Discussion: WOC Qualification system - middle/long

I read Tom Reynolds's blog about his thoughts how the new WOC qualification system may neglect small orienteering nations ambitions to compete at WOC and develop elite orienteering.

We all know that countries without results couldn't have 3 spots in the future as this would lead to elite-recreational level of WOC. Competing on WOC must become a privilege as it is TDF in cycling or Olympics if we want to be seen as professional sport. So countries without results will be forced to accept lower level and stimulate their runners to run at lower level (ROC, etc) to develop their skills and come back stronger.

At the end we all want fair, competitive and robust system where lets say small orienteering countries can also get 3 slots in LONG/MIDDLE. If we look one step ahead into ITA proposal about new WOC quali system this is in my opinion very close to what we small orienteering nations could see as the best quali system. I don't believe that we can get more than that. Nation's strenght is based on best runner at previous WOC. Most probably this system need some small corrections or additional overall nation's strenght but in general this is very good quali system for small nations.

I can understand frustration of some countries which are lower than 12 rank on nations list and have today 3 quali places and maybe more than 1 final place. These countries will have in future most probably only 1 final place if they don't have any exceptional high class athlete. But that is how WOC should look like. Elite sport events should be (almost) only for the best athletes and we will be very happy with 1+1 system as many other small nations without final place in today's programme. If one of NZL runners can make it among best 12 nations then he/she will bring 1 or 2 additional final places at next WOC. This is in some way a "tax" on global recognition of orienteering if we want to have more and more countries at WOC.

I would also like to mention that WOC ranking (in case of using it) should be only a temporary solution in my opinion. Slots per country shouldn't be decided based only on ONE race and ONE runner. That is way I support FOC proposal when they propose WRankings as a possible tool for qualification system. It is the most logical system if it works. But it doesn't. WRE system needs additional improvements that it will be one day good enough. I would love to see in the future more respect of WRankings from IOF, runners, organizers, media and spectators. Our aim must be similar to Tennis ATP Rankings or if we can't do this homework than it is better to stop it and find a new promotional tools because today's WRE system doesn't work for nobody.

From what I read I am sure that new IOF working group will find good quali system which will suits everyone. We must just accept that WOC as we knew it is gone.

Random thoughts. IOF have now about 75 members and increasing. If 5 top nations get 3 slots and next 5 two, that makes almost one hundred starters. Most likely not yet, but in near future we may have over 100 starters. Guaranteed final slot for each nation will make it tempting for some athletes to start running for a less developed O nation just to get to WOC, like we have seen in other sports. Getting to WOC makes it easier to get sponsors, so why not. So, it is possible we may get soon over 100 starters.

100 starts means it will not be possible to use 3 min start interval, too long race, especially from TV perspective. And TV IOF has in mind for sure. So, it will be 2 or 1 min interval for long. Taking away following rule was smart move from this perspective, in near future following may become essential part of the WOC. Anyway, good spreading methods are needed and traditionally that means long courses will have lots of short legs. Additionlly, 100 runners means there will be elephant tracks, makes essential to get late start and also makes corses easier harder to make mistakes - and unfortunately that also makes race more boring to watch.

So far the main argument for allowing following and running together has been the late start slot was earned in qual race. If there is no qual race that argument will not be that valid any longer. Makes it hard to figure out a good scheme for making start order to make following as fair as it is today.

Feels like using just nations best result for determining nations strength. Using more than one may give too much advantage to those nations with several runners. But maybe using not just last year something like last three years, so on unlucky stomach flu will not drop strong team down to one slot category. Or maybe only one start slot change per year, even if there is a win or no result.

Jagge>> TV transmission time does not necessarily need to be longer just because more runners are added. Just start the transmission when the "good" runners start to arrive at the intermediate controls. No need to show too much time from runners who will probably not make the podium. Just like TV does in many other sports, e.g. alpine skiing.
Otherwise: I agree mostly with your reasoning.

100 starters seems likely, but the long podium is already dominated by people running in groups. Two minute interval is a joke, this year...
2 min down on Lundanes = faster than silver,
4 mins down = faster than bronze

2 mins down on Niggli = faster than bronze
4 mins down = 4th

Not much incentive to do more than jog the first section!

If 3*100 mins is too long, surely better to have shorter start interval for the early starters. As for starting order plenty of sports manage seeding without qualifying races.

Nation's strength is based on best runner at previous WOC

It's not entirely fair to compare best runner if some nations has 3 attempts and some just one. Maybe on option cold be comparing three, two and one start slot nations separately. For example we could have 6 nations with 3 slots and 5 with 2 and one for the rest. Three best "3 slot nations" stay as such, the rest 3 would go down to "2 slot group". The 2 best "2 slot nations" go up to "3 slot group", and two last ones would go down to the "one slot group". And the best "one slot nation" goes straight to 3 slot group and two next best to the 2 slot group. End up as a game of its own, but does that matter? We would get interesting fight for future start slots, not just medals. Any nation could be get 3 slots in one year by running well, and one stomach flu would get a nation down more than one start slot.

>> Jagge Very good thoughts. I just wrote down what is in ITA proposal and this was and it will stay only a proposal from ITA. I think it is a good one and a good starting position (I hope also for IOF working group), as it is better than previous proposals. I am sure we will get even more advance&detail proposal after some time regarding all what you are saying. I think people realized that we need proposal which will look into every detail.

I think we heven't seen all possible solutions yet and with this kind of debate and brainstorming we can all find out more relavant approaches because for small nations it is good to know this in advance. I can say that these information will help us to evaluate IOF proposal when it will come onto the table.

And here are my thoughts
100 starters; I think we should first fix this number, because a lot of things can go differently (start order, start interval, TV,..) if you have one time 80 and another time 100 starters. At many WC races you have around 80 starters but I haven't heard about any protest because of elephant tracks in the woods. If we for a second say that LongF is exactly 80 starters we could go down and see what is possible to do and not vice versa.

Today LongF consist with athletes from 25-27 countries, so around half of countries which are present at WOC today qualified at least 1 runner into Final. Let say we give max. 25 spots for all countries after best 26 country on nations list. These countries should not have guaranteed final slot but they can get it thru some kind of qualification system. At the end they will need to fight with other 30-35 countries to get it. Good for development, good for WOC.

Then it remains available 55 spots which is more than 45 spots as we have it today. All countries get 1 guaranteed final slot but from here to 2 and 3 final spots should be some kind of better qualification model than just who have better high placed athlete. Also maybe some exceptions e.g. if country with 1 runner achieve place inside TOP 12 nations AUTOMATICALY gets 2 slots for next WOC and if country with 2 runners achieve place inside TOP 3 nations AUTOMATICALY get 3 slots for next WOC.

I also like your idea about three years period and "one start slot change per year, even if there is a win or no result". Starting position could be in year 2014-16 where all countries will still have 3 attempts. New WOC rules should be clear before this transition period.

Most seem to agree that qualification on only last years WOC is too little and that qualification on WRE would be unfair. But how about using regional championships, World Cup and WOC from 2 or more years ago? Is this also unfair in some way or do the events need to be more standardized before it can work?

@Eriol. Look at participation at the World Cup races over the past year or two. It'll be fine for SWE/NOR/FIN/SUI.

If World Cup was actually important for anything then maybe more countries would take part. If not even IOF believes in the current World Cup structure, then just let it die and make room for some other qualification races. Remember that we are talking about qualification for runner number 2 and 3 on the team here. If a federation can't be bothered to send runners to international events other than WOC, do they really deserve more places in WOC finals?

If cost (and environmental impact) of intercontinental travel is a big concern then organise World Cup events near WOC in both distance and time and make them qualifiers for NEXT years WOC. This years World Cup in Switzerland three weeks prior to the championships is a good example.

Or instead of three weeks, maybe three days. Which WOC had its opening ceremony after the qualie races? (2004?)
Then instead of qualifying for this year's WOC, you qualify for next year's WOC, except it mightn't be you, but rather a compatriot.

That is silly (although Neil must mean it to be). If you're going have qualifiers right before WOC (3 weeks or 3 days) why would you not use them for the current year?

Now that I actually have a real job, I probably could afford the ~$4000 in flights to get to Europe for the World Cups, where I will still have to pay for accommodation and entry fees ($100 per race). But because I have a job, I have 15 combined sick and vacation days per year, so forget that. Tom Reynolds is right; this is just going to lead to fewer starts and less interest for non-European nations.

Not just non-European, any team with limited budgets. You can include Slo/Svk/Cro/Ser/Mol/Ukr/Pol/Blr/Esp/Por/Rus... ... too.

The difference between three days and three weeks is that tough middle and long distance races three (or even two) weeks prior to WOC doesn't make any of the medal contenders skip races where they have the chance for a medal. For me as a "fan" that is quite important. But maybe there are other more important objectives for WOC than to decide who are the best orienteers in the world, what do I know?

This is true. But at least when I was poor in France, I could still afford to take the train to Switzerland or Easy Jet to Portugal. But yes, WOC and World Cups are expensive and making them all essentially mandatory is going to mean some really tough decisions.

Thierry last year (in a most inspirational WOC) and Simone this year won three golds. You're obfuscating.

So what says Thierry wouldn't have won four golds if he started in the sprint too? I mean he is a former sprint champion and the only thing stopping him from taking part was the tough competition programme with 7 races in 8 days. So can we really be sure Daniel Hubmann was the worlds best sprint orienteer in 2011...?

And I'm not talking about mandatory qualification races. I'm just saying that having only WOC the previous year as a qualifier will not be enough. Ideally, a good performance at WOC should secure a place or places for next year, but there should be other ways to get there too.

I have personally no real opinion whether places should be personal, national or regional (to be decided at regional champs). My only clear opinion is that the qualification shouldn't be seen as a burden for people who are actual medal contenders. Many of them have enough of that with just the national qualification process.

So can we really be sure Daniel Hubmann was the worlds best sprint orienteer in 2011...

Absolutely! Otherwise I'll claim that I am the best sprint orienteer in the world except that I chose not to qualify for national team thus forgoing chance to participate at WOC because of other commitments I had.

Eriol: "If a federation can't be bothered to send runners to international events other than WOC, do they really deserve more places in WOC finals?"

Erik, do you really think that federations can't be "bothered" to send teams? Have you considered that they don't have any money to send teams?

The only rich teams are NOR, SWE, FIN, DEN, SUI and FRA. These are also countries that have very high GDP. Countries like USA, CAN, AUS, NZL, IRL and GBR (Our 2013 budget it £0.00) have essentially no funding from the federation, but at least we have good GDP and can get try and get the money ourselves. Countries like EST, LTU, LAT, UKR, BUL, BLR, POL, SVK, POR, ESP, ITA etc have little national support and also much worse economies.

And as for World Cups, give me a break. There is absolutely nothing worldly about the World Cup. Let's have a look back at the last 5 years...

Removing EOC and WOC the "World" Cup looks like this:
SUI - 10 races
SWE - 8
NOR - 7
FIN - 5
CZE - 2
FRA - 1

And what about 2012? ALL THE RACES, including WOC and EOC are in NOR, SWE, FIN and SUI. Has anyone noticed a trend yet? Not only do the weaker nations constantly have to travel to your races, but we also have to compete against the best nations on home terrain. And I don't think anyone can claim there isn't a home advantage.

"So can we really be sure Daniel Hubmann was the worlds best sprint orienteer in 2011...?"

What an interesting question. At WC #1 he was 5th, but only beaten by Swiss guys. Maybe Kyburz was the best sprinter in 2011, but he didn't get to run WOC. Maybe Kyburz should have been running instead of William Lind. After all, Lind was 18th in his heat. Behind runners from HUN, ISR, ITA, SVK, POR, BUL, NZL, ESP, GER and ROU.

We still don't know how they intend to actually calculate the numbers for the finals, be it previous WOC, WC, Continental Champs, WRE or some combination. However, I have my reservations.

I think the top nations will be fine. They still get 3 runners in each race, and now there is no chance of an upset in the qualifications and getting knocked out. In fact, the new system is better for the top nations.

