F 21), and a
sprint/2 day classic format for age classes
(http://www.dontgetlost.ca/glof/).

From a sanctioning point of view, I personally don't feel this
is an issue USOF should back into, because I feel terrain
selection can be dictated by race format. Therefore, I am
asking USOF to decide up front.

I see the possible outcomes of this being --

a) As proposed: sprint/middle/long one days for M/F 20/21;
2 day classic for everyone else

b) sprint/middle/long one days for M/F 21; 2 day classic
for everyone else

c) sprint/middle/long one days for everyone

d) USOF leaves it up to the host club, but favors a bid
in a particular format

e) USOF states no up-front opinion on the issue, and does
not consider race format in selecting bids [I consider this
the status quo]

Of course, there are other permutations, for example the
possibility that sprint/middle/long is selected, but scoring
is some sort of sum of the 3 days to crown a single NAOC
champion. I am personally against this idea, but it is
possible.

In any case, if you have an opinion on this issue, please
post your thoughts either to clubnet, AttackPoint, or your
board rep. I realise not everyone eligible for NAOC reads
either of these fora, so please pass this on if you know
people who have opinions on this issue.

Thanks
Randy

I 'vote' for Randy's proposal, and I do not think sprint, middle and long results should be combined in any sort of overall score.

> As a point of reference, the format for the '06
> NAOC hosted by the Canadians will have this
> format for classes "elite" (which I assume means M/F 21),

Elite is M/F 20-34 in Canada....
One day sprint, middle, and long champs come into effect for M/F 20-34 at the 2006 Canadian Champs.

I agree - one day sprint/middle/long champs seem most logical, forget any kind of composite 'scoring', and if thats the format for the elite, then all classes should run a similar format, just adjusted distances. Its easier for organizers and keeps everyone on the same page. My 2 cents..

btw, do any other O federations do 2-day championships? Why does USOF? Is it just to make 'best' use of a 2-day weekend?

Three reasons:
1) Given the size of our country, many people have to travel a long way, and they want to get races in on both days of the weekend to make it worthwhile. And remember, until not so long ago, there was only normally one distance for courses (adjusted by class). Even the course now known as "Middle" didn't debut in the WOC until 1991.
2) Inertia, tradition. We're used to it.
3) Given that USOF course-setting is sometimes... less than perfect... it means that one day can be thrown out, and it doesn't trash the whole championship.

I realize that this discussion relates to NAOC and not USC, but it appears to me that the rather unweildy champs structure in the US could be largely consolidated by adopting a 3-day format and just ditching the 2-day classic altogether.

Pros: More clubs competing for a single champs bid; more incentive for all the top orienteers to travel to a single champs event. The combination of these two would go a long way to addressing JJ's 1 & 3 above.

Cons: JJ's #2, and I expect that overcoming it would be no small thing. I'd like to see NAOC go to a sprint/middle/long format for all classes and if people like it, USOF could seriously look at moving US Champs to the same format. This would still leave a good number extraneous championships for other clubs to bid on: long (what we call long, not IOF), relay, night, interscholastic, intercollegiate, trail, & 24-hour (Is this one dead? I haven't seen it in a few years).

I will boldly predict that the 2 Day championship is headed for the trash heap. But, also citing JJ's point #2, and tossing in the ever powerful "resistance to change" factor (not quite the same thing as "tradition"), it may take another few hundred years or so before it's accomplished.

There's nothing inherently *wrong* with the present 2 day format, but then there is also something right about getting in line with the rest of the world. A middle distance and classic distance championship pairing would make for a better weekend.

With a sprint, a middle, and a long race, all lumped together, should a rest day get thrown in there somewhere?

If this is done for all classes, I'm also envisioning that more time will have to be scheduled for the awards ceremony than for the start window.

I don't think that would be necessary if all 3 events were on separate days. Sprint+Middle is still less time on-course than a regular single US classic day. Best to keep the event compactable into a single weekend. "jj-style" awards ceremonies are always appreciated. Just out of curiosity, does anyone else who writes code use "jj" as a variable name on a regular basis simply because its funny to do so? :)

I like the Fri=Sprint, Sat=Mid, Sun=Long format. Score them separately. No rest days needed. Early starts on Sunday so people can get flights home.

And here's a thought that could get me in trouble... drop the awards ceremony for anyone but the kids and the elite (M/F +21-). The kids deserve the recognition and encouragement. The elite are the leaders of our sport. But us 35+ folk can live without the pomp and circumstance; better to get on with the long drive or flight home. IMHO, YMMV and all that....

Wow - bold idea. I like it, but in USOF world, it may be a lead zeppelin.

As in:

for jj=0;jj<203;setControl(++jj);

?

The format at this year's Team Trials (like Tex's above) was perfect and would serve as a great model for a great Championship weekend!

Heh heh, yeah! Or:

IDL> jj=bytarr(1)
IDL> clem=0
IDL> help,jj(byte(clem))
BYTE = 0

Lucky for Clem, byte=0

On a more serious note, awards can be done fairly quickly if a few basic steps are followed:

1) Don't take 15 minutes thanking every single person that helped with the meet. Put a credits sheet in the meet packet and single out 1 or 2 that went above and beyond the call of duty.

2) Call up all three age-group medalists together and then do one photo-op with them all standing there.

3) Don't do public awards for non-championship classes like M-Orange.

4) If there are separate awards for each day, do the first n-1 days at the dinner or some other time between days n-1 and n. Make the final awards ceremony just day n.

#2 constitutes "jj-style" awards. Fast and effective - everyone gets recognized and then on the road.

what is bytarr()? and is byte() some sort of cast operator?

No, 'JJ-style' means calling all third-place runners at once, then all second-place runners, then all first-place runners. Three big groups only.

