Discussion: Awards

Can someone help me identify where it is written that the meet organizers can chose to combine classes (for awards) if there are fewer than 3 participants in a class? I can't seem to find it in the USOF rules. Or is it just an unofficial option that some clubs chose to do?

Hm, in the rules published online, there is a reference to rule 4.1.2.2 Combined Classes (see 10.2), but that rule is missing. There's a 4.1.2.1 and a 4.1.3, but no 4.1.2.2. I don't know if it is supposed to be missing or not. I don't remember that it was specific to less than 3.

There is a reference in the *ski-O* section about classes being combine with another if it has fewer than three competitors (E4.3).

I think this was removed from the rules since no one was ever actually combining classes. You can double check by emailing Steve Shannonhouse.

Here be dragons

We combined classes for an A-meet a few years back and it turned out to be a negative experience for some competitors and the meet organizers. Although many of us don't care so much about awards there are a lot of people who do. If this combined class rule is marched out at an event to deny medals to some competitors or their children, the meet directors will publicly hear about it. It is not worth it to save a few bucks.

Maybe if people started doing it more frequently, it wouldn't be such a big deal. Local road races, triathlons, etc., often use 10-yr age groups. As long as you announce your awards intentions far in advance it shouldn't be a problem.

IIRC, a defined set of condensed classes was optional, and I don't think any junior classes were combined.

Announcing the combined classes prior to the end of early registration is OK. So then people could make the decision to attend or not. But how do you know how many participants in each class you will have that early? It is probably a better use of the meet director's time to put efforts into increasing participation rather than doing things that irritate the folks that are attending.

To clarify, I am not advocating more classes and more awards. We now have too many classes for the number of participants. Several classes are underused at A-meets and should be eliminated by USOF. M-35 and F-35 are good examples. What I am saying is that the act of combining classes ,if done, should be announced well before the event and not at the awards ceremony.

Combining classes is done on a regular basis even in Sweden. Certain age categories are sometimes too small (less than 3?) to justify making up their own class - just as in this discussion. Juniors (-20) are moved up and older people (35+) moved down when combining.
Combining is always announced before the meet - in the meet information and of course in the start list - based on the number of entries.

M-35 and F-35 are good examples.

There was so much screaming last time this was proposed, it's unbelievable. I think it's a non-starter even now that all interested parties have moved on into M/F40+.

If the M35's are any good, they should be giving the 21E a run for there money... or at lest battling it out with the 21L's.

In IRL, the Irish M21E Champ is legible to run 35's...

They are good and they give youngerfolk a run for the money, in M21 where they normally hang out. They're just complainy. Somehow it's important for them to "have the option to run down", important enough to impose the set of 6 meaningless awards on each event director.

Hey, didn't the Canadians switch to 10 year age categories a few years back? Did it destroy Canadian orienteering as we know it? I haven't noticed massive outrage, so maybe it did. Or maybe they are just naturally polite. Somebody last week mentioned that about Canadians. I can't imagine them spending much time and money worried about medal counts ;-)

I personally think that making sure we have 90+ mandatory awards to distribute amongst ~150 participants is the only thing holding US orienteering together. Although I would like to add an amendment mandating that we recognize the top 10 finishers on M21+, because I often don't get a medal.

In the US, are awards given for all A meets?

In the US, awards = all A meets x all participants = a big number.

I exaggerate, but I think at last year's US Champs, there were up to 93 medals that could have been awarded (I guess not all were because some categories had < 3 competitors) but only a total of 196 champs eligible competitors.

Does that make sense?

As for me, I am a M36 who would be happy abolishing whatever, but obviously I am growing increasingly decrepit and will reach a point when I don't want to be categorized with the young people. I am happy to wait until I am 40+ for that.

However, I don't speak for all. I know some M35+s enjoy the ability to slum in that category from time to time, but I think that flighting between the two (M21 and M35) smacks of a bit of manipulation. I guess we'll see when I start doing it...

I don't like this medal reduction campaign at all. In fact, on that USOF survey thing I specifically requested that the ranking categories be redefined such that there is division for those born on 6/25/66. So far I haven't received any feedback on my request. But I won't give up and as soon as this passes I plan to kick butt and clean up in the M15766+ category.