The worst nations will also do quite well. Before they would almost never qualify anyone through to the final (especially in the forest), but now they will have 1 person automatically in each final. Is this good for the sport? Well it makes it look more international. But who wants to explain to the IOC that the Kenyan was DSQ because he only found 2 controls in as many hours, or the Korean guy went missing for awhile, but he was eventually found and brought back on a bus. The IOF might want to move the timing-out DSQ rule as well if they don't want the results to look a bit bad.

The middle nations are the ones going to lose out. This year they had 3 opportunities to qualify into the final, of course they didn't get 3 people through in every race, but the athletes were given the chance. Now they will have no chance.

Any new system that is created will be unfair. That's the problem, someone is always going to be losing out. The old (current) system, which is what I would have voted for means everyone comes to WOC as equals. You have to earn your spot in the final on the qualification day yourself. Many people do not qualify in the first year, but the learn a lot and come back stronger. Now they don't have to opportunity to gain WOC experience.

Now what about the relay? Let's say your sprinters are just sprinters, and don't run forest. And Let's say that your 1 middle runner is also your 1 long runner, this is likely for some countries. Now you have to fly in 2 people just to have a relay team. If the federation has no money, and the people are poor, they will not pay for flights, accommodation, food, transport and crazy entry fees just to get 1 WOC race, will they?

There is also the point that the best countries should have more than 3 runners, I am not against this. I think we all know that there are some very good orienteers who didn't make their national team, but would actually do very well at WOC. Last year SUI placed 5 guys in top 6 in two WC races.

I really think this has been rushed through, we don't even know what the system will be, so how can it be voted for. You wouldn't vote for a yet-to-be-determined politician, would you?

I think a more middle ground could have been found, the best people/nations are pre-qualified, and the less good ones go into the qualification races. Or maybe everyone gets 1 runner in the final, the strongest from last year are pre-qualified, and then anyone extra has to go through a qualifying round.

This wasn't very coherent, but just some of my thoughts.

Just noting that, while I won't be actively responding to every point raised at this point, I'm keeping an eye on this thread (but was already well aware of many of the issues raised here). I'm interested in good ideas from anywhere, especially if they involve specific proposals as opposed to general principles - if there's one thing I've learned so far in the previous round of trying to develop qualification methods (as part of the initial WOC in the Future project about 18 months ago), it's that methods which look attractive at first glance can break down when it comes to the specific details.

Assuming that's what it ends up being, a field size of 70-80 does provide quite a bit of room. With 45 countries in the field (fairly typical of present levels), you have space for 10 countries with three runners, 10 with two, and a few wildcard spots (e.g. from regional championships).

I haven't yet discussed process yet, but would expect that the timing of consultation (and I'm keen for as open a consultation process as possible) would be late this year, after the Foot O Commission and Council have had a chance to comment on a draft of options at their October meetings.

Hear hear Nixon

Another point is that for the 'poorer' counties (like NZ) our best runners dont target every WOC as a yearly WOC is just not possible for some. If qualification was based off the year before our best could miss out.

1. sprint qualification + final
2. "long qualification" / "chase prologue" (3 heats) + chase start final (based on long qualification. Heat winners start together, "one man relay with 3 loops")
3. ---rest day--
5. mixed sprint relay
4. middle final, 45 finalist
7. ---rest day---
6. old school relay
8. long final, 45 finalists, like today (but with actual spreading)

No qualification for middle. Nation's strength (slots and start groups) is based sprint qualification and long qualification races. All nations can have set 3 + 3 runners in those qual races.

There would be so eagerly wanted mixed relay, there would be so so much needed first-in-finish race, every day would be a medal day, everything inside 8 day frame, no WR or WC points needed, no plain qualification races, no too many finalists and possibility to limit number of finalists even more. You drop chase final and make it one plain qual race if there can't be chase, but then there would be again a no medal day and one so much unwanted and hated plain qual race.

"So can we really be sure Daniel Hubmann was the worlds best sprint orienteer in 2011...?"

Not based on a one-off race. But the point about the schedule being too demanding for the top athletes to contest the world champs is a persuasive argument for the new system. Whatever, there will still qualification races devolved back down to national level: maybe Kyburz was the best in 2011, but (presumably) he had a fair chance to perform at his best in the Swiss trial, and it wasn't enough. There are benefits to everyone, except those athletes who think running the WOC qualifier is a big deal.

For the top athletes, it becomes possible to contest all disciplines. Whatever IOF may pretend, its broadly the same people who are best in each.
For smaller countries with at best one runner qualifying, its possible for the top runner to still be in some sort of shape for the relay.
A guaranteed place in the final is surely a big incentive. To me, the classic 90 minute race is still the main event - yet many countries never have any athlete running over that distance! (the qualifier being a different distance)

Having praised the format, I would still like to see a route where an athlete can in principle become world champion based on their performance rather than on someone else's opinion (i.e. without national selection). A small number of places available through qualification in open races would provide this. Maybe a pre-WOC selection race open to the highest finishers in the National Championships who didn't get a selection. One of the nicest thing at our Park World Tour was seeing Tuomas Kari come through the open qualifier to take third place. This would also give the relay team members from the smaller nations a race to focus on: there is a real danger that with only three individual places (maybe the same person), countries may not send a relay team.

Thanks Nixon.

10 countries with three runners, 10 with two...
I hope that we won't get a 3 fixed groups with pre-defined number of spots based on some kind of Federation League table. System must be more flexible so we can have xy countries with 3 spots and xy with 2 spots inside the pool. I suppose we also need to have clear inormation what is the high class performance which can earn 2nd or 3rd spot? I think WRE points and WC points are not good enough indicators. Can we use time-lags? You could be 6th on Long with 15% behind and 20th on Middle with 8% behind. What is worth more in eyes of WOC qualifying rules? Maybe combination of place and time.

And what about when a country has 1 excellent runner and no one else, compare them to a country that has 3 average runners.

Until recently Kiril Nikolov was the only good Bulgarian. Should his strong performances allow more Bulgarian runners, even if none of them were good enough? (Now the other Bulgarian's are getting good, but just trying to think of an example) Compare them to Belorussia, no super-stars but 3 good guys who can qualify for the finals no problem.

And look at the big improvements made by Latvia in just 1 year. Bertuks is now World Champion, they were 1, 13, 21 and 9, 24 in the middle race. Kalvis Mihailovs probably wouldn't have run on the new system and he had 13th & 16th in middle/long.

Similarly, a misspunch or injury removing what could have been a good position could now see a nation lose runners for the next year.

A rolling average could be more stable, and also rule out home advantage. We could have the situation where Italy has very few runners in 2014 in Itlay, but then has loads in 2015 Scotland... that would be a bit strange. Doesn't FIFA have a multi-year rolling score for their rankings?

Perhaps the home nation should be guaranteed a full set of 3 runners for all races. This would make it a lot easier for the organisers to promote WOC to their home media. I don't think the BBC would be very interested in WOC 2015 if we only had 1 person in each forest distance.

Kyburz was actually running the Sprint at WOC 2011 (SUI had four spots). He won his heat during qualification but screwed up the final and only got a 20+ place. He did much better this year ;-)

Until recently Kiril Nikolov was the only good Bulgarian. Should his strong performances allow more Bulgarian runners, even if none of them were good enough?
I think, yes. But not more than 1 spot even if he would be a champion each year. For third spot BUL should produce another Nikolov. And this should be valid also for FIN/SWE/NOR/SUI.

Compare them to Belorussia, no super-stars but 3 good guys who can qualify for the finals no problem.
You must stop thinking who can qualify for the finals based on today's system. I am sure (99%) that new system will suport high class performances more than only average performances. And average between 3 and 1 is 2 spots. So both BUL and BLR can end up with two spots.

I don't quite understand what you mean in your second paragraph. But I don't think the system supports high performances. It supports becoming the best in your country. For the very best, nothing changes. For the very worst they no longer have to try and qualify, all they have to do is be the best in their country. This is actually lowering the incentive, I think. Even though the final goal is to do the best you can in the final. Before you'd have to train your arse off just to make the final, but now there are going to be many people who are in the final by default.

In the average countries there will now be a much bigger focus on the national selection races, in fact, these will probably become more of a focus than WOC for all but the very best. You have to win your selection races now, and that gets you into the final. So people will be training to peak at their selection races to guarantee WOC finals, not peaking for WOC to guarantee WOC finals.

Bertuks is now World Champion, they were 1, 13
If system will be fair and competitive than FIN should lose 1 spot and LAT gets 3th spot or both with 3 spots. It must be clear that each year you could win or lose only 1 spot as Jagge said. This will give us stability into system.

For "The worst nations" I think KEN deserves to be present at WOC but maybe if its runner can't make a performance inside the predefined time-lag KEN shouldn't be allowed to have guaranteed spot or something similar.

It supports becoming the best in your country.
Your assumption is that each country has 1 guaranteed final slot. Qualifying system should be competitive and not charity. As I said you could have 25 spots reserved for "worst nations" but they must still earn this spot with decent performances. If not they can wait for wild card.

Kofols... my point is they wouldn't have been able to get those positions, because they would not have been running, because they didn't do so good the year before. Do you see? If you have 1 person you only have 1 chance to do well. Even though your 2 people sitting at home could have done good as well. As I said, Mihailovs probably wouldn't have been at WOC and he was better than most of the Norwegians and Finns. That way they couldn't have knocked Finland down from the top tier... The system protects the top teams and keeps the small ones down.

Look...in earlier post I wrote.....Starting position could be in year 2014-16 where all countries will still have 3 attempts. New WOC rules should be clear before this transition period.

I don't think that IOF will jump on new system without transition period. Is this fair enough for you?

"Your assumption is that each country has 1 guaranteed final slot"

The IOF proposal quite clearly states that there will be 1 starting place for all nations.

Italy have said that they will adopt the new system, Scotland have said that if Italy adopt the new system, so will they. I very much doubt that Sweden would go backwards. So actually we have 1 year. And yes, of course I think the IOF would jump on a new system, that's exactly what they are doing!

"The IOF proposal quite clearly states that there will be 1 starting place for all nations."
I think this statement will be broken if we want to have competitive system.

I think many things about the proposal will probably change...

@kofols 100 starters;

In 1993 we had 86 starters. Home nation USA had three runners and winner Mogenson ran round on his own.
But it was a long day control-watching in the rain ;(


clearly states that there will be 1 starting place for all nations
and so you assume there will be one for each nation :)

it was a long day

not if you had as much beer as we did.

>>graeme :)
We need to wait and see. If you compare Council proposal in IOF Congress Binder and IOF news after the congress you will notice that this "all nations guaranteed one starting place" is somehow knocked out from the news.

OK, OK! I never wanted to an annual WOC with five finals and a sprint qualifier. I'm just trying to stay on topic and somewhat constructive. The question was: What qualification system do we want to have for middle and long WOC finals? And your not allowed to bring back qualification races inside the WOC week or have split urban and forest championships because the IOF congress just voted clearly against those ideas.

And to me it seems like both Nixon, Fly'n and kofols agree with me that it's not enough with just last years WOC as the qualification race. So what do you suggest? Older WOCs, Regional Champs, World Cup, a completely new set of qualification races or maybe a lottery or rolling scheme for what countries can take part with a full team? Should qualification be personal, national, regional or a combination of them?

And if you're from an average country and need to peak for the national selection races then you are clearly not a medal contender and nobody cares if you're a bit out of shape at WOC. I do really respect the people writing in this thread but this is turning into "Booo! Evil IOF just ruined my perfect vacation where I get to run top class courses on top class maps in top class terrain (well sometimes) and meet good friends!" Is WOC really the only event that matters to you or is it just the only event you have any chance of getting sponsorship for? Are you absolutely sure quality events clearly labeled "WOC Qualifier" doesn't have the same appeal?

Well, if the IOF's opinion really is that average countries should just stay home, then just use the World Cups as the qualifiers. Problem solved: orienteering for the real orienteering countries.

I probably shouldn't be so snarky. Maybe this is just me processing that after next year, I will most likely never run an individual forest race at WOC again. If I were the Canadian selectors, I would just give Emily Kemp our one place in the middle and long, then everyone else can just work on their sprinting or spend their 'vacation' somewhere other than WOC.