Yes, byte() is a cast. bytarr() is a mem allocation.

e) USOF states no up-front opinion on the issue, and does not consider race format in selecting bids [I consider this the status quo]

I would guess Cleveland doesn't consider that USOF considers this a status quo. NEOOC's efforts to hold a Middle + Long for MF21 at the 2004 NAOC were fatally opposed by "someone in USOF".

To be even bolder, maybe we can just drop the awards entirely? At least for M/F21 and above? I just throw mine straight in the trash. The map is enough of a souvenir, isn't it?

I think thats what Eric meant by "all three age-group medalists", since there are more than three age groups but only 3 medalists.

I still don't get it. JJ appears to be a function, too.

And what language is this supposed to be?

The awards are a moot point here, since you can choose not to attend the ceremony if you don't wanna. The race format is important (not that I haven't distracted the thread enough myself....)

Yeah, sorry. I still 'vote' for Randy's proposal.

Its IDL - Interactive Data Language. bytarr is an array definition (allocation of memory to hold numbers). jj is a pointer to that location...a variable name. Clem is, simply, a null index.

Wjell why am i lucky that BYTE = 0?

:) dude, I'm just yankin' yer chain!

No, I think there is some deeper epistemological meaning here. We need to get to the bottom of it.

Whoseawhatcicle?

JJ's method is indeed efficient if it is done by JJ. However, it often happens that we watch all the third place people come up one at a time, then the second place people one at a time, etc. The order of awards is different but there is no time savings.

Sorry, off topic, just a pet peeve. Sprint, Mid, long.

Byte(clem)=0 has to be better than byte(clem)=1.

Since when was staying on topic a requirement for an AP post?

JJ's method or mine (they are different, but based on the same idea) does save time. Consider that being called up for an award involves the following actions:

1) Name called out.
2) Person is picked out of crowd or announced as not present.
3) Person walks up front.
4) Person is handed medal.
5) Photo op.
6) Person walks back.

In most awards ceremonies, steps 1-4 happen in sequence with nothing else going on. Steps 2 and 3 are the longest steps. Using the method I suggested means that steps 2 & 3 overlap for all three people. Also, the process can get started for the next group while step 5 is going on.

JJ's method is even better, since now steps 2&3 are done more or less in parallel for a much larger group. So much better that I'm sure it's how I'll do awards in the future.

Finally, assuming this is some enlightened case-sensitive language, the fact that Byte(clem) is 0 tells you nothing about whether byte(clem) is 1.

I have no intention of biting Clem, or byting Clem for that matter.

You have "clem=0". But you fail to notice that my name is not "jj", it's "J-J". Do the math. I'm the zero.

I personally make an effort to use more meaningful variable names.

For a discussion of awards ceremonies, see separate thread.

At least we aren't a nerd sport.

Some food for thought....
I believe that starting in 2007 the IOF will have Regional Orienteering Championships for M/F 21 of which North America is a region. A ROC for North America is scheduled to be every two years starting in 2008 so it seems that the NAOC will be that race. So it would seem that the IOF disciplines of sprint, middle and long would be required for the elite classes (and therefore a requirement of any bid to host). The 2006 NAOC is listed under the IOF web site as a Regional Orienteering Championship. The 2006 NAOC will have the same format of this year's US Team Trials (Fri. sprint, Sat. Middle, Sun. Long, plus a bonus non-champs race on Monday).

Do I think that ALL categories should be one-day Championships? YES! But I bytarr() wait and discuss why later.

If the 2006 NAOCs are a IOF Regional Championship, are you paying the 20,000 Euro sanctioning fee?

Or are they not charging this in 2006 yet?

And do you get to opt in to having the NAOCs be the IOF Regional Championship?

What are the awards for the Monday Wine-O?

Back on the NAOC format thread, I'd vote for including us old men on Red in the sprint/middle/classic format. I much prefer this format. It's also fun to compare against elite women. And it would save setting both a two-day classic Red for the men and a sprint/middle/true classic Red for the elite women.

I think that changing the format for other categories will lead to resistance (which could kill the idea). But (as an aside) the two-day classic versus Middle/Classic contrast is a bit bogus anyway for most categories. Middle=30 minutes, but at WMOC, some categories had target winning times of 35 minutes for what is generally thought of as a "Classic" race. Most USOF categories have target winning times somewhere between the winning time of an elite middle and the winning time of an elite classic (long) event...generally closer to the middle than the classic/long. So in my mind, what's called a two-day classic event is really a two-day longish-middle event for most categories, and a two-day middlish-long for some other categories. Which explains why people on those categories are happy with two days of that length. So, anyway, leave those categories as they are, unless there's some upwelling calling for a change for those categories, and lobby for a sprint/middle/classic (for NAOC, and for most events) for Red and Blue. My 2c CDN.

Back to awards: The way I've seen it done at O-Ringen is that everyone is responsible for checking the results and seeing if they won, then coming to the podium area before the awards ceremony if they're due an award. The award ceremony consists of bringing the winners of all categories up on the stage at once. (I think that maybe 2nd and 3rd place finishers just got to pick an award from the table (something useful like a saw)...that was 20 years ago and my memory of it is a bit faded and idealized.) Doing something similar could make a very efficient awards ceremony, and even allow a quick recognition of all helpers in the same manner. (A problem might be that there could be more people up on stage than in the audience, depending on how it's done.)

I know I already voted: but would anyone prefer the middle to be 'qualification plus final' rather than single race format?