>didn't the Canadians switch to 10 year age categories a few years back?

Yes

>Did it destroy Canadian orienteering as we know it?

No

>Or maybe they are just naturally polite.
Yes but sorry I should have made my points clearer above and apologize if it was unclear.


Yeah Canada moved to 10 year age group in masters a while ago now. I personally would have liked us to have aligned with other endurance running/adventure sports that we have cross over with and made masters start at 40 with 10 year age groups above that.

In IRL

...

We just need more awards made out of chocolate. Or awesome Moose mugs.

Dude, if they were giving away chocolate filled moose mugs for awards, I would run harder than you've ever seen anyone run ;-)

just a comment for those of you thinking of "doing away" with the x35 categories - I only started orienteering as a W35, and I was very glad that there was a W35 category for me to hide in. Did I mention that I was an unfit W35? Fronting up against lean, mean, superfit W21s would have been even more terrifying.

There are always the open classes for those who are just starting out. The unfit 32 year old or 27 year old faces the same kind of terror.

I think the organizers should just start handing out medals for classes <3 in the registration packets, to save time during the awards ceremony.

Yes!

Some people could care less about awards, but for others they are a major motivator. I'd rather see events err on the side of too many awards than too few.

I care about awards, and they do in fact motivate me. I feel that their value is diluted when the field is small, and I also feel that larger classes promote more competition and motivation.

Yes. I am motivated by awards, too. I am motivated by getting As in school, but what's the point if everyone is getting one?

How's this for crazy. The age categories for masters rowing in the US are indicated by letters, A (27-36), B (36-42), C (43-49) etc. Sometimes they add in a category before A and call it AA (22-27). On the other hand, if you are less than the AA, you are just "Under 21", no letter. Until of course you are 18 or under and then your are just a "Junior." And of course, you can be a "novice" in whatever category you are if you are in your first year of rowing, e.g., "Masters novice" or "Juniors novice."

But wait, there's more. All the masters are handicapped some # of seconds per kilometer. At 43, I get 6.4 sec/kilometer. A 44 year old gets 7.2 sec/kilometer. Thus, if we race over 5 kilometers, I have to be ahead of the 44 year old by 4 sec to beat him in the results. Most of the time you are racing with the current, which gets you down the course faster effectively shortening the course. But this isn't accounted for in the handicapping. That and due to some skewness in the tables leads to generally favoring older rowers. It is really really hard to beat a fit 60 yr old.

Often times the regattas are too lazy to post raw times in the results and only post the handicapped times. Thus, to figure out exactly how fast you went you have to determine how long the course was (it is never the advertised distance) and then do the subtraction.

If you are rowing in a boat with more than one person, you have to determine the average age of the boat. Then you use different tables of handicaps depending on how many are in the boat.

Our system in orienteering, plethora of medals aside, is not too bad.

I think it's important to remember that it's not just about the medals.

Say I'm running in a 2-day meet and there are 5 people in my class. I finish 3rd the first day, but there are 5 minutes between each place. I could run much better or much worse the second day with no change in my placement - there's not much pressure. But if I'm in a class with 25 people then a minute can make a real difference. It forces you to look for every second. You won't be saying, "well, I made a couple minutes of mistakes, but it wouldn't have mattered."

When people are motivated by awards it means we want to continue to improve (and get more awards, or get our first award, etc). Bigger classes - more competition - fosters more drive for improvement.

I'm with ya there, but the way the rules are currently written, there's not much an A-meet director can do. Rule 4.1.2 is pretty unambiguous - it says you MUST offer all the classes with no reference to combining (aside from the phantom 4.1.2.2 subclause). I'd sure like to see that put back in.

A case of small countries of adopting structures designed for countries with bigger participations.

The reason for having classes is that older athletes (and younger juniors) are at a disadvantage. But in smaller countries you cannot see the effect of 5-year aging in amongst the scatter between fast and slow.