And that is a big problem!

(but I do think Canada will have more than one spot for women, no? With a full team last year we finished 12 in the relay, suggesting we'd qualify in the 2 runner per final category?)

Carol, you could keep training in the off-chance Emily walks down a corridor again (ouch). Even if Canada makes the two slot cut, some other country will face that problem. And AZ, you hardly think Relay performance will give individual slots, do you? And if so, what will you do when you (already) no longer send relay teams?

The current system is at least fair.

And if you're from an average country and need to peak for the national selection races then you are clearly not a medal contender and nobody cares if you're a bit out of shape at WOC

It is a big deal for developing O-nations that their best athletes have their best performances at the Worlds. It increases popularity of the sport within that particular nation when their athlete places well at World stage.

Considering that WOC is getting too crowded lately it is fair and probably needed to develop some kind of qualifying criteria. However even if it is just single athlete competing from "average" O-nation they should have their fair chance to perform at their best.

@ndobbs - I was a little tongue in cheek, suggesting that Relay performance would determine standings. But, heck, why not? Then at least we'd be sending three athletes (of each gender), if they'd be willing to go. And then the relay would be a smashingly exciting affair - with the #2 and #3 runners really fighting for a place in the next year's WOC middle/long finals. How exciting to see which teams come in the top 10 (to earn three place in next years WOC) - and the battle for 10 and 11 become something truly worthy of TV entertainment. Even the battle for 19, 20, 21

@ndobbs - it is actually a good point that no matter whether these things affect Canada / US / NZ or who ever we specifically care about, the problem will no doubt always exist for some nations. I think this is a massive problem with this entire issue and it will take some really good thinkers to find a general solution that makes WOC more fun to watch for spectators and also more motivating for athletes from all nations and also an event that will attract many orienteers from around the world to share ideas.

@ AZ - Was there anything about WOC 2011 (bar the sprint OOB issues) that was not fun to watch for spectators? I thought it was fantastic.

and @ AZ - do you think this year's Long/Relay terrain should materially affect who gets to compete in Finnish terrain next year?

Canadas best ever men's result for WOC was in 1985 in Oz. WOC was only every two years then and Canada never sent enough members for a relay.
Luckily Ted didn't say 'Im not going allthat way for one race'!.

How did WOC work back then? Canada sent a team in '83 - http://oldsite.orienteering.org/index.php/iof2006/...

There were more relay teams in '83 than '85, but more individual runners in '85 than '83, according to those pages. That seems strange.
http://oldsite.orienteering.org/index.php/iof2006/...

Yep, for sure I think this year's relay would be a great way to determine starts in Finland. It might not be as good as other more complex methods but it has great spectator & TV appeal because of the element of drama and simplicity. Plus it give each country three runners all with something serious to fight for

As for WOC 2011 - it was fun to watch for we O addicts, but I think we could spice things up to appeal to a wider audience.

How about this: Just skip the middle tier teams! Nobody wants to be average anyway. Let the 15 best countries have three runners each for middle and long + a relay spot. The rest will have just one spot in the individual races and no relay spot. Make the mixed relay the new place to showcase the globalness of orienteering. This makes for much less thinking and tactical manouvering when it comes to selection and finances for a WOC team. Either you get to send a minimal team with three of each gender where at least two are sprint specialists or you get a full team with maximum seven just like we have today.

The worst 5 out of the full teams of course lose their automatic place for next year. New Zealand can easily give up their full team if they don't want to send it and maybe save some qualification points for later? Add som Wild Card places for regional champions and such and we're pretty much set for the new age of orienteering.



(And no, I'm not sure I'm completely serious about this, but it's probably pretty close to what the IOF council would like to see.)

ndobbs: Probably they needed to have qualification races in Hungary but not in remote Australia. Found the results from -89, and the way it worked then was two heats with 25 best from each qualifying + each country with none qualified had a "free" spot in the final.

I like the idea of personal qualification using regional Champs.Doesn't XC skiing use Continental Cups much in the same way? Imagine this... Win the future annual and hosted in early spring elite NAOC and you are off to WOC.

@Eriol, that makes sense (that last point :) ).

@hammer, that's a whole lot better for USA/CAN/NZL/AUS than for Blr/Mol/Ukr/Srb/etc etc ...

Eriol's right - 1983 had qualifying races, 1985 didn't.

@ndobbs: Yeah that is true but there could be some spots for certain countries within a region.

To be honest, the best way to determine how many competitors a country gets to send is probably to base it on a relay. Most likely the previous year's WOC relay, though there are other possibilities. Think you deserve three spots? Show us your three athletes! Got one star and no depth? You only need one slot.

from various suggestions
" we could have 6 nations with 3 slots and 5 with 2 slots=28 runners. add another best 12 best ranked runners from 12 different countries ( not from 3 or 2 lots nations ). you have now guaranteed 40 runners in the finals. now 3 days before have qualifications where all countries can enter runners as per rule : the 6 nations with 3 slots one runner, the 5 nations with 2 slots -2 runners, the 12 nations with one runner- allow them 3 runners in qualif. and all others up to 4 runners. they will get the WOC experience, and will allow all countries to have enough runners for relay.
and from all qualif allow only top 20 to qualify . the finals will have max 60 competitors. organizers will have more participants, all countries can enter in qualif races - get potential WOC sponsors, experience etc..
or B -- reduce the formula from above by one runner for country ( stronger nations will be limited to 0 in qualif and more weaker nations will have more chances to get maybe an extra runner in the final.. ). those qualif. races will become more important for not so strong nations..

I thought the idea was to eliminate qualification races.

Nick, how do you decide what which nations are 3 slot nations and 2 slot nations? Qualifications aren't entirely removed here, but yes, might do, top athletes doesn't have to run them and WOC organizer doesn't have to do qualifications if those are separate event and not organized by an other organizer.

How about making that qualification race entirely open event, sort of part of the spectator race? You might get more entries/profits, some might be running them just as as a spectator race, some trying their luck to get to the actual WOC race.

the 3 and 2 slot nations to be decided based on-- previous results, WRE ranking or other ranking. opening the qualif race entirely will add (obvioulsy) runners to the final ( most likely from stronger nations ) . yes this will limit the numbers from stronger nations but open the chance for other ( the bonus is that many more countries will have the magic 3 for - maybe a relay ).. i know is not the best option- maybe just another option.
and yes the qualif races are eliminated for best 40 runners-

@jjcote - after sleeping on it I like the relay qualification even more for exactly that reason - it also gives a measure of depth

And then Canada would send three (or more) women runners - three to run in relay, two to run in mixed sprint relay, all three to run sprint Q, one to run Long F, one to run Middle F. So all of a sudden maybe it doesn't look so bad for Carol, especially since Canadian women would likely earn two spots in Long F & Middle F. She'd be guaranteed Relay + Sprint Q start, plus likely would get at least one other. On the Canadian men's side though it would be tougher, since we have depth but trouble in the relay so likely just four guys selected (one relay "spare" in case of injury?)

I think this would also encourage more relays in North America which I believe is a good thing for the development of the sport.

So Blair, I think you're done ;-)

@ndobbs - also after thinking more about it, I don't think any qualification scheme would bother trying to consider "similar terrain"

I'm certainly attracted to the option of including the relay as part of the scheme, although you would also need, I think, to ensure that the points system was such that countries with very strong individual results didn't lose their third runner just because of a relay DNF. As stated earlier in this thread, an added benefit of this is that it would add a lot of interest to various midfield battles in the relay (although you'd need a very on-the-ball commentator to keep track of the scenarios).

Relays are so different, running in packs, following allowed and so on, result a lot up to how long team manages to stay in contact with main group, luck with forkings, one small early mistake so easily spoils everything. I am not sure how big part relay should play here.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, what are people's opinions of other sports' systems to (for example) qualify for Olympics/Worlds? I've heard some horror stories, but then other sports seem to tick along just fine. We're not the first sport to travel this path.

To be honest 99% of the ideas on here are a load of shit, much like the IOF voted future format.

Should start a parallel/rival international federation call it World Orienteering Federation WOF or something, make up some belts as titles and can have multiple world champs, with different qualification systems all over the show. You could even do deals to have unification races and dodgy promoters to try and make money off the TV revenue

Lets just have a World Champion belt which is up for grabs at each race the current holder competes in.

Don't forget weight categories... Toni Louhisola for the 100kg+

The very idea of using relays rests on a presumption that the number of slots should be the same in all disciplines. I would hope they would not.

I've come up with a pretty good model, works quite well.

Top 6 teams get 3 runners, next 8 (7-14th) get 2 runners, everyone else gets 1. Each distance and each gender is calculated separately based purely on the previous years WOC race.

(I'm not going to reveal my scoring system just yet)

I've tested it on 2010 results for 2011 allowances, and it works quite well. Now doing 2011 results for 2012 allowances.

It's quite basic, but allows 1 excellent runner to move up into the 2nd tier if they run well. It also allows for DSQ/DNF.

At the moment everyone score against each other, so you can go from 3 runners to 1 in theory, but probably not from 1 up to 3 in just 1 year.

i like Fly's suggestion. fits in the 99% slot :)

The very idea of using relays rests on a presumption that the number of slots should be the same in all disciplines.

Or that there are multiple relay disciplines.

A guaranteed place in the final is surely a big incentive. To me, the classic 90 minute race is still the main event - yet many countries never have any athlete running over that distance!

Such as in 2012, when nobody from the western hemisphere did. Because the women's race is 75 minutes (which is its own separate problem.)

I like Nick's idea of having guaranteed entry direct into the final for a large proportion of the competitors. Then, have a qualification race to allow in a small additional number of competitors. This has the big advantage of supporting/encouraging the growth of elite-level orienteering in lesser countries. And, it lets the super-stars focus on the finals, without being bothered by the qualifications.

Cross-country skiing does something like this on a limited basis. For example, at the World Champs in 2011, a qualification race was held at 5 km/10 km classic, which allowed a limited number of athletes (10 per gender) into the 10 km/15 km classic final. See results at:
http://www.fis-ski.com/uk/604/1228.html?event_id=2...

If you are going to have 100 guys in each final, why not just let every nation have 3 runners in the final with some better way to get top runners starting in the end - would only be about 120-130 runners max based on last couple of years anyway. Adds one hour to the start block, TV won't care about the early runners anyway, and all the 'best' runners get more fair tracks in the forest so late start is not so important.....

whole idea was to make it easier for organisers, not having to organise extra races (ie. qualifiers)

the big problem with extending the start window is running spectator races alongside, which are a bigger component than you might think of a WOC.

Indeed.
Without the spectator races, WOC is a financial basket case.
And the UK experience is, if you decide not to run spectator races alongside, you've decided to lose 90% of your spectators.

Do TV companies want to be showing men's and women's finals at the same time? Probably not, they want to focus on one race at a time. So you need to be able to have spectator race and then first final and then second final. All in one day. Nothing wrong with 8am starts for spectator race though. Still, it'll turn into a long day.

And of course they will be overlap. The early starters in the first final will start before all the spectators have finished. And the early starters in the second final will start before the first final has finished.

Helpers arrive to set up 5:30 am
4 hour 6-day start block, start 8 am
100*3 mins = 5 hours WOC men final
100*3 mins = 5 hours WOC women final start
80 mins for last woman to finish at 11.20pm
Site packed up by 2am.

I think not.

We need to have simultaneous races with a common assembly. This was certainly doable in our last WOC areas - West Guisachan/Plodda, Cawdor/Dallaschyle. Loch Vaa/Kinchurdy&Granish.

I'm not sure where the 100 person per final number has come from. Simulating the new system for this year I get 68 people in the men's middle final (not done it for other finals yet). Even if there is a large surge of new nations or passport hunters, I'd say 80 finalists was a more reasonable estimate.

The long race next year is having a 2 minute start interval (middle 1:30).

8-12 > 6-days start block, courses close at 14:30
10:30-13:10 > Men's start block, finishing from 12:45-14:50
12:45-15:25 > Women's start block, finishing from 15:00-16:40

If the o-ringen can have 8am starts then a 6-days with WOC can too.