Advantages:
- people socialize between the races;
- you get to run more (one sprint plus one middle as the only races on two successive days leaves me, at least, feeling like I didn't do enough orienteering to justify the trip across the country - I remember feeling like this in Ohio, for example)
- there are qualifications at the WOC... (not on the same day in 2005, mind you - but the older style 'longest day' where you ran two middle distance races on the same day has a lot to be said for it as a true championship feeling.

Again, this could be for the top few classes only if desired (schedule the day so that the top runners are finishing the final just after others did their only course for the day and you might even generate a bit of spectator interest). I remember several very successful Australian middle distance championships using this format.

I really like the idea of meshing with IOF. I think Middle + Long is much better than 2 x Medium-Long. Sprints are fun (and a WOC event), so for sure, we should have one of those too. Thus, my vote is for Sprint+Middle+Long, an opinion that holds whether we're talking US Champs, COCs, NAOC's or any other A meet.

As far as scheduling goes, I'm with Wil in not wanting to devote 3 whole days to Sprint+Middle+Long (at least at the domestic level). A qualification would seem redundant, so I think Sprint and Middle Saturday (am/pm split - no opinion on which should come first) with Long on Sunday (am) would be the best option. Sprint on Friday afternoon with Middle on Saturday and Long on Sunday would be Ok too, but I think my attendance at the Sprint would become more dependent on availability of suitable travel scheduling that way.

Finally, I think there is some reluctance to change amongst the older folks, but there are also lots and lots of older folks who like the idea of Middle/Long split. I think the difference between Middle and Long might need to be less pronounced as one goes up the ranks (i.e., from Red to Green to Brown). But, I think it might just be doable.

I do think there is some space for traditional 2-day A meets, incidentally. The format isn't disastrous. Sometimes it's a good way to use the terrain if it's not really suitable for the higher technical demands of the middle distance but is well suited to longer route-choice legs. It's just not a good way to hold a championship.

Sprint+middle on the same day would be fine. A sprint, then two middles followed by a long is a bit much. Also the NAOC and USC almost always have a model (on Friday). The combination of sprint+model on Friday may be plenty. Or model Friday, sprint+middle Sat, Long Sun. Could also manage two sprints instead of just one. But all of these permutations are fine as long as we cover the holy trinity. Leave the layout to the hosts+sanctioning+holiday sched, as 3-day holiday weekends might make other permutations more palettable (a good case is (of) Wine-O).

For three day weekends, maybe a relay for the third day.

I agree, sprint/middle/classic is enough for a 2 day weekend. Sprint and middle could easily both share a day.

I'm a bit late to this party, but I'm also all for the proposal.

E20k for ALL Regional Champs in a year (i.e. Oceanic, African, AND NA Champs). Not EACH one.

In the sprint, at least a part of the race you (fast people) run in anaerobic mode, and you plan two run another championship race on a same day without proper recuperation time. This is unwise, to say the least. I think, for the sprint, the best idea, on a separate day (Friday), to have all classes to run same course with 30 sec start intervals, like it was done in Alabama and Ohio, and have common results with awards for age/gender categories (or may be two courses at most). Good announcer with loud speaker for an event would be a bonus.

E20k is still way too much money for North American Regional Champs, IOF if getting greedy and unrealistic. Oh well, time will show.

Thanks for the clarification Vlad. But what do you mean - that x + y + z = E20K? How is is broken down? At IOF's whim? Or is a single entity supposed to bid for all (I don't think that is what you meant)? Or something else?

Anyway, it seems like if IOF is going to shake down anyone for E20K it would have to be NA because how on earth do they think they will get anything out of Oceania and Africa?! I must just not understand what they are trying to do.

Lactic acid concerns aside, as a competitor, I wouldn't mind doing sprint and middle on the same day. As a meet director, however, that's asking a lot. We did a middle and then a middle relay on the same day this year for our A-meet and it was pretty tough.

Of course, we were also using two different areas, but suitable terrain for a sprint is often quite different than what works for middle and/or long. Our sprint for team trials next year is 60 miles away from the middle/long venues. (An extreme case to be sure, but it seemed to make more sense than expecting people to get off a plane in St. Louis and blast down to Farmington for an afternoon start - plus, the urban sprint venue is fun).

I think the logistics permit it, the two-day, three race format is fine, but I wouldn't want to mandate it. It might rule out some otherwise very nice arrangements.

The E20k figure came out of the IOF revenue projections. As in, "no, Nike is still not interested... lessee who else we could shake down... ja! I know! the Canadians!"

Just like USOF, the IOF could use a little more cash. Just like USOF, the IOF seems to view taxation of member entities as the best way to balance the books. The USOF seems to forget that the only time there were significant revenues was when people actually did something (WOC 93 and VWC 97). I'm not going to go into more parallels.

More people will probably run the M/F21 courses at the Oceania champs than the NA champs, given that it includes Australia, NZ, Hong Kong and a few others. So if they're thinking 20 000 Euros for the set (and they're clearly not thinking very hard - the number is ludicrous and would just lead to none of the events being held), I'd bet on 8 or 9K for both Oceania and NA and the remainder from Africa (is that just South Africa or is there more orienteering in Africa?).

Thanks guys. I didn't realize that Oceania included OZ, NZ, HK, etc... Somehow I was thinking of just Tahiti, Easter Island, etc... So that changes the equation slightly. But still, this number seems very high and I can't imagine South Africa or all of Africa is going to cough up that much. There seems to be little consideration of supply and demand among the IOF brain trust.

But, anyway - if one does want to do an IOF RC are fees negotiated on a case by case basis?

Here are the minutes from an IOF Council meeting in Japan, see especially the appendix. Elite events, which will include Regional Championships -- it they fit the timing -- will be required to have TV coverage, professional arena production, prize money, and pay a bunch of money to the IOF. In return they get, well, not much.