In a country with about 200 people at regional championships, 5-year age classes used to "share" a number of courses. The older class winner was just as likely to be fastest on course as the younger class winner. They have gone to 10-year age classes starting at 40.

W.r.t. the 35's, this country offers self-chosen 21E, 21-Long, 21-Short and 21B sub-classes so there's absolutely no call for a 35, which used to attract only 1 or 2 entrants.

Of course there was a conservative reaction. There is also widespread grizzling about how long award ceremonies take:-))

> A case of small countries of adopting structures designed for countries with bigger participations.

absolutely. Doesn't make sense for smaller countries...

I've often thought there should be only 4 junior, 4 open, and 4 masters categories for each of men and women at major events.

juniors: M/W -19, M/W -16, M/W -13, M/W -10
open: M/W Open Elite and 3 non champs categories (M/W Open Expert, Open Sport, Open Novice)
masters: M/W 40+, M/W 50+, M/W 60+, M/W 70+

Hammer, I like those categories. I'd thought that 15 year age groups might make sense for masters, but those of you who are already there have a better perspective. ;-)

... but if even only 1 or 2 people are motivated by what to many people, including me, seems a meaningless award, then the award system pays for itself.

So what about offering two levels of awards: hammer's broad categories, and then awards in 2 year junior / 5 year senior classes within those categories? (For example, M50+ and M55+ run the same course; the two are put together for an overall award (medal, mug, whatever), but give certificates to placegetters in the old classes M50+ and M55+?) More work for organizers, just slightly, but allows both groups of people to be happy.

I can't believe I proposed this given that all my awards except useful ones and food go straight in the trash, often before I've left the event, but there you go.

Doesn't make sense for smaller countries...

Also doesn't make sense for countries where people come to the sport late. In countries with strong junior programs, a typical 25-year-old competitor is combining prime fitness with 10-15 years of experience. In the North America, that same person is more likely to have just a few years. Thus, as their fitness begins to wane in their 30's, they may still have their best results to come as navigation improves. In my own case, the high-water mark of results came when I was 45 years old, even though I am a ghost of my former self in terms of running speed.

Sounds as if that just means you were running faster than you could read the map....

No, I didn't orienteer at all back in the days I could run fast.

I think the organizers should just start handing out medals for classes <3 in the registration packets, to save time during the awards ceremony.

At Barebones a few years ago we did the math:
5 races
66 medals per race
330 medals total
120 participants

We simply gave everyone a 'blank' medal with their registration package. Permanent marking pens were available to everyone that won a race - or anyone who felt they deserved some special recognition - so they could commemorate the occasion with an appropriate mark on the medal. The medal was a bone-shaped bit of wood with a wool neck-ribbon.

Hugely successful solution, showing that sometimes the tongue-in-cheek approach has its place.

Two of the sports I enter regularly are orienteering and triathlons. There is a world of difference between the approach to prizes in the two sports. In our local triathlons and it seems around the world a finisher's medal is a big deal. In the Ottawa area series run by Somersault every finisher gets a medal in every race and then the top three, in five year age categories, get an engraved metal piece they can stick on the medal.
Local orienteering meets give out cookies and apples to the finishers. Nothing more. Our A meet winners - in ten year categories get framed photo awards, typically with pictures of the event terrain and a portion of the map.
The triathlons/duathlons attract about 1,000 participants paying about $50 per person per event.
Orienteering events attract about 100 at $6 per local event where we don't use age categories at all
Would orienteering attract more participants if
1) it had five year age groups?
2) it gave finisher medals to everyone?
3) it charged a higher entry fee?

I know it is not the common sentiment expressed above but I think at least 1 and 2 are worth considering. and if that lead to 3) then so be it. Is there any harm if there are only a couple of participants in the class? No. In fact after a Canadian Championships race the over 75 winners - where finishing guarantees a medal - will wear their medals likely for the rest of the day. The younger crowd often have the medals off their necks before they leave the podium.
If I were an organizer or a sponsor I would cringe at seeing the latter.

Finisher medals seem to be common in 'tougher' events, like marathons and half marathons, big relays, triathlons, etc., but they're very rare in run of the mill 5k or 10k events. I consider most O meets to be like the latter, with the occasional exception. Races like the Billygoat or the Highlander deserve finisher awards, and they do - a t-shirt! I think it's a great idea.