The majority of things can be set up the night before. In fact everything apart from flags and punches.

And with the new programme there will almost certainly be a rest day after the long final. Giving plenty of time for the arena to be taken down and critical parts transported to the next final.

And of course the WOC Long final day could be the 6-days middle distance day. So most people are going round in 30-60mins...

>>The long race next year is having a 2 minute start interval (middle 1:30).

Where is this information from?

Bulletin 2, available on here: http://www.woc2013.fi/woc/sp?open&cid=content36107...

15.4. Start intervals
The starting interval of the middle distance fi nal will be 1.30 minutes. The starting
interval of the long distance fi nal will be 2 minutes. This deviation from the rules has
been approved by the IOF.

Is it allowed to have the spectator race in the terrain before the WOC race?
If tracking up is an issue (as it is in Scotland in August) this would make things fairer for early WOC starters.

I've no idea what the rules are. In 2003 the public race before the relay was definitely on the same terrain, but with different start/finish.

If it's before then I can't imagine it's a problem. But if it's during then there may be issues. Obviously they would never have the same controls.

At Europeans this year I ran past several public race controls (SI compared to our Emit). I also had to run through the big line of people walking back to the arena from their remote finish.

Having lots of runners in the finals also lead to problems with quarantine if you want fair competitions. Regardless of the amenities available you can't imprison atheletes for infinite amounts of time.

I don't really like the idea of WOC being slapped onto an existing orienteering carnival. WOC is the main event, the spectator races have to manage with the crumbs. To me it's a bit worrying that you already know how many middle distances there will be at the 6-days in 2015... And it is possible to compress the start window for spectator races by splitting large classes and using short start intervals. It was done quite successfully at EOC this spring with 5000 people attending.

I also think the only sensible thing is to always let the long final be the last day of the championships. This is what cross-country skiing always do with the 50 and 30 km, and it was tried at WOC at least once (in Hungary right?) without any major complaints.

http://www.attackpoint.org/discussionthread.jsp/me... continues.

Scheme for middle. Simple, the best placed runners get start slot for their nation unless the nation already have three places (maximum). If we use 2012 sprint qualification results and long qual (instead of the prologue) and we aim for minimum of 45 runners, the cut of men would have been place 9 and for women 11. Start places for middle would have looked like this, mouse over nation should show runners who earned slots for their nation.

M
3 Czech Republic
3 Finland
3 France
3 Great Britain
3 Norway
3 Russia
3 Sweden
3 Switzerland
2 Australia
2 Austria
2 Belgium
2 Bulgaria
2 Denmark
2 Hungary
2 Lithuania
2 Romania
1 Belorussia
1 Estonia
1 Germany
1 Ireland
1 Italy
1 Latvia
1 Poland
1 Spain

48 competitors, 25 nations

W
3 Czech Republic
3 Denmark
3 Finland
3 Great Britain
3 Hungary
3 Lithuania
3 Norway
3 Russia
3 Sweden
3 Switzerland
2 Austria
2 Belgium
2 Bulgaria
2 France
2 New Zealand
2 Poland
2 Ukraine
1 Estonia
1 Latvia
1 United States of America

47 competitors, 21 nations

Eriol, the theoretical quarantine time of 5 hours for the schedule I just posted would be exactly the same as the longest quarantine time for the sprint distance at the European Champs sprint event this year in Sweden. So if it's OK for Sweden to imprison athletes at the Eurpoeans, it should be OK for other countries to do it at WOC...

These are all just suggestions, none of these things are real or certain to happen. Just mind experiments to work out feasibility.

There is nothing wrong with WOC being held alongside an already established multi-day event. And it is really the best way of doing things for smaller nations.

And I don't know how many middle events there will be in 2015, I was being hypothetical.

Because sprint and long races are relevant for middle.

The current system works. The only three arguments I've heard against it are too much work for organisers, the Swiss don't get to enter six men in each race, and Olav didn't get to run the sprint. Compared with all the possible arguments *against* the proposed systems?

Jagge>>> The IOF has clearly established that sprint, middle and long distance events are different in character. It would therefore be unfair in my opinion to allow performances in one distance of one character to count for selection for another distance of another character.

The system should be based purely in the previous years WOC. World Cup, WRE and continental champs are unfeasible for various reasons that I will go into if people wish

The allowances for each distance should be calculated separately, and also for each sex as well.

I strongly believe it would be in the sports interest if the home nation have at least 2 runners in each distance. It will increase media interest, publicity and also the domestic spectators.

Neil, I completely agree. But unfortunately we have been forced to take a new system. So the best thing we can do is come up with a fair way to allocate the runner allowances at WOC. I've got a good model at the moment, but I need to trial it out a bit more. The top tier and 2nd tier teams based on 3 years worth of results all seem fair.

At the moment all 3 tiers compete against each other. I might try a few models where there is at least 1 promotion and 1 relegation from each tier. I'd probably have it that if there are movements, then just let them happen, but if there aren't movements then the lowest/highest teams would swap. Although this could be very unfair if the relegated team was actually significantly better than the promoted team and lost out only just.

I don't really like the idea of WOC being slapped onto an existing orienteering carnival. WOC is the main event
OK, but realise what you're actually saying is
"I like the idea of self-financing WOC (to be clear - that's $1000 entry fees) and hardly any spectators".

Jagge >>> IOF proposal clearly states that every nation is guaranteed one place, so any model should use this.

Based on 2012 results, the 2013 allowances from my model would be thus:

Middle Men
FRA, SUI, LAT, SWE, FIN, RUS x3
NOR, UKR, CZE, EST, AUT, DEN, CRO, ITA x2
(HUN, BLR, SVK, GBR = best of rest)
Middle Women
SWE, FIN, SUI, RUS, DEN, CZE x3
LAT, LTU, GBR, NOR, HUN, UKR, FRA, AUT x2
(ESP, AUS, EST, CHN = best of rest)
Long Men
NOR, FRA, LAT, SUI, CZE, DEN x3
SWE, FIN, BLR, LTU, ITA, RUS, BUL, AUT x2
(GBR, HUN, ROU, POL = best of rest)
Long Women
FIN, SUI, SWE, RUS, NOR, CZE x3
DEN, HUN, FRA, LTU, UKR, GBR, AUT, EST x2
(LAT, POL, BEL, CAN = best of rest)

Notice how Norway's relatively poor WOC (excluding Olav's amazing long) sees them drop down into 2nd tier for 3/4 races.

Also, I know there are mistakes in there, it was just quick pen & paper

I use a conservative 6 nations with x3 and 8 nations with x2... I'd hope in reality it would be more than this, maybe 8 and 10 (plus World Champ =45). Then all the single runners on top of that. That would give 80 runners if there were 53 nations like this year. I guess with guaranteed final would bring in more nations, but probably not more than 60-65 in next few years.

graeme: No, what I'm saying is that the established carnival should be flexible, not a set in stone 6-days with 1 middle, 5 long and a rest day or whatever. Schedule WOC first, then see what spectator races you can fit into the programme. Use the existing WOC competition and training maps effectively. If a spectator race absolutely won't work on a given day, then it will be resting and actual spectating for the spectators. By the way, is a sprint day for the so called "punters" just as unthinkable in Scotland as it is at O-ringen?

The 6-days has had sprint for years, but on the rest day so unofficial. British people like "value for money". They think that time of running is directly related to value or enjoyment...

A shame, huh?

Since you ask...
I planned a sprint race at the 6-day in 2001, in Forres (probably WOC venue). It remains the 6-day course with the largest number of runners.
There's normally a sprint race on the "rest day", which is quite popular.
I hope there will be spectator races on the WOC sprint areas: it will mean (many) more spectators for WOC.

But there's no appetite from the participants (elite aside) to change the six-regular-races format. We questionnaire them every year, and every year they say no. Not broke, don't fix.

As it happens, there's no reason why the proposed WOC 2015 forest areas can't have two races simultaneously from the same assembly.
And you might guess I'm pushing that we should do just that!

Having a 6-day middle wouldn't make a whole heap of difference to the area you need - elite men's middle distance is already about 2/3rd the length of the longest course.

"Having a 6-day middle wouldn't make a whole heap of difference to the area you need "

Nope, but you'll be able to scrape the punters out of the woods in half the time... hopefully!

@nixon As far as I understand the goal was making WOC easier to organize by removing qualification races, not letting everyone have on place, that can be seen just as an implication.

By using WRE, world cup of previous WOCs like you do is like giving up, any scheme will never be as good as letting the actual athletes fight for spots in finals. It would be in athletes own hands, do well and you get to finals. Half of the damage fixed by having sort of qual race for the long, and also middle finals wouldn't be out of reach for anyone just for historical reasons. With previous WOCs you are not comparing the actual today's athletes, just an other older teams/persons, in an other form, other circumstances and terrain types. Like now team Finland had just newbies running long in Switzerland, what previous WOCs results has to do with them - some other people running in whole different kind terrains in France / Norway? The small character difference you pinpointed is nothing compared to your approach of not even comparing same people.

What races would you use for personal qualification? WOC is the only race where all nations send their biggest and best teams. WC or WRE? WC is not a fair system due to its geographical spread, and you would now be forcing people from poorer nations to go to more races that they can't afford to do. WRE is not reliable enough.

As an athlete I feel it would be much fairer for everyone if previous WOC was used as it is the one event a year where everyone is at full strength.

Cycling uses a system where the country earns points in a season across UCI races to earn places. Last year GBR earned 9, but as only 8 people scored they could only take 8. But they didn't have to take the same 8 that scored. Horses for courses. If its a flat race you need rouleurs not grimpeurs. And unless the whole WC was in the WOC country you're not allowing the best orienteers in that terrain to get selected. Many nations have test races in WOC terrain to get the best runners for that style. They still have the chance to do this. Also, it leaves a legacy after good runners retire so a nation can still develop.

I have thought about all the aspects a lot, I have come up with what I think most athletes woul agree with. At some point you'd expect us to have some input.

And as I said, the IOF proposal clearly states 1 starter for every nation. It's not being implied, it's in the proposal.

I've only put time into runner allowance. What are people's ideas for start order? This will be harder to get fair I think.

In my approach slots earned by heat wins would start last, slots earned by being second would start before those and so on. And those places earned by barely making the cut would be starting first. Simple and fair.


From IOF's WOC in the future page:

After six months of intense work, the group presented its proposal, the main points being:

- Qualification events should be removed from the WOC with the exception of sprint qualification
– Every event day should be a medal day
– The number of medals to be awarded should be extended to six
– The programme should support the attendance of new and developing orienteering nations

More specifically, the proposal included:

- Dividing the WOC week into three logical blocks, “sprint”, “middle” and “traditional”
– Introducing a sprint relay for mixed teams (two women, two men)
– Introducing a first-to-finish event in the form of a prologue + chasing start

As you can see, goals here are pretty close to the one I have here. No sign of one guaranteed slot per nation. I don't think 1 starter for every nation is set in stone.

Then from the Council proposal: With the removal of the qualification races, participation in the different events needs to be based on a set of new principles. Such principles may evolve over time but the Council foresees the
application of the following principles should the new programme be accepted:

An there is one slot per nation. But there is that "foresee" and "may evolve", so it's surely not set in stone. Adding prologue + chase (mentioned in old original goals) and using the prologue and sprint quals for middle/ long qualification can easily be seen as evolving principles over time. If athletes want it. If they find using old wocs and WR points better, then so be it. But don't say it's set in stone. I'd go for it now because hope for having those old school qualifications is gone.

I think you are using old information.
Have a look at the IOF Congress 2012 binder, page 45 (of the PDF): http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03...

This is what was presented at the congress, and it clearly states 1 starter per nation, and I quote: "According to nation’s strength, maximum 3, all nations guaranteed one starting place, + reigning World Champion. Seeded start order"

I'm not saying it is set in stone, but it has clearly been stated in the latest information on the IOF proposal, so at the moment it must be considered.

In fact, not having it would probably be a step backwards in the IOF's eyes. At the moment Kenya can at least try and qualify at WOC, and they will at least be there. But if there are no Qs and not guaranteed starters for every race then how will new nations ever run in WOC. Qualifying through WRE or WC? How will they ever do that? The IOF want more nations, and so 1 starter per nation is on their proposal, as I have said time and time again.