I guess we have to make sure the NA Champs don't "fit the timing."

By the way, it would be nice if the IOF put this stuff on its own web site. Might make it a little less out of touch.

OT: Easter Island would be a stunning place for a rogaine. When I went there in early 2004 I took some photos with a control on the statues (ok, next to the statues: some respect for world heritage); but I then proceeded to lose my camera...

What I am wondering is how in the waldo world is ORCA going to afford a EU50,000 WOC sanctioning fee? Note that this is actually a question for "the power", who recently revealed his hitherto secret lifelong dream that ORCA would host the WOC someday. ORCA members have permission to begin uncontrollable laughter again, and to even roll around on the ground should that prove necessary.

I think ORCA is expecting an anonymous grant from Wyoming.

Chuck Ferguson has contacted some people from the IOF Council and is asking for clarification on some of these issues - in particular the regional champs fees.

Here is the relevant PowerPoint bullet list copied from the minutes:


Future Elite Events Programme Proposal presented at the Presidents’ Conference in Aichi, Japan

Background
• 2001 Ex GA: Decision on yearly WOC 2004-
• 2003-04: Events Programme Group (EPG): survey
• 2004 GA: Decision to end today’s World Cup at end of 2006
• Council gave task to Foot-O Commission
• Proposal for new series from 2007 IOF Foot-O

(three sections of names etc omitted here. Ed.)

Aims - The new programme shall:
• be part of achieving IOF goals – the Olympic goal
• be attractive to runners, media, spectators, sponsors
• contribute to making orienteering more visible
• aim for a world wide perspective Objectives Runners get
• exciting, high quality events
• tough competition
• events adjusted to the natural season peaks
• media exposure
• prize money
• high quality final to decide the best overall runners

Races in the new programme
• WOC
• ROCs – if it fits the timing
• A small number (3-5) of existing events, fulfilling special requirements

What is required of an existing event, wishing to be on the programme?
• TV coverage
• Professional arena production
• Special invitations to best runners
• Prize money
• Sanction fee to IOF

What should the organiser get in return?
• International status
• Best runners take part
• Increased chances of financial support
• Larger media interest
• Support on event advising (SEA)
• Support on professional arena production

Who can organise?
• All Federations can announce interest, according to requirements
• IOF Foot-O Commission will also contact organisers directly

Competition formats
• Main formats are sprint and middle (except WOC, ROC)
• Encourage new, TV-friendly formats and innovation

Participation
• Qualify as an individual but represent your Federation
• World ranking list or direct qualifications
• Wild cards and national quota

What will we call it? World Cup!
• Recognised name in media, public, governments etc
• Will maximise external funding for federations

Differences between old and new World Cup

OLD

• Events created for WCup
• WCup stretched over many days
• Tough yearly programme for runners • Moderate media interest
• Costly for teams
• Only Federation based participation
• All four disciplines

NEW

• WCup as a special part in existing events
• 1 or 2 races per event, a long weekend
• Fewer events, better adjusted to runners’ planning
• High media interest
• Greater chance of external funding
• Possibility of individual participation
• Individual events, new formats

What next?
• Finalised proposal to IOF Council in September 2005
• Invitations to federations in November 2005
• Applications by 31 December 2005
• Programme announced in March 2006

Gibbering madly, "It can't be done...Satan is running the IOF..."

Our secret dream *was* to host a North American champs in 2008 in conjunction with The Twisted Sisters O-Fest. I guess we could charge $200 per person at our little local events, host a lot of car washes and bake sales, use cheaper materials like 2-mil map bags, and find someone to donate the remaining 19,000 Euros.

Or we just host the "US, Canada, Mexico, and other small countries in Central America and the Caribbean Champs" instead.

UCMoscCACC

Uckmoskak? Isn't that a settlement in northern Nunavut?

Of course, IOF doesn't own the North American Championships, AFAIK. USOF and COF can keep awarding North American Championships as they always have, sans payment to IOF. It's only if we want NAOC to be an IOF Regional Orienteering Championship that we need to mortgage our houses.

WOCs and ROCs seem priced out of North America. But WREs are still affordable (200 Euro), at least for 2006 and 2007. I guess that's their bone to the rest of the world.

Is it possible that the 20000 Euros is the expected receipts from the whole 2-year regional championship cycle (that is, it includes the payment from Europe for the following year)? The minute page also includes in the same paragraph payments for 2008 and 2009, so it's not out of the question. The IOF cannot be as disconnected from reality as we (and they) are making out.

However they mean it, I think that more than 500 Euro is unrealistic for a North Americans at this point. (Is there anyone reading who'd bid for a North American ROC with a higher price tag than that?) I don't think the value-added of a ROC is more than a few hundred bucks here currently, in terms of added entries and sponsorship, minus added expenses. (Of course, clubs might be willing to pay a bit more for the pride of hosting such an event, which is a kind of value added I guess. But not more than about USD600/CDN700 total I'm thinking.)

Many things are possible which is why Chuck is seeking some clarification. It could be that the 20000Euros will not be charged if the regional championship is not promoted as a "World Cup" or something as simple as that.

Let's stick to the IOF-man and call them "World Mug" events.

The BC Champs 2006 will use the format with sprint and middle on Saturday and then the long on Sunday morning. At the 2004 champs, we had the sprint on Friday evening but ended up with about half the start field compared to the other two days. I don't think that this was because people didn't want to run the sprint, but rather that the people that had to travel to Vancouver simply couldn't make it on time without taking a day off from work. For most, one sprint race doesn't justify something like that.

Since this posting really just is an excuse to promote the event, I can't resist the impulse to show you a bit of fieldwork from the update of the Brandywine map. Pretty fantastic area. VERY technically challenging, where running ability will be less important than normally, because you simply can't run full speed and keep up with the navigation. Some parts remind me of back home.