I think it's probably worthwhile to give first-timers some kind of finisher award when they complete their first course. Or first course at each level.

I like AZ's awards scheme.

Some thoughts.
-Many young folks generally consider it 'uncool' to flaunt awards. Don't be surprised if they don't wear it. That doesn't mean they don't appreciate it. Ironically, a finisher medal can be more acceptable to display.

-Don't get any crazy ideas that an award system will have huge affects on participation. It's highly secondary.

-Awards are about individuals, but award ceremonies are about community. In the long run, the quality of the ceremony experience can actually be more important than what's handed out. This is where trimming awards makes a difference.

-It would be nice if US race directors had the freedom to experiment, instead of being constrained to a very mediocre system. 5-year finisher awards, best costume awards? What might they dream up.

-I'm rather shocked that a veteran orienteer would make life hard on a meet director over something like awards. Awards are not an entitlement. Grow some maturity.

-I'm sure it's the change from expectations that riles these people up. After a few years in a new system, they might get angry if you switched back.

-The idea of do decisions for a large group because one or two people appreciate it? It gives veto to the crankiest common denominator. It's a terrible way of making decisions. It's the example of non-leadership.

-Feet's idea of responding to an award-consolidation proposal by proposing a second level of awards would be laughable if USOF didn't have a history of such decisions (think US Champs). I'm still not sure if he meant it.

How about 5-year age group awards only for US Champs (both "Classic 2-day" and "SML weekend"?) which usually do have larger and more competitive categories? Ribbons only for all "Open" categories. (I'm still yearning for my first age-group US Champs medal :) ) Hmmm, 'yearning' hasn't worked yet. :)

Then condensed 10-year masters' age groups (M35; M45; M55; ...F35; F45; F55;...) for all other A-meets. (And I hope that no one would complain if traditionalist directors or large meets still opt for 5-year awards.)

Agreed, people who are in it for awards are in it for the wrong reason.

Reasons to compete: 1) Challenge oneself 2) See new places 3) Meet new people 4) Get fit and run fast

Many AR events that I've done have a raffle with shwag to give out. Stuff that people actually want provided by sponsers/donors. I would much rather get shwag than a medal.

Well, there's nothing wrong with wanting to win. And people like to be recognized for their accomplishments.

It could then be said that there's nothing wrong with wanting to be recognized for coming in 3rd of 3, but you have to stop somewhere...

Awards in Sweden are totally up to the organizer to decide - except for championship races where there are certain rules about number of medals (usually meaning that the awards are not as good as usual).
In the older categories (35+) in regular "A meets" there are often no awards at all or maybe only to the winners - quite commonly gift certificates to the present O-equipment salesman.
Awards are recommended in larger numbers for the younger categories (10-12-14) so that sometimes everyone gets something.

This is true in the US as well. USOF provides medals 3 deep for 5 year age classes at Championships, but for general A-meets the rules state: "Awards in the various classes shall be appropriate to the number of competitors in the class and the importance and nature of the event." This gives the organizers a lot of leeway.

The talk of awards is a sideshow. A competition with classes of 3 is a joke even without awards. I would rather come 10th in a field of 20, than 2nd out of 3, knowing that a number of little mistakes could have made a difference of a place or two.

I'm talking about championships here. It's ironic that some of the pressure for tiny classes comes from people who do no preparation whatsoever for their orienteering. For these people we should have categories based on eye colour and odd/even street numbers.

Clare: Does the rule you quoted give the organizers latitude to combine age groups (for example, use 10-yr groupings)? Or just to reduce the number of awards for the standard 5-yr groupings, to something less than 3?

I think it would be desirable to have the option to be able to reduce awards by using 10-yr groupings. Just not clear as to whether the rules allow that or not.

The relevant rules are 4.1.2 which specifies that the standard age class structure be offered, and

15.1 Awards in the various classes shall be appropriate to the number of competitors in the class and the importance and nature of the event. Championship events have specific awards requirements as spelled out in their respective sections.