And at the very page 45 right above that table it is written "... principles may evolve over time but the Council foresees the application of the following principles should the new programme be accepted: ". Doesn't sound like set in stone, but I may understand that chapter all wrong (lack of my language skills).

BTW, I wrote a script for fetching WOC results from winsplits online to calculate the scheme, Yo umight like to use something similar, let me know if you like to get help testing yours (if you are still doing it with pen&paper).


not guaranteed starters for every race then how will new nations ever run in WOC

In my scheme a new country comes with a team (7 males and 7 females), 3 + 3 of them runs sprint q, 3 + 3 runs chase proloque and final. Then 4 runs mixed relay and 3 + 3 normal relay. And if they get to sprint, long or middle final, they get to run those too.

The key bit you two are contesting in a gentleman-like manner may be "...should the new programme be accepted."
Presumably it has been, hence this thread. Therefore one should expect "application" of the principles. Shouldn't we?

Maybe, unless they are "evolved over time"?

Jagge > Who knows what "evolve over time" means for the IOF. I guess things will need to change when we go from 50 nations to 75, or even 100.

Perhaps the sprint is the best place for emerging nations, as it's probably the easiest to develop in a country with little orienteering (easy and quick to make maps in accessible places, e.g. cities), easiest for people to train for, and best chance of developing nations making the finals.

(I have now moved onto MS excel, very high tech! I'm probably not clever enough to use your programme to be honest!)

Tooms > Yes, I was assuming that, at least for the first few years, the 1 runner per nation would be applied. That is why I have used it in my models because I think the new WOC will at least start that way. Maybe with more nations in the future things will change. Who knows.

OK, even if there must be one place per nation there is nothing about the way nation's strength should be determined. So, by adding prologue and using it the way I described would do it, just add one slot for the nations not listed there. Would also solve start order problem nicely. And when the day comes and there is simply too much nations it would be easy to just make the cut somewhere, no big changes needed. (I know, prologue+chase is not included at the moment).

It's been a while, but the proposal and background papers are now public:

http://orienteering.org/foot-orienteering/woc-in-t...

This is now open for comment by national federations, and should be finalised at the April Council meeting.

Nice move on point 1.8 (Demand on minimum quality) and Nixon might owes me a beer :)

Blair,

this looks like a really well-thought out and informed proposal. Thank you for your (and others') work on this. I especially like the relegation/promotion rules; using only WOC results for determining the divisions, and the personalized start places for regional champions. I would love to see the spreadsheet with the simulation results that you refer to in the detailed description of the WOC Qualification Models. Is it publicly available?

My one specific question is this: is there a reason to limit points to the top 60 runners (up to 20th in the current qualification heats)? Why not keep assigning points down to the last finisher?

From the documents (very well done, good proposal) I really admire also the way (between the lines) how FOC fight or better how hold a status quo against Council to preserve World Ranking as possible WOC Q method. Make the job done again and we will see World Ranking raising as part of WOC Qualification - relegation/promotion rules.

If decision is to have max. 80 runners than it should be attempt to reach it. In each case TV standards would be fixed therefore it would not harm anyone. The pre-entry dateline should give information how many spots are still available and what countries are entitled to fill these spots. Countries should know that e.g. 1-2 months before to motivate another runner and to prepare everything. I would prefer to see a cycle rule from bottom to top 3-2-1 division to give more chances to countries to have 2 runners and more chances for them to run a relay. Also a rule in case when someone is injured at the WOC and country couldn't replace his/her spot (only 1 runner, only 2,..). It would be a shame that one runner who is at WOC (waiting for a relay, country send different runner for long and middle or from another country) can't run middle/long because of the rules even if would be a room. As in other cases the best runner or 2 or 3 would count for the division status.

It does look quite sensible, apart from the reduced start interval which will make the race all about effective cooperation (Yes, I saw that was off-remit).

Is the "division" status the same across long, middle and sprint?
If so, down at the 1-2 boundary, it will be heavily dependent on 3 sprinters. Although less so than if points went all the way to the bottom.

If someone dnfs, it will be quite hard for the country to avoid relegation especially in relay.

If regional championships happen every two years, does it mean some WOCs will have regional champions, and some wont? Or does the champion get a two-year ticket?

Who is in which division now?

I think it is eminently sensible to have a nation's Sprinters earn it slots for Middle and Long; others may disagree. I would also personally argue for bumping the minimum quality to the proverbial 600 points. Otherwise, looks like a great proposal!

@Boris
Only going to 60 helps if you have an injury.

Say you have two bottom-end of Div 1 Countries, which is where it actually matters, one whose athletes are on average around 35th (country A) or 40th (B). Under proposed rules, they score
A=9*25 = 225
B=9*20 = 180
If A gets hit with a DQ or injury, they're still fine. But if you give points down to 80, the math becomes
A=9*45 = 405
B=9*40 = 360
so an injury puts them level.

Similarly, if 2nd in Div 2 is trying to outscore 7th in Div 1, with fewer runners, the higher threshold makes a difference.

The huge points for 1st place make little sense: if you want to know whether a country deserves to keep its 3rd place, the performance of that 3rd placer should be more important.
I suspect there's an additional agenda here: to have an Overall World Champion Country, for which the big points for 1st place do make sense. That will be no bad thing, so well done to the committee for sneaking it in off-remit :)

1.8 (Demand on minimum quality)
I agree that it would be important to see more countries at WOC but this goes at the expense of countries in division 2 and 3. If IOF count to have participation from these exotic countries than it would be fair to say what this number is and to present a detail explanation. It might be more clearer if rule stands at 600 points achieved at middle/long and in addition to have a clear rule for X wild cards in the responsibility of Council for all those countries that would not be able to meet this criteria. We should have open discussion what is best for IOF, competitive sport and ALL members. Some regional slots are already wild cards but I strongly agree with them. For other spots should be a high strategic reason why e.g. runners from these countries are more desirable than runners from many small EU countries.

Good work.

Yes, thanks Blair and everyone else working on this. Looks promising! Of course, all the nations would like to know what division they are in to start, and then calculate different scenarios for moving up/down divisions. It would be a tremendous service if the IOF council could provide some spreadsheets/calculations etc.

To me it's a great disappointment to move back to 2 min Long interval (and 1:30 min interval for Middle). It was such a relief to finally be back at 3 min intervals last year...

@graeme
You are right about points. Also the average is not so promising. If A want to go up and scores six 8. places (sprint, middle, long) it would be enough for B to scores nine 25. places. With no relay team (important only for 2/3 boundary) you are roasted.

Div 1/2
A=6*55 (8.place) =330
B=330/9=36,66 (25. place)

Div 2/3
C=3*39 (22.place) =117
D=117/6=19,5 (41. place)

As it stands now 3 runs advantages in fight for points is not really a fair battle. Maybe we should exclude sprint and introduce some weighted Total points to lowering the advantage for countries in a higher division and use the official Points scale only for what graeme said.
B (6 runs): the best result (50%), second (30%), third (20%)
A (4 runs): the best result (100%), second (80%)
or
A (4 runs): the best result (80%), second (100%)

With this approach (many options) we can came to solution with only 1 runner advantage (middle/long races) what is more or less what is on a plate for dinner. Pointscore system (scale) is also very important but in each case should be in favor of Div 2 and Div 3. Different weighted Total points and Pointscore scenarios should be tested to see what could be good for A and B and C and D and to have fair battles.

With existing Pointscore system the goal should be that countries from Div1 have in average exactly 1 runner (not more) advantage all together in middle/long over the best two countries in Div 2. Now they would have 2.

It could be done. One model is to use average (places/points) which are needed to gain or loose the runner. It is no need to have a model where countries from Div1 have 2 runs advantage in Points calculation because whole point is to gain or loose 1 runner (combined Ranking). Who will gain automatic promotion/relegation place is not important as all countries in Div1 or 2 have same chances. But it is important to see what could it be fair battle for the other spots.

MODEL for Div1/Div2
Draft model how to calculate the Overall points for any country B (Div1, 6 runs) and best two A (Div2, 4 runs). The goal is to lowering the overall final points on a level of avg. 5 runs for countries B. It is enough and fair. Sprint race is not part of the calculation.

It is important to know what is the average of max. points for 10 countries because this is the real border between Div1/Div2 (only best two countries). I use average because runners distribution is random and I seek the max. avg. points to calculate appropriate %.

It is a comparison of max. points for each final place that 10 countries can achieve all together. 8th and 9th placed country exchange Div by default and 7th and 10th or others placed countries only based on final points.

CALCULATION
Calculation is based on 1 race where B =3 runs, A =2 runs.
We need to take off 1/6 (16,66%) avg. points from each B runner runs.
Final Points should give us information B=2.5 avg. runs; A=2 avg. runs.
To calculate this avg. we need to use also existing Pointscore system.
I take extreme example: first 10 countries can achieve first 28 places.
We have random distribution of runners.

Max. places/points 10 countries = 8*3+2*2= first 28 places/1458 points
Avg. points/run = 1458/28 = 52.07 points
A = 2 avg. run = 104.14 (same for all 2 countries in Div 2)
B = 3 avg. run = 156.21 (same for all 8 countries in Div 1)
Lowering in avg. for 1/2 run = 52.07/2 = 26.035 avg. points
Other half is the advantage for countries in Div 1.
We need to take off 1/3 of this half avg. points per run from each B runs =26.035/3=8.6783
Corresponding % for each avg. run = 8.6783/156.21 = 5,55%

FINAL POINTS
In average countries in Div1 should have max. 1 runner advantage (1/2 middle; 1/2 long).
A (Div 2 = 4 runs): the best result (100%), second (100%) = 4 runs
B (Div 1 = 6 runs): the best result (95,83%), second (95,83%), third (95,83%) = 5 runs
B (Div 1 = 6 runs): the best result (94,45%), second (94,45%), third (94,45%) = 5 runs (average)

With this kind of model it would be easier (fairer) to gain or loose 1 runner for every country.

I edited last post and made some corrections.

All along I've been firmly in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" camp with regards to the current WOC format, and that hasn't changed. BUT I do think this proposal at a conceptual level is probably the best alternative I've seen, especially as rankings are based on more than one previous WOC so the in-built assumption in this kind of model that every country is able to send its strongest possible team every year has been diluted. It also dilutes the impact of one-off DNF or DQ that some have raised concern over. There are plenty of areas where the detail needs to be ironed out but once the basic model is in place I can see that things like exactly how many countries in A, B or C group, or what the minimum quality cut-off is, could evolve over time (any such "detail" changes should be made at least a year in advance, so that each country will still know at the end of each WOC what their entitlement will be in the next).

There are a few specific areas I'd like to know more about. Some of which I need to think about a bit further before I know what it is I'm asking. But for starters, on the matter of automatic qualification for current regional champions:
What happens when World Cup races "clash" with regional championships? Technically the current Oceania middle distance champs are Kasimir Gregory and Lauren Gillis, nothing against those 2 but surely it would make more sense for those places to go to the best placed Oceania runners in the World Cup middle held on the same terrain on the same day (Chris Forne and Grace Crane). If this precedence is intended it should be clearly stated, as (A) hopefully what we saw in January was the first of many opportunities to use regional champs to take the world cup back out to the world-beyond-Europe and (B) if it's not made clear, sooner or later the "regional champion" will be somebody who, despite being clearly not good enough to make their country's World Cup team, will be litigious enough to try to claim 'their' World Champs place.

@ Graeme: If regional championships happen every two years, does it mean some WOCs will have regional champions, and some wont? Or does the champion get a two-year ticket?

I would hope that it would be a "2 year ticket" - ie as long as you are reigning regional champion (or equivalent as per my point above) you are entitled to that spot. But I'm probably arguing from the same position of bias that any fan of the best of Australasia, North America or Asia would...

The regional champion slot's only a one-year slot, so with current timing it would apply to North America, Asia and Oceania in odd years (the first two regional championships being held late in even years), and Europe in even years, not sure about South America. This would require formalising regional championship rules too (so, in the case outlined above, the Oceania champions would be the leading Oceania competitors in the World Cup race).