What's the scale? (How big an area is that?) Are you using Lost Lake as well?

I fieldwork at 7500. That area might be something like 15% of the map.

We are using Lost Lake for the middle, yes. Rather different area with thicker woods all over, but with some nice spots too, but it's absolutely packed with trails. The difficulty here is more to keep up with all the trails and pick the best route.

I'm glad you guys are updating Brandywine. It looked very Swedish to me too.

Sprint + Middle on the same day would be appealing to me (M55) only if the Sprint is a sprint FOR ME. That is, I recommend 'several' Sprint courses (2-4 perhaps: BR, G, BO, YW) of varying lengths - which also would help with Start windows. For projected winning times, look beyond the 3-5 very fast 50's and over. If I'd be out for around 20 minutes, bouncing back for Middle would be more appealing. Plus, I'd love to run a 'true' sprint versus a 'short course'.

Have other clubs started running events with the sprint/middle/long format, at least for red/blue?

Our club started doing this a few years ago. (I guess we actually started with mixed formats in the late 90's, at least with Barebones. Lately we've used sprint/middle/long when we've held club and provincial championships, and some other clubs out west here have started doing similarly...a mix format including of sprints, middles and long (or other formats), not just two-day medium-longs.)

Jim, GHO did this in 2000 and 2003 at the Ontario Champs/Eastern Canadians. Gators apparently are doing this this year (but no info is out yet, yes the race is in <3 weeks). The sprint and middle on one day works well if the two races are close by. It makes for a long day for volunteers though. For the NAOC next year we wanted to maximize publicity/PR by putting the sprint in a high visibility area but that is too far to drive to race the middle on the same day so we separated them (after polling the US and Canadian team).

There are a number of big advantages for having all categories race sprint, middle, long. One it allows volunteers to race one day and volunteer another - they can still participate in a championship. Makes the weekend more inticing to locals that can only make one of the days. Makes it easier for different clubs to share days. Less confusing for the results crew with some classes being 2-days and others one-days, etc. We would like to see North America move to having all categories race sprint, middle, and long for Championships.

Amen

What do you find the reaction is from people on Green, Brown, Orange, Yellow and White to this format?

What length do you set these courses on the Long day? Long (60-100 minutes), or the length they would be in a classic two-day (25-55 minutes), or something in between?

Scale proportionally. Its pretty simple:

greenlong = (greenstd/bluestd) * bluelong
brownlong = (brownstd/bluestd) * bluelong

etc.

COF already has suggested winning times for one-day classic races (they are longer than each day of a 2-day classic) so that is probably a start. Personally, I think if COF and USOF were to seriously discuss moving to a one-day champs race format then it would present a great opportunity to review what currently works and doesn't work and how we can link to other outdoor endurance sports and make the event terminology easier to understand. We have a system that was designed when there was only one race discipline. Now there are three. It's about time it was reviewed!

Is there going to be anything else in Canada mid-August 2006 to go with the BC Champs.

Planning my hols already.

if COF and USOF were to seriously discuss moving to a one-day champs race format...

The matter is not open to discussion within USOF as far as Individual Champs go. One-day Individual Championships are not acceptable per AGM decision of August 2003. This applies to all categories including MF21. Robin appears to have taken down the text of the original (passed) proposal, so I can't link to it.

How can it be 'not open to discussion'? Any decision can be later reversed. And I don't recall any discussion prior to the 2003 decision you mention...

There was plenty of discussion. In early 2003, Eric Bone and I drafted the Open Champs proposal. It passed the Board in April of 2003. The decision was overturned at the AGM, which is as high up the ladder as it goes. Technically yes, anyone is free to draft more proposals. In reality, once the whole meeting of all of USOF clubs' representatives votes down your work, that's a pretty darn strong hint that you're out of touch with the masses.

Sorry, I recalled the Open Champs decision as being in 2004 and thought you were talking about something else.

Thinking about it a little harder, wasn't that 'no' vote against an *additional* Open Champs, and not per se on the format of the Individual Champs? I realise you (Vlad and Eric) are probably tired of the rancor over that fiasco, but I don't see why that stops a related proposal being brought up again. (NB: I am not offering to do any such thing myself.)

More than one Board member at the time explained to me the reasons behind the general-membership dissatisfaction expressed at the AGM as twofold:

1. It is not good to separate the MF21 Champs from "everyone else" Champs. This was indeed the more important of the two objections.

2. No one-day Individual Championships. Some BOD members who said this are no longer around, in one way or another, but my understanding is that the sentiment remains.

In my memory, one-day Ind. Champs happened twice (1993 and 1998; 1993 was consistent with the proposed Open Champs). Both of those were brought up as examples of general-membership unhappiness, with "1998 never again".

But do you know why they didn't like the idea? Were there reasons they could enunciate?

First, I have no problem with MF21 running under a different format than the rest - primarily because it matches international competitions.

My first reaction to "Long" was 'not after Sprint and Middle' - especially if both on Saturday. Then I checked COF's recommended winning times ( Hammer, above) and noticed that for F35+ and for M45+ , the projected winning times only increased by 5 minutes from '2 Day Classic' to '1 Day Classic' (10-20 minutes for 'Red' and 'Blue') - that IS realistic. For a PR point of view, I'd suggest calling it "Sprint, Middle, Classic" but flexibly allowing Red and Blue to be 'longish'. Besides, currently there is considerable variation among A-meets in terms of winning times.

Possibly a proposal to "experiment with Blue and Red" to test reactions might be feasible?

Reasons cited for the above—

1.