I think 15.1 is legalistically consistent with awards to M40- and M45- being verbal pats on the back at the award ceremony and the fastest people from the combined class (if they're on the same course) getting larger unofficial awards. But I don't think it's in the spirit of the rule. Given that there exist people who like awards, why go there, as an organizer? People who don't care about awards won't care either way, and people who do will be upset.

Go to the 2010 West Point (USMAOC) A-event website and scroll down to awards:
http://www.dean.usma.edu/departments/geo/clubs/o_t...

In a nutshell, only juniors (-18) will receive physical awards for 1st-3rd places in each race (S/M/L). All others will be recognized verbally.

I don't think "awards" are really the issue - at least not for me as a meet director. If somebody is travelling hundreds of miles and competing for 2 days with the goal of acquiring a block of wood with a picture on it, I'm happy to hand it to them. However, I believe the product that people are really after is competition. Without the flexibility to combine classes, I can't offer that. We simply don't get big fields for midwest A-meets. There are going to be many classes with only 1 or 2 entrants. That's not competition, it's an attendance prize and it makes it EVEN HARDER to get people to come to these meets.

However, I believe the product that people are really after is competition.

Exactly. It's entirely selfish - I want to compete against more people, and I want everyone to get better.

I totally agree with ebuckley. I'd much rather be in a 10-yr age grouping and have 8-10 people, and maybe come in 4th or 5th (on a good day :) ) and not win an award, than be in a 3-person age group and get an award for being 3rd out of 3.

It's very common (around here at least) for road races that have relatively small fields to use 10-year age groupings (30-39, 40-49, etc.), while larger races use 5-year groupings. I haven't heard any complaints about that practice.

I totally agree with ebuckley. I'd much rather be in a 10-yr age grouping and have 8-10 people, and maybe come in 4th or 5th (on a good day :) ) and not win an award, than be in a 3-person age group and get an award for being 3rd out of 3.

Can't you just compare yourself to everyone else who ran the course, regardless of how the results are printed, collated, sorted, whatever, and regardless of who is receiving baubles, and who is not?

I did it that way for years in my own logs. This is one big non-issue IMHO.

Can't you just compare yourself to everyone else who ran the course

Well what if there is no overall by-course results list? duh, you say, just parse the SI output into Excel and sort. Well. As usual, say there's no results file with plain times, only the splits. If there's more than one line for the splits, that's a lot of massaging for Excel. Even worse—if there is no raw SI output, only by-class Winsplits.

OK you say, parse it with Perl, Python, whatever have you. At this point for someone whose living is not earned by scripting (like myself and a lot of other people, but I wouldn't vouch it's the majority), it becomes a several-hour task, which at some point starts to distract from revenue-, fitness-, or happiness-generating activities. I then give up. I am content with just having the by-class results for posterity, not by-course results.

It is exactly for this reason that I'd think combining classes (categories) would yield more informative results lists.

Well that's an interesting idea at least. I think a club could offer two sets of results, the category standards and then an overall by course set.

Two local triathlon promoters do it differently - one has 10yr age-groups, one has 5yr, both have massive participation numbers. Some of these tri age groups have more participants than our best-attended orienteering event and only 1st, 2nd and 3rd are awarded - and I think that is Proper.

We (Orienteering Western Australia) have begun combining into 10yr age-groups (excluding under M/W20) for the same reasons expressed by other posters - lack of entrants, too many courses with too few competitors. Generally the only complainers are those about to become the youngest in their 5yr age group for the season.

It is only about half a dozen events a season where we have any awards and even some of those we have been able to alter the classes to be fewer and more relevant (eg. Sprint & MTBO champs - these have less weight of 'tradition' as baggage).

In all of the events that I did results for over the past 17 years or whatever, I published the results by course, with each person's category listed, and often another column listing the place within the category. Except when the meet director twisted my arm and asked for things sorted some other way.

That's what we did, but I would have rather officially combined all classes on the middle courses and just given deeper awards. I'm not going to run an ANOVA on it, but to the naked eye, it appears the correlation between class and result is pretty close to zero.