There is still a major problem with the relay - it states that maximum relay participation is wanted, yet this system will kill the relay for smaller nations. If the starting spots for a WOC week are limited then smaller nations will not send extra runners just to run a relay if they are not getting an individual qualification race (or 2).

Then once the smaller nations die off in the relay they will never be able to used any points gained from there to move up a tier and fall off to the bottom of the pile, killing elite growth in that country.

Ranking on previous WOCs is also flawed. It has it should take more than 1 year into account (to smooth out results), but also assumes that the strongest team is sent every year - which for smaller nations it is not! The personal simply can not afford it (if you didn't already know the NZ team had to pay their own entry fees for the WC in their own country) and we already have examples of people targeting specific years that best suit their chances.

@graeme
If someone dnfs, it will be quite hard for the country to avoid relegation.
@1lastchance
It also dilutes the impact of one-off DNF or DQ that some have raised concern over.

With a model which I presented above it would be possible to handle 1 DNF, DQ or injury within each division.
A (Div 1; 6 runs transformed into 5 avg. runs): the best result 2x (94,45%), second 2x (94,45%), third 2x (94,45%)
B (Div 1; 5 runs): the best result 2x (100%), second 2x (100%), third 1x (100%)
C (Div 2; 4 runs): the best result 2x (100%), second 2x (100%)

Calculation would need to be based on Combined rankings. One DNF, DQ or injury from different countries on middle or long would also have neutral effect.

A few questions to think about Division’s min./max. advantage vs protection.

IOF would need to accept/present what would be fair min./max. advantage vs what level of protection is acceptable that system is still considered as competitive system for all countries in all examples. Competitiveness inside divisions is a great proposal but we also need a great proposal for competitiveness among all divisions as a whole.
• Is automatically promoted/relegation concept and Points score system enough?
• Is greater competitiveness among divisions as a whole opportunity or a threat to the system?
• Is it fair to use Sprint events as part of Points calculation?
• Is it fair to have a different level of advantage: Div1 has 50% over Div2 and Div2 has 100% over Div3?
• Would it be fair to introduce 1 avg. run (combined middle 1/2 and long 1/2) instead of two runs (as presented) as max. advantage between divisions?
• Can system based on additional “average model” for Points calculation solve the problems above? If not what are other options?

A few interesting observations:

Host nation has full representation - will this influence more nations to apply for WOC, and should there be more transparency/democracy in IOF's process for allocating WOCs?

Conversely, from a division 2/3 nation's point of view is it best that WOCs will always be hosted by one of the larger 1st division nations that will have full representation anyway, rather than go to a rival division 2/3 nation giving them a 'free leg up'? And might this affect voting for WOC allocations at IOF?

Hopefully, WOC allocations don't become as corrupt as the IOC's Olympics selection process.

Presumably there can be two regional champions - middle and long - and conceivably they may come from the same nation. It definitely will raise the profile of regional championships.

What happens if (say) Australia selects a team for Oceania Championships, but an Australian from outside the team wins. At the subsequent WOC the Australian selectors still consider this person to be outside their best team and don't select them?

What if a regional champion is selected for WOC by their nation, but succumbs to injury just before WOC. Can there be a substitute? Should the 2nd placegetter at the regional championships then qualify for WOC - even if they are from a different nation?

Should some regions change their championships to even years? At present Europe is the only region having championships in even years, and as the document points out the EYOC champions will probably be already selected under other criteria. In odd years there would most likely be 4 additional representatives as the Division 2/3 nations use regional champions to boost their numbers.

A new version of draft model.

It is more objective than previous version.
All countries in Div 1 and Div 2; same chances to beat each other with 1 avg. run advantage for Div 1 countries.
Calculation based on max. places/points for Div1 and Div1&Div2 with random distribution of runners.
First eight countries stay in the Div 1 with additional rule that by default at least worse country from Div 1 and best from Div 2 change division (no matter how much points they scores - same as in presented model).

Div 1
Places/points (8*3)=24/1320 points (first 24 places)
Avg. run=55 points

Div1 & Div2
Places/points (8*3+14*2)=52/1950 points (first 52 places)
Avg. run=37.5 points

Difference Div1/Div2
55-37.5= 17.5 avg. points
Half difference = 8.75 avg. points
1. avg. run difference Div1/Div2 in %
8.75/55=0.159091

MODEL
Div 1; 6 runs = 5 avg. runs: the best result 2x (84,09%), second 2x (84,09%), third 2x (84,09%)
Div 2; 4 runs: the best result 2x (100%), second 2x (100%)

To make a fair model for Div2/Div3 we would need to change Point score system with points to 80th place.

Relay Pointscore system

It is almost perfect balanced compare to individual Pointscore system and overall Points calculation. It is great to see that each individual result is still worth a little bit more than relay in average. This is more than fair - excellent weighting - because orienteering is still an individual sport more than team sport.

DNF/DQ problem
DNF/DQ is really a BIG issue within a current model!
With a model based on average for Total overall points it would be possible to handle 1 DNF, DQ or injury at middle/long and also at Relay within each division and in same time to have a better competitiveness between divisions.

Combined vs separate Ranking
It seems that Combined Ranking (gain or lose of 2 spots at once) for middle/long is the only possible solution (WOC as the only measurement) and separate Ranking for middle and long would be possible only through World Ranking.

And this "Average model" is needed only in case of Combined Ranking to prevent too big advantage of Div1 over Div 2 (2 runs =50%) and Div 2 over Div 3 (2 runs =100%). Without it we will see only automated promotion/relegation results (if we don't count extreme situations) of the system which is more or less very close to "closed shop".

Div 1
Number of runners (3long+3middle+3relay)= 9
Points comparison ind./relay=2*120+2*100+2*80 = 600; Relay 240 (28,57%) of Total 840 points
In ideal situation relay would count 3 relay runners/9 all runners = 33,33%

Best 24 places/points middle/long: 8*3=24/1320*2 races= 2640 points
Best 8 places - relay points: 1038 points
Relay influence on total points: 1038/(2640+1038) = 28,22%

Div1 & Div2
Number of runners (3+2 long)+(3+2 middle)+(2*3relay)= 16
Points comparison ind./relay=2*120+2*100+2*80+2*70+2*65 = 870; Relay 240+160=400 (31,50%) of Total 1270 points
In ideal situation relay would count 6 relay runners/16 all runners= 37,5%

Best 52 places/points middle/long: 8*3+14*2=52/1950*2 races= 3900 points
Best 22 places - relay points: 1906 points
Relay influence on total points: 1906/(3900+1906) = 32,83%

Div2/Div3
It might be a problem because on WOC 2012 there were more than 30 teams in Men's relay and Relay Pointscore system extent only to 30 best teams. One correction could be done with negative points for team over 30th place as the current Pointscore system is very well balanced for fair Div1/Div2 (ind. races/relay) Total points calculation.

MODEL Div1/Div2
A - Div 1; 6 runs = 5 avg. runs: the best result 2x (84,09%), second 2x (84,09%), third 2x (84,09%) + Relay
B - Div 1; 6 runs: the best result 2x (100%), second 2x (100%), third 1x (100%); 1x (DNF/DQ at middle or long) + Relay
C - Div 1; 6 runs : the best result 2x (100%), second 2x (100%), third 2x (100%) + DNF/DQ at Relay
D - Div 2; 5 runs: the best result 2x (100%), second 2x (100%) + Relay

DNF/DQ at Relay
DNF/DQ at Relay should be compared with 1st runner and not with 3rd best runner at individual race (DNF/DQ) to introduce a fair balance in average model even if Relay counts less than 1/3 for Total Points. That is way DNF/DQ at relay would be still harder to replace with presented Average model in Final points calculation than loss of 3th runner (which can score 3rd place at best in individual race).

Maybe the model could work as it is but there would be nothing wrong with slightly additional correction in calculation of Final points for example B and C.

DNF/DQ problem and maximum advantage of higher divisions

Common rules for all divisions
- Div 1 is one run and 1 DNF/DQ (middle/long) ahead of Div 2
- Div 1 (5 runs) compare to Div 2 (4 runs) = 25% advantage
- Div 2 is one run and 1 DNF/DQ (middle/long) ahead of Div 3
- Div 2 (3 runs) compare to Div 2 (2 runs) = 50% advantage (need to adjust to 25%)

Division 1/2 boundary
- Total Points: Only top 5 runs (middle/long) out of 6 count for countries in Div 1
- Relay points/rank count only in case of tie of two or more countries
- First 8 countries stay in the Div 1 with additional rule that by default at least the worse country from Div 1 and best from Div 2 change divisions
- Maybe it is a room for a rule that country from Div 2 (promotion spot) should not have more than 25% backlog in Total points compare to the last country in Div 1 (relegation spot). Rule because Relay points are not part of Total points.

Division 2/3 boundary
- Total Points: Only top 3 runs (middle/long) out of 4 count for countries in Div 2
- Total points calculation for countries in Div 2: best place (0,83%) + second (0,83%) + third (0,83%) = 2,5x of Total points (25% advantage)
- Relay points/rank count only in case of tie of two or more countries
- First 14 countries stay in the Div 2 with additional rule that by default at least two worse countries from Div 2 and two best from Div 3 change divisions
- Maybe it is a room for a rule that both countries from Div 3 (promotion spots) should not have more than 25% backlog in Total points compare to the last two countries in Div 2 (relegation spots). Rule because Relay points are not part of Total points.


This approach is one possible solution to maintain a high competitiveness within Division 1&2 and to surpass this problem of 1 DNF/DQ at middle/long or 1 DNF/DQ at Relay = 3x DNF/DQ at middle/long (1/3 of Total points).

For countries in Div 2&3 would be very important to know what is fair maximum advantage of one division over another? They should know in advance in how competitive, robust & unified system they will need to prove their quality to gain 1 or 2 additional spots in the future? Promotion/relegation system is great but not enough because we could get a "closed promotion/relegation shop". Countries should have a fair chance to compete with countries positioned in higher division for all spots and not just for promotion/relegation spots.

kofols, I think the whole idea of the new tiered system is that countries in the different Divisions don't generally need to be compared against eachother. There's no need to develop a complex system for comparing Division 1 and 2 countries ... because they aren't competing against eachother for slots. Basically, to get promoted, you have to be the best in your OWN division. To avoid relegation, you have to avoid being the worst in your OWN division. For the most part (i.e., for the automatic promotion/relegation), comparisons really only need to be made within division, not between them. The whole point of the division system with promotion/relegation is to avoid the need for a complicated system comparing countries with different numbers of starts.

Divisions are great but the system is tend to be more than that

The number of countries listed above for promotion/relegation would be a minimum. If a country outside the automatically promoted group outscores a country outside the automatically promoted group – despite having fewer runners to earn points (e.g. if the 2nd highest-scoring country in Division 2 outscores the 2nd lowest-scoring country in Division 1) – those countries would also exchange divisions.

My point was that current proposal gives too much advantage for countries in a higher Division and it is not optimized for this purpose if that was the intention. It is almost a mission impossible for any country to be promoted based on Points.

Example

Div 1 = 7th place
9th place Relay = 88 Points
2x 37th place middle/long = 2x24 points
2x 38th place middle/long = 2x23 points
2x 39th place middle/long = 2x22 points
SUM = 226 Points

Div 2 = 2nd place
8th place Relay = 92 Points
2x 7th place middle/long = 2x57 points
2x 8th place middle/long = 2x55 points
SUM = 224 Points

And the barrier for countries in Div 3 is even higher.

@kofols. I think you are missing the way the divisions work (either that, or I am). The country to get demoted from Div 1 is the worst Div 1 country (call it Country A). The country to get promoted from Div 2 is the best Div 2 country (call it Country B). There will be no comparison between Country A & B

(so the inequity you describe isn't important, right?)

Not that this is something that affects me, but it was still interesting to have a quick look on the proposal. I’m sure this has been discussed but if the objectives are:
-To maximise the number of the world’s best orienteers participating in the WOC final. (“top 50 from WR”)
-To maximise the number of countries, and the geographical spread of countries, participating at WOC.