• Splitting off the MF21 will decrease sponsor interest. (Apparently Silva ceased being title sponsor as of 2004 anyway.)
• Splitting of the MF21 will decrease the "prestige of The Championships".
• "No one will bid for them" (the Open, MF21 Champs).
• We already have too many Championships.

2. "People just don't enjoy travellng for one-day events." "I like it when I can screw up on one day and then come back on the second day." (Never mind that this particular BOD member is elected to represent constituents, not him/herself.)

As you can see, a lot of confused and contradictory arguments against the Open Champs, which seems to imply that people indeed didn't like the idea and would throw whatever "logic" they could come up with.

This seems like one of those instances where people are resistant to change...

I'm sure I could be shot for saying this, but I think it would be good to align ourselves with the IOF in not just our champs (three one-day (or one run) events), but also in general. Make our "classic" more like the "long" and hold more "middle" events, along with the sprints.

In terms of "coming back" on Day 2, the 3-race format is much more appealing than 2-day total.

After spending 35 extra minutes in the black hole I found around G7 on Day One in Oregon (once I exited the event horizon to the trail, all made sense again), I knew that I couldn't 'come back' on Day Two (unless I found a wormhole on a long leg). Day 2 was for ranking and to prove to myself that I really could still read a map and plan a route on EACH leg. In 2005, I would gladly have started Day 2 'all even'.

The only reason I see to prefer the 2-day total would be to reward consistency over 2-days versus one 'great' run. (Also, cost of medals.) Would I really have 'deserved' a 3rd place medal in Oregon? With two comparable courses, 2-day total has appeal; but with three distinct lengths, three 1-day champs certainly makes more sense.

In Colorado, the 3-day total worked to my advantage: an okay day at Buena Vista followed by a very good and a good day led to 2nd place. After Buena Vista, several people had 'no chance' to catch up - a bit discouraging. For 3-5 days, I do like having a 'total time' champ.

I'd prefer leaving US Long Course Champ as is - a separate championship.

If MF21 is running Sprint, Middle, Long, and everyone else stays with Sprint and 2-day classic total, I don't see why people claim that to be "MF21 splitting off". Everyone runs three races (if they wish).
Also, it seems to fairly little extra work for organizers. In terms of course setting, could M21 Middle also be Day 1 Green or Red; M21Long replace Blue Day 2; and F21 Middle be Day 1 Green or Brown? Then F21 Long be only extra course (I'd 'cut and paste' M21 and/or Red Classic.).

Good course setting for Middle is quite different from that for a Classic Green. I know, I was guilty this January by offering a cobbled-together Red X on Day 1 of the Team Fundraiser, cobbled from pieces of the MF21 Middles. Sorry. The Green and Brown on that day were proper Classics and did not look much like the MF21 Middles at all.

Vlad, naively, I assumed that since all were "advanced" courses, that they were interchangeable. For an occasional A-meet course-setter, could you specify what you found distinguishes M21 Middle from Classic Green? (Perhaps I'm asking, "How does 'fast pace' affect the design of a course?"

Even if I were to design both a M21 Middle and a Classic Green, my philosophy for both would be, more or less, "Advanced 5K course", length depending on terrain.

I think the 2003 discussion ended up being a proposal for two separete events:
1) a M/F21 Champs / Team-Trials, and
2) a Non-M/F21 Classic - 2-day champs

This particular flavor of consolidation didn't go down well. By maybe a somewhat different flavor would sell better?

In the interest of reducing Championship clutter (which seems to get more discussion these days), perhaps we should propose that we try to hold the "Classic" champs together with the "Short" Champs on the same weekend. (Changing the name to IOF's "Long" & "Middle" doesn't even need to be done right away, if ever...) The combined Classic/Short Champs event would have a one-day Short Champs (people are used to this) and a one-day Classic Champs (this, of course, is the change.) Optionally, a Sprint distance champs could be thrown into the same event. And this whole event would be call The US Championships. Other events would need to added qualifiers, such as Night, Intercollegiate, Mega-Micro... etc...

This way we end up with the nice variety of the IOF Champs format, and still keep many things the same for many people. (E.g. no new Championship title, no M/F21 elitist split, similar course names - Short & Classic.)

On the other hand, just because IOF does this, should we? I am somewhat partial to Vlad's counter-argument that this splitting of _The_ championship may 'decrease the "prestige of The Championships"'. For example, who is the current world Champion? Simone Luder is the women's world champion, having won all 3 sub-disciplines, but what about the men? I think there are 3, and I know one is a Russian who Boris konws, but I can't recall any of their names...

And, back at home, with _The_ Classic distance US Champs, I recall Sergei & Pavlina are _the_ US Champions. I don't remember who are the reigning Short or Long Champions*. If we had a 3-event 2-day with somewhat equal & separate emphasis on the different events, who would be _The_ US Orienteering Champion? Well, maybe there might be 3 each M/F...

As a counter-point to this, it's not like there is just one 'running' Gold medalist at the Olympics - people don't seem to mind several different running events/distances having their own medals. But we are not quite as big as 'running', so should we really fracture our efforts? Should there be one 'best' US Championship title that everyone strives to win, or multiple formats, of which it's hard to find a best? Or is having one US Champs weekend with 2-3 races & championship titles good enough? (Or even better?) And even if we have a 3-race/championship event, will the people that care still think of the Classic/Long race as "The" US Championship?

I lean toward the 2-3 event weekend, because I find it more fun. But I wouldn't want to do it just to match IOF, as the logical next step would be to add Micro to the Middle at that event...

Rick: Basically: Advanced O = Route Choice, Coarse Navigation, Fine Navigation. Of course the division of the overall nav problem into those tasks is somewhat open to interpretation.

Middle: >50% Fine / <50% Coarse (by time spent by winner); at most ~one significant Route Choice for whole course (Route Choice is deemphasized but not absent). (Note that the Fine should still be traversable at high speed. I.e. a typical BAOC course with 200-m legs somewhat dense with features is not a very good Middle because it is impossible to run at a high pace, encountering these features at a high rate.)

Classic/Long: ~75%+ Coarse / <25% Fine; significant Route Choice.

Note that the particulars such as the number of controls/leg length and frequent direction changes follow from the above philosophy; they are not the starting guidelines.

I think it is important to note that the US Long Course Champs is a different animal. It is, or at least should be, a real Long O Course, with a longer winning time (2+ hrs) and more emphasis on route choice and rough map reading. This has been a standard event in many (most?) countries for decades. It is unfortunate that the Classic Distance (subject of this discussion) is now being referred to as the Long course, both internationally and in North America. We now have two events using the same term.

I think that North Americans should switch to using the same event format names as the IOF. It may be a bit annoying that the names changed, but I think it's confusing to use different words for the same format, and, as Eric points out, even more confusing to use the same word for different formats.

hillanddale>> I don't think there would be any other major events in western Canada, but the Canadian Champs are in Ontario the third week of August. (Probably...)

Races in Europe that were called long when classic existed are now being referred to as ultra (or ultra-long) and the classic races are now called long.

>>the Canadian Champs are in Ontario the third week of August. >>(Probably...)
Still no official announcement by the host club on dates, format, location, etc. for 2006.. (but we are still waiting for a format, time, announcement for the Ontario Champs being hosted in <3 weeks by the same host club as well)....so Pi yes 'probably' (or 'hopefully').

I have written a detailed proposal on how to revamp
the entire USOF championship structure, which I
personally consider to be a baroque mess. I'm
personally not convinced that a country of our stature
in the O world needs 13 [sic] different championships.
The proposal is somewhere on my web site for
the interested; I haven't got the energy to track it down.
(And I think it only pares it down to about 9 or 10
anyway ... in an attempt to compromise). At the
core is sprint/middle/long one race each as
the "premeire" championship -- the fact that
there could be three different champions
crowned doesn't really bother me, but I see
the point.

In any case, it didn't get much traction -- for it to do
so, I, or someone else, needs to start a committee or
otherwise write a proposal. Since it is such a
hairball, I, nor anyone else, has been found with the
time to do so. So that is where it sits -- people who
want different USOF championships need to find
the time to do it. Given Vlad's experience, I can see
why no one has volunteered (including myself). I
would not want to spend a ton of work on this, and
then have it shot down. For someone to do all this
work, it would take a board mandate to get started
(IMHO).

So, the NAOC seems like a separate, bite-sized piece
of this -- we'll see how that goes in November.
It seems like there is definate support for this for
M/F21; the veteran age classes seem more of a
muddle (in terms of support), so I'm not sure how
it is going to go, or what the best proposal is for that.

In any case, thanks for the (on topic :-)) comments ...

Wha, no thanks for my rude code snippets? :)

Here is Randy's page.

As a "veteran" age class "runner", I feel rather mis/unrepresented by USOF. I support most of what's been proposed in this thread. But as has been said, it'll take a lot of work and a "champion" of the cause to get another proposal under consideration.

I do hope someone takes on the task.

The argument against having MF21: Middle + Long; otherwise: 2×Classic at "The Championships" is that it would deduct greatly from the stature of the Short Course Championships, which then would not have an elite category. So, I was told that no club would bid for the orphaned Short Champs.

It sounds to me that the issue of an Open Champs is different than the issue of a Sprint/Middle/Long (Classic) format. Some overlap, but it's not clear to me that bringing forth a vote on the Open Champs is the same as bringing forth a vote on Sprint/Middle/Long. As Randy says, maybe start with the North Americans, and just for Red/Blue. Or, just start running more Sprint/Middle/Long events. (Bottom-up approach.)

Randy's section on selling the product raises many good points which got me thinking...If the USOF or COF were formed today would a 2-day classic champs be proposed as a championship event? Nope! So then why the resistance to change? A change presents a real opportunity to re-brand and re-sell the sport of orienteering on its variety of individual race discipllines (sprint, middle, long, ultra) and team competitions (relay, 24-hour). For example, orienteering was once a sport that was a one distance size fits all - now it has lots of variety that should attract people that like fast and furious running in parks to those that prefer long and slower in ultra to team competitions, etc. but at the same time will retain those already do the sport since the total time in the woods on a weekend is the same. I suspect the resistance to change is driven by the fact that there is never a great time to change as some people prefer the status quo. BUT in this case, people are talking about making changes towards the international standards. So IMHO it shouldn't be a question of 'should we change' but 'when will this change occur'.

Somehow I get the feeling if the ITU stopped allowing drafting in triathlon races internationally or introduced an official ultra sprint distance that you would see those changes in the North American triathlon racing scene shortly thereafter. But in North American orienteering we are still for the most part sticking to a championship format that is only practiced here in North America. I guess those that are resistant to these changes to the international standards would be happy if our participation and performance numbers were greater than that in Europe so they could say "Hah, we'll show you - your changes are wrong" but unfortunately it is quite the opposite.

Instead growth is stagnant and it is time for change.

In terms of growth, have clubs that offer sprints in urban parks and on campuses (versus woods) been able to draw in runners from the local running community? If yes, do they get 'hooked' on sprints? Do some 'head to the woods' as well?

Being a young pup of the sport, i'll have to admit that in order to sell the sport in this day and age change needs to be done in terms of how the sport formats work. I agree with Hammer and Randy that 2-day classics need to be reconsidered and focus needs to be put into these individual races (sprint/middle/long) as in Europe. This ‘resistance’ to change or how ever you like to term it will only put the sport back further here in NA if the product we sell stays the same.