Why don’t the let’s say the 30 best orienteers in the world start in the first group(s) and in the later groups all countries are allowed to add up to a total of 3 (or 5) runners?

Sure, there is always the problem with “elephant tracks, but I think that the top places at the world champs in orienteering should be determined without those (with 80 runners before the best starts I think they are much more likely to occur than with 30). There will of course be an advantage for the later runners, but I don’t think it will be enough to change the top spots. In fact I’ll argue that it is good for the sport if the (time-)gap between the good and not so good nation decreases (instead of increases as with the proposal), both for orienteering to be taken as a serious competitive sport worldwide as well as for encouraging athletes from “developing nations”.

With a lot of runners, the start interval might need to be shortened (not sure if there are constraints). Again, it can be divided into the same two groups. For a fair competition about the world champs title, I think (at least) 3min is needed. For the rest (31+), it can be shorter. Even if it is 30s, I don’t think it is enough together with a later start to gain anyone more than ~10 spots.

Consequently, I think this will give at least the top 15 fairly accurate (for example not having the 4th swiss guy competing might not even give the right podium(!)), in a competition closer to the core values of orienteering and with more runners from “developing nations” allowed to participate.

Note: I haven’t thought a lot about this and the actual numbers likely need to be tweaked.

kofols, I think the intention is that the "minimum" promotion/relegation (1 swap between Div 1/2 and 2 swaps between Div 2/3) is to be expected. I don't think the "extra" promotion/relegation (e.g., an additional swap between Div 1/2 if the 2nd best Div 2 scores better than the 2nd worst Div 1) is intended to be a regular occurance. As you realize, comparing countries from two divisions won't be a fair comparison, so this "extra" promotion/relegation won't happen too often - I think this is the intent of the committee. Bottom line ... If a country wants to be promoted, it should try to be top 1 inDiv 2 or Top 2 in Div 3.

Personally, I expect Div 1 will be quite stable over time and there will generally only be 1 swap between Div 1/2 each year. Because the Div 2/3 boundary will be based on weaker results and fewer runners, I expect we will see much more movement between these two divisions.

@AZ it could be important the following year as promotion/demotion is determined on points from the previous two years.

From the summary document:

1.3 Promotion and relegation
At the end of each year, nations are moved between divisions as follows, based on points from the preceding two years:

This mean the following year Country A has one year of points from being a Div 1 team (3 runners) and one year of points as a Div 2 team (2 runners) giving them a considerable advantage over the other Div 2 teams. Likewise Country B will have one year of Div 2 points and one year of Div 1 points and be at a disadvantage to all the other Div 1 teams.

This system doesn't seem to give a fair go to teams being promoted in to Div 1, making it difficult for them to stay up the first year they are promoted. Surely once they are promoted they should start with a blank slate and not be disadvantaged by having to count points from a year when they have less runners.

Of course this issue is magnified for teams being promoted/demoted from Div 2 to Div 3.

If I understand correctly (from skimming quite a bit), this proposal/plan means that the nation-scores for the 2014 WOC are actually half-known already, from the 2012 WOC results. Is the nation-scoring/ranking for 2012 available somewhere? Someone has surely done the math...

Candyman does raise a good point regarding the use of two-years of WOC to calculate the rankings within a division. I do wonder if this will create an effect where the same two countries bounce back and forth between Div 1/2 year after year. Looking back 2 years, these "Div 1.5" countries would always be counting 1 year as Div 1 and 1 year as Div 2 (always at an advantage to Div 2 teams and thus able to promote out of Div 2; but always at a disadvantage to Div 1 teams and unable to remain in Div 1). I think in reality there will be much more variation due to the actual performances of the athletes and the effect of "how many runners a country gets to count" will not be as dominant as that.

I don't think this issue will be that important at the Div 2/3 boundary. The difference between good results and bad results will likely overwhelm the issue of how many runners get to count. Div 1 and Div 2 countries combined get 52 runners, so a lot of the action for Div 2/3 boundary countries will be in the 40 to 60 placing range. Given that 40th place gets 21 points and 60th gets only 1 point, it will be far more valuable to have a few good results compared to having more results but of lower quality.

kofols, there's a math mistake in your post above - the Div 2 country you've outlined would score 316 points (much better than the comparison example Div 1 country). But the 7th/8th place individual results are pretty unrealistic for a Div 2 country.

I think the point you are trying to make is that a Div 1 team with 6 runs averaging around 38th place would beat out a Div 2 team with 4 higher quality runs averaging around 27th place. This is a significant difference and does mean it will be quite challenging for a 2nd-from-top Div 2 team to beat out a 2nd-from-bottom Div 1 team.

@AZ
I understand and agree with division system and with max. promotion/relegation spots for Div 1/2 (1 spot) and for Div 2/3 (2 spots) but still you forget that proposal is trying to set a better competitiveness also through comparison between Countries A (Div1) & B (Div 2) based on Points. Yes, this type of comparison is part of the proposal so we need to look how this comparison should work. Now it is not working!

I am not saying promotion/relegation system OR comparison system based on Points; I said that we need to use them both and adapt the rules to get all in one.

@Jonas
Why don’t the let’s say the 30 best orienteers in the world start in the first group
This is exactly what I had in mind but I am afraid that only small group of people see benefits in World Ranking. The current WR model is in repair shop and I hope that FOC will not make just a new facelift.

@candyman
Also 2 years period can be solved with above model
Div 1 (best 5 runs + best 5 runs)
Div 2 (best 4 runs + best 6 runs)

The only difference is that Div 1 countries would have two attempts more (advantage) or able to do each year 1 DNF/DQ without compromising their final Points against each other.

@bmay
Thanks. I fixed.

Div 1 = 7th place
9th place Relay = 88 Points
2x 22th place middle/long = 2x39 points
2x 23th place middle/long = 2x38 points
2x 24th place middle/long = 2x37 points
SUM = 316 Points

Div 2 = 2nd place
8th place Relay = 92 Points
2x 7th place middle/long = 2x57 points
2x 8th place middle/long = 2x55 points
SUM = 316 Points

Yes, you are right about my point because it is unrealistic to see that..
Div 1 team with 6 runs averaging around 38th place.

I put example on Div 1 border 7/8th place which is very high for Div 2 country to see the magnitude of this mission impossible. The only chance for Div 2 country would be to make even better results than 7/8th place which is really unrealistic, so this part of the system is more or less "closed shop".

And the question is: Do we really need so huge protection for countries in higher divisions? I think that above model relaying on 25% of advantage for Div 1 and Div 2 countries could solve also the DNF/DQ problem and especially DNF/DQ at Relay. With this approach we would get a fair system and also a better competitiveness inside each division (it is important). Higher competitiveness system could be good for all countries at the end. It would be still hard for any country to beat a country in a higher division based on points but this would kept them alive.

if an outstanding individual cannot score enough points on their own to qualify anyone else, that may be a barrier to elite development in that country as others see little hope of ever reaching a WOC team

For those who have not seen this yet. I simulated the new system, if it would be applied for WOC 2013.
http://www.o-zeugs.blogspot.se/2013/02/woc-ohne-qu...

... Khramovs misspunch at WOC 2012 would make Russia a Division 2 country ...

So in the mens it is quite possible that NZ and Oz could be regularly swapping div 2 and div 3 positions. That will beef up the trans Tasman rivalry...

Dariusz - thanks for this - saves me a bit of work. Russia had three relevant disqualifications in 2012 (two in the long final, one in the relay), so it wasn't just one piece of misfortune which would drop them down.

(Any chance you could enlarge the tables a bit? They're barely readable at the moment, especially for the men).

Dariusz - some of the regional champions are attached to the wrong countries. Bertuks isn't Swedish. Grace Crane is Australian. There might be others.

Blair - the images can be viewed by clicking on them.

'Khramov's mispunch would make Russia a Division 2 country' And your point is? A mispunch is bad orienteering, why should you be division 1 if you don't visit the correct controls?

http://www.arua.ch/o-zeugs/WOC_Ranking_Men.htm
http://www.arua.ch/o-zeugs/WOC_Ranking_Women.htm

@kofols - oops, I missed that part ;-)

I also agree that mispunch is "disaster" for a country - like getting a red card in soccer. Don't see anything wrong with that though, as it adds excitement and fan appeal. No more just "oh that's too bad for Khramov" - rather "holy crap, another DQ and Russia's dropping down"

Aside: I'm kind of interested in using the relay results for the ranking, because that makes for super exciting relay. No calculators necessary, anyone can understand the implications at a glance ;-)

RUS example is an extreme situation. Very good individual results in a range of FIN and LAT compare to CZE which made 1x outstanding result in Relay.

Initial seeding and ongoing operation of the system could be based on the predefined number of valid results instead of ALL results. If we count Relay = 3x valid results there is in total in two years period

Div 1 = 6x middle + 6x long + 6x Relay = 18x valid results
Div 2 = 4x middle + 4x long + 6x Relay = 14x valid results

In the ongoing operation of a qualification system, some or all of the results used for qualification..
We could say that 12x best results count. All countries would have a room for a mistakes. This kind of Pointscore system would also solve a problem for countries being one year in Div 1 and one year in Div 2. 12x best results is enough to see nation's strength and which countries should be in Div 1 or 2.

And a valid result for Pointscore system is also a mispunch.
Pointscore system says that those who qualify for the final but do not record a result in the final would receive the points for last place in the final (normally 16).

And
In the initial set-up of the system when qualification races are still in use, places 16-20 in the qualification races would earn 15-12-9-6-3
We could expect very small difference in total points in initial seeding for Div2/3 and it might be better to give points 15-14-13 for 16th place and so on based on time behind the winner's heats. It would be fairer.

dariusz ... Thanks very much for posting those calculations.

kofols ... Points available for the relay are double those for an individual race, so should count for 2 individual runs, not 3.

By the time we hit allocations for 2016 WOC, the point weightings will be:
Div 1 = 6x middle + 6x long + 4x Relay = 16x valid results
Div 1.5 = 5x middle + 5x long + 4x Relay = 14x valid results
Div 2 = 4x middle + 4x long + 4x Relay = 12x valid results
Div 2.5 = 3x middle + 3x long + 4x Relay = 10x valid results
Div 3 = 2x middle + 2x long + 4x Relay = 8x valid results

This is likely a pretty fair assessment of the opportunities the countries in the different divisions will have to collect points.

Note that the points for the relay effectively go a bit deeper than individual. Thirty relay teams get points so effectively 90 runners get points vs 60 runners for indivual races. This will likely make the relay a little more important for the weakest teams (i.e., it is a good opportunity to get points).

@bmay
No, it is not double, it is closer to 3, although everyone has a personal view how the Relay should be weighted. You shouldn't count just points. I've already checked this points/runners/places ratio for ind. event/relay in relation to existing Pointscore systems separate for Div 1 and Div 1/2. Check this post.

It seems that this indicator could really be the best one. I think the number of fixed X valid results should be the same for Div 1/2 and Div 2/3 final points. In this model the only advantage for countries in Div 1/2 is in more attempts as in the case of additional competitors (World champs, Regional champs, host country, extra runners to fill the all 80 Final spots). If we use Relay = 3x individual results this will mean that in average 3x individual results are still worth a little bit more than 1x relay. I think this is justified because orienteering is still an individual sport more than team sport. And the math would be easier.

Proposal says nothing about how to deal with the situation where two countries have same Total Points. Final places are important and like in other sports we could just make a sum of all the best X places and the country with lower total number (and better top places) is better.

Can we expect final decision before or after WOC 2013?
Fixing the qualification rules before WOC 2013 might be crucial otherwise all may end up in disputes and political alliances of which model (parameters, periods, weighting, etc) should be used.

@kofols, I completely agree with fixed number of valid results for comparison between divisions. With such an addition the system would be much better. I agree that the current proposal is to rigid.