One format that appears to work is the Sprint. Over the past year this format appears to have gained interest locally (my club) and as we see now has global appeal. The PWT series is an example of what good marketing can do. It’s such a fascinating series, which on a personal level has excited me about the sport more than ever. The fast and furious nature of the event has such great appeal and I know a few young guys like me in our club who really enjoy that format. I don’t think I can ever be a long format specialist but I may have a good change to compete in sprint/short events. So yes, there is interest in the different formats, which I think is a great thing. It allows people to actually focus on one particular format where the person can strive to become the best at. It’s no different from specializing in the 500m or 1000m in running and what’s wrong with specialization? I’m not suggesting that orienteering is heading this way specifically but there is a definite change in paradigm in the sports format that needs to be addressed from all these discussions. Through these individual championships as I think that it can help in the sports appeal and interest especially among the youth but this is definitely going to depend on how its marketed.

I think that those who want change have more power to bring it about than they give themselves credit for. True, a change to champs format requires some bureaucratic gears to engage, and that's never easy. But simply putting on these types of meets is a meet directors perogative.

If enough meet directors start going with the Sprint/Middle/Long format for A-meets and attendance at those meets is at least as good as 2-day classic events, then I expect it would be much easier to make the case for a change to championships.

It's a lot easier to sell the leadership of your own club on a new idea than to try to change the national organization.

I agree with Eric. Put on some A meets in this format. See if there is any reaction, check the attendance. It's hard to categorically state that the older/younger/any classes won't/will like a format change without having any meets conducted this way. It would seem to me a variation would be fun and we do seem to be getting new combinations these days. So it's hard to agree with the "Don't like change" statements.

As for my preference, first, after the recent posts here, I would like to know what the terms mean (sprint/middle/long). I think I understand the first two, but the long described in the COF page is barely equal to the USOF standard. Eddie's formula leads to a different definition. I would tend to go for the latter.

As for format, perhaps the Sprint Finals might be an interesting model. Use a Saturday morning Middle to qualify/seed for the afternoon Sprint. Most runners start early and finish. After a time gap, the seeded/qualifiers run, preferably through a spectator friendly course like the SS finals. Great fun!

Recent past:

SVO Short and Classic A-meet, April 26-27 2003 (IOF Middle and Classic)

2003 May 3-4. CNYO Long and Short champs (every year are essentially this format). Attendance seems pretty good at those.

2004 intercollegiates, April 3-4, 2004 WCOC, short +USOF classic

2004 US Individual Champs at Telemark (October) were IOF middle and classic (with a sprint Sat afternoon). I think this was the highest attendance at an A-meet all that year.

U.S. Team Trials have been this format for at least the past 3 or 4 years.

(others?)

Future:

FLO/US Team A-meet 2/25-26, 2006. Middle, sprint classic.

2006 intercollegiates, April 8-9, 2006 Middle sprint classic and relay

April 29, 2006, Long and short champs. middle and classic.

May 19-21 2006 US Team trials, St Louis. Sprint, middle classic

CNYO A-meet Sept 23-24 2006, sprint middle classic.



It looks to me like half or more of all U.S. A-meets in the last year or so and definately more than half of all on the schedule for next year have been or are already in this format. The truth is *already* out there...

See Randy's first post on this thread. The definitions are the IOF designated winning times for M/F21 for these three formats.

2004 intercollegiates also had the optional sprint distance, 3-person relay in the afternoon on Saturday

2005 Intercollegiates were Middle/Relay/Classic with the relay being also Middle distance, but having more of a sprint feel because it was in a city park.

Attendance was good as midwest meets go and the format was well recieved. SLOC is pretty much sold on the Sprint/Middle/Long format and intends to continue holding meets that way beyond team trials. Of course, we also like relays.

I do like the idea of using a Saturday AM middle to seed a sprint finals type thing Saturday afternoon. Would definiately add some spectator appeal to the sport if courses were set properly. Not quite sure how you would seed it across courses though (how does a win on green compare to 8th on blue?)

Eddie wrote: 2004 US Individual Champs at Telemark (October) were IOF middle and classic (with a sprint Sat afternoon). I think this was the highest attendance at an A-meet all that year.

Just to clarify, the US Champs were a 2-day classic, not middle+classic. Yes, Saturday's courses were a bit shorter, Sunday's a bit longer. This was partly to simulate WOC qual/final, partly to give the WRE a little more significance, partly to add a little variety, but neither day was set to be a Middle-distance race.

For appeal to USOF Board, AGM, and orienteers resistant to change, I suggest staying with term 'classic' and then defining its lengths in the new Sp/Sh/Cl structure as new USOF guidelines. (Keeping Long Course Champs for another weekend and truly Long for everyone).

In terms of length of 'new classic', there is no requirement that all classes be lengthened the same %. A significant lengthening of MF21 seems popular, but I don't feel that a similar % lengthening would be as appealing for other classes. So the most appealing mix for me for new "USOF Course Guidelines for US Champs" would be to follow IOF guidelines for MF21 or MF20/21 with COF 1-day guidelines for all other courses.

Recent past:

Peeeeeg

proudly flying Shorts, Middles, Farstas, and Sprints since 1997

OCIN-nOvation!

hillanddale>> not sure if it is too early for you but the Western Canadians are in the Yukon in mid-July.
Details at
http://www.yukonorienteering.ca

We're going to propse a motion at the COF AGM to use the long, middle, sprint format for everyone at the Canadian Championships. Mainly on the basis that it is more fun. That should stimulate some debate.