Although - in general I am a little bit surprised about only WOC resuts being used for determining the division. I was hoping FOC would give a bit more important role to the WRE or WC.

kofols, I'm basing my "relay counts double" statement on the IOF proposal:
1st place Individual = 120 pts; 1st place relay = 240 pts (looks double to me :-) Incidentally, the proposed relay point scheme is:
1st place team gets points for 2 1st place individuals (120x2)
2nd place team gets points for 2 3rd place individuals (80x2)
3rd place team gets points for 2 5th place individuals (65x2) ... and so on.
The scoring really is as if there were 2 people per team who each get individual points based on the teams finish place.

True, double points but what is important here is
How the relay should be scored relative to individual performances.

If you agree that beside promotion/relegation spots we also need a better competitive system based on Total points than we should decide this variable - how many X valid results should count for Total points. This approach is much better than any other complex "average model". Very similar starting position as qualification races today.

Relay can be weighted high or low and my point why we should use Relay=3x ind. results is based on existing ind./relay pointscore system: 3x ind. results = a little bit more than 1x Relay. Math gives that relay counts 28,22% inside Div 1 (promotion/relegation spot) and 32,83% based on points/places comparison between Div1/Div2. I think this is very good, not too low and not too high.

Without specifying how many X valid results should count for Total points for Div1/2 and Div 2/3 comparison this model with X valid results is irrelevant. I come to 12x valid results for Div1/2 and 8x for Div 2/3. Each country can use the best results.

From your example, Relay=2x, this would mean that ind. results are even more important than in my case. I also didn't understand what is your X variable in divisions' comparison. Without X = current proposal = ALL results = advantage for higher Division based on points comparison = closed shop.

Apologies for dredging this up after 2 weeks of peace and quiet, but bmay's point about divisions "1.5" and "2.5" seems like a valid concern, and worth discussing some more.

Not sure if this possibility was mentioned already, but how about exempting a country from relegation in the year following promotion? That way, no country would be disadvantaged by having only one year in the higher division, vs. countries who have had two full years. Would also make sense to exempt countries from the possibility of promotion in the year following relegation.

I'm still confused about the role of ranking points gained in sprint races.
From the document, it seems that ...

Country places ARE NOT awarded on the basis of sprint races.
Individual places (500 point threshold) ARE awarded on the basis of sprint races.
Starting positions in forest races DO depend on performances in WRE sprint races.
Starting positions in sprint races DO NOT depend on performances in WRE sprint races.

I'm not expressing an opinion, I just what to know if I read that right?

I would suggest to include an extra "last chance" qualification race the day before the championships (e.g. Friday when the champs start on Saturday), like they have e.g. in Cross Country skiing and several other sports. This would be only for non-qualified runners (i.e. filling up to 3 runners for each nation, for the nations which do not have 3 runners qualified via the division-system). Probably only feasible for the middle.

This would reduce one of the main problems with removing qualification races as seen from my point of view. Removing qualification races for long/middle means that a significantly reduced number of runners from "smaller nations" will be allowed to run any individual forest race (middle/long) on WOC level (in many nations the number will go from 3 or 4 to 1). This again will probably lead to less focus (and interest) on middle/long in "smaller nations", as all need to be sprint specialists to be allowed to run an individual race at WOC level. I think this might also lead to less orienteers trying to reach a high level in these "smaller countries", i.e. one more nail in the coffin for orienteering and for the "olympic dream" (the opposite of what one wants to achieve with the new WOC program).

By introducing a "low key" qualification race the day before the championships officially start, there would still be a chance for more runners to start in an individual race at WOC level. The effort required to organize the extra race should be quite small with a relatively small start field.

There are also several disadvantages with this solution (I won't name them here, but I've got a list of 2-3) - but in my opinion this is the only sensible way to proceed if we don't want to reduce the number of runners focusing on forest orienteering on a high level in smaller nations.

You are right. This rule is weak and not clear enough.

IOF = 74 members
Final = max. 80 runners
Division 1 and 2 = 52 places / 22 countries
World champion = 1 place
Regional champions = additional 1 to 4 places
Host country = additional 0 to 2 places
All= 54 to 59 places

So we have a room for additional 21 to 26 countries with 1 runner and all together max. 43 to 48 countries in final. It is OK for now but in the future we can see fight for this 1 place and it would be important to know in which way the rule will shift in coming years. WRE threshold rule should be defined what happen if more countries come to WOC with above 600 WRE points runner. This should be clear and well defined now.

We see no need for very low WRE threshold because new countries (exotic) can compete in other disciplines and fulfill IOF strategic aim - more countries at WOC.
1) Minimum quality should be at least 600 points achieved only at middle or long course.
2) All runners should have a valid run with at least 600 points and not just runners from division 3. Exceptions should be clear defined.
3) In case of free places (80 places) it should be clear who should fill these free places. This rule should stimulate countries to have a chance to qualify more than 1 or 2 runners to balance what jankoc said without qualification races.

Rule:
Cycle rule 3-2-1 division based on WOC points table to find additional runners to fill the 80 runners limit. We as a small federation will probably propose a clear amendment to this rule and a slightly different definition of Divisions and relegation/promotion rule so countries in each division would still have same starting position for next WOC.

Jan, I really like that idea for several reasons.

Firstly, as you say, it will provide smaller nations an opportunity to send more runners to get more high level experience. Many of the smaller nations are far from the European centre of orienteering and need that extra incentive to send runners to Europe to get that much needed experience.

Secondly it adds another forest race to the schedule which is, as far as I'm concerned, only a good thing.

Thirdly and most importantly for the smaller nations has to do with media coverage and publicity. A last ditch qualification attempt in a race like that is a good story line for the press back home. Also, with the top of the field removed having already qualified it provides us with opportunities to appear further up the results lists and have some of the WOC TV coverage focus on us. As it stands in the existing 'old' system where everyone runs the qualification races no one pays any attention to the Canadian and American runners in the bottom half of the results because everyone is focused instead on the top third of the results or solely on their own runners.

Take out everyone who's at the top and we know would qualify anyway and suddenly you have a field where your typical Canadian or American (to pick a few examples) has a shot at doing reasonably well and isn't %20 back of the winner but rather is say %5 back of the winner. A much more interesting margin!

Note that the points for the relay effectively go a bit deeper than individual. Thirty relay teams get points so effectively 90 runners get points vs 60 runners for indivual races. This will likely make the relay a little more important for the weakest teams (i.e., it is a good opportunity to get points).

I may say that suggested points scale is perfect, at least on relation between Div 1/2. I didn't check relation Div 2/3. It is good that Relay Points scale is a bit deeper than individual. The most likely reasons and rationale behind is to give importance to Relay but in the same time this proposal gives more chances to countries with 1 or 2 outstanding runners without or very weak Relay team. Individual Points distribution (number of points) from 1-52 place slightly favors individual race against Relay Points distribution from 1-22 place which is also good. In reality both races give points to first 30 countries so this is fair.

ONLY 3rd DIVISION
Number of runners (1long+1middle+3relay)= 5; Relay=3/5=60%
Worst case scenario; Div 1 and Div 2 countries takes all first 52 places at middle/long and 22 places at Relay.

Points comparison ind./relay
MIDDLE/LONG: max.points= 53 to 60 place = 8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points= 36*2=72 points
RELAY: max. points= 32-28-24-20-16-12-8-4=144 points
Relay =144/(72+144)=66,66%
In reality the worst case scenario is also important for the countries in 3rd division. It looks that in that scenario Relay is too much important versus individual results in Total points calculation.

Relay = 23-30 place =8*3 runners = 24 runners
Individual = First 52 places Div 1/2 + 24 = 76

Maybe Individual Points scale should be balanced with one negative point for each place till 76th place so countries with Relay and weak runners would have less advantages over countries with good runner / two good results but not able to send a Relay.

I have doubts that Points system should be designed to force 3rd division countries to send a Relay.

Prompted by Andrew, could I ask:

We have seen in Hungary top teams stop to help an injured runner in the WOC Relay.

The reward for such behaviour will be relegation. There's no way to avoid this, is there?

@ndobbs - three teams stopped, plus the leading team went out. Only one team will be relegated. I suggest in this case the injured team goes out. ;-) Running into a tree - big problem. Stopping to help - not such a big problem ;-) ;-) (Did I really write that?)

@Jan - I love the pre-WOC qualification race. Logistics seems the biggest problem. Is it really not much work?

@everyone - this formula for determining relegation seems way too complex and ignores the Liebnitz convention. I believe we need a simple approach to relegation/promotion that is simple to understand and does not require spreadsheets and IT people. A "first across the line" solution, that even a sports reporter who wishes he was covering some other sporting event would understand. Such as relegation/promotion gets determined solely on relay results. Super exciting, easy-to-understand. Sure, not perfectly "fair" - but that's sport (ask any ManU fan, for example)

The core question is: Do we want to give a chance to recreational level runners at middle/long? If the primary interest of some countries is to send more runners we should ask ourselves how good these runners are and how good they should be to get a starting place at WOC?

Sprint, Sprint Relay and Relay are races where IOF doesn't set a limit. Please come and race no matter how good you are.

Middle/Long: Small O nations, less-developed orienteering nation and exotic nations want to race also at these two events with more runners. OK. I made a quick look into qualification races at past WOCs to find out what was the limit in the past which could be applied for 3rd division's countries.

WOC
22 (Div 1/2) *3 runners (like today) = 66 runners
From proposal Div 1 and 2 will have 52 runners. We still have 28 spots left till 80th spots. This mean that in average you have had to be between 66-94 place at today's WOC (22-31 place) to be good enough to score 80th place within new system. From looking at few events I got impression that this could be around 900 WRE points and IOF suggestion is 500 points (+ sprint???).

Pre-WOC race doesn't solve the problem if you have fixed system with one runner in the final for everyone with so low entering points limit. Can we set a limit at 1000 points. Every runner at WOC middle/long should have a valid race with at least 1000 WRE points in the last year.

I've summed up my thoughts about how I think the removal of WOC qualification for long/middle (and the suggested system for allocating quotas) will make the difference between the good nations and the developing nations in forest orienteering grow as athletes in the developing nations will be forced to focus on sprint.

http://news.worldofo.com/2013/03/10/comment-on-woc...

My strong feeling after discussing this with many different people is that this is not good for the sport - and that one consequence can be that elite commitment to orienteering will be significantly decreased in developing nations.

Any comments welcome - either here or in the comment field over at World of O. I'll be happy to change my opinion if you give me some good arguments :)

World Championships have two important purposes at least - the first to crown a world champion, the second to motivate athletes from all around the world. This second purpose is perhaps even more important than the first. So when I hear jankoc talking like this I'm very happy!

Re motivating athletes from all around the world...

Win a World Champs medal (or for some countries come top-30) at the moment and you gain some legendary status. You inspire others.

Shortening the start interval in the finals is liable to produce some races where orienteering ability isn't as important as running speed and pack running skills. This could be a huge loss. And, with all due respect, I don't think mixed sprint relay is going to be doing the inspiring anytime soon.


@AZ Why would the injured runner's team be more likely to be relegated than the others? And anyway, the proposal allows for >1 team to be relegated, as it should.

@Jan. An extra "last chance" qualification race would not solve for example these issues:
- lots of starters, so there will be elephant tracks and short start interval must be used
- short start interval leads to more following / pack running
- start order/start time is not earned like it used to be, so following is even less fair than before
- complicated pre qualification formula with divisions would still be there.
- qual race for middle but not for long??
- smaller nations would be sending forest runners to a low key qual race, not to official WOC (maybe harder to finance or write about back home?)

You wrote "according to the suggested model, sprint results will not influence the quotas in long/middle, and thus good sprint results for developing nations will not pave the way for larger quotas in long/middle". Do you think good sprint results should give quota for long/middle?

Personally I still prefer a model with one official forest qual race included to the WOC program, a qual race for long. And start slots for each Nation for middle would be based on sprint quals and these long quals (this is why I ask should sprint results have any effect). Old WOCs or (flawed) WR points would not be used at all.

One qual race would not be too much for top runners (less than before), shorter start lists, longer start intervals, less following, more simplicity, no need to use flawed WR points, small nations can send full teams also for forest races, equal chances to get to final (sprint vs. forest), less elephants, more goats, issue like a nation skipping WOC for a year for budget reasons or DQs for technical reasons or injury would not have impact and so on.

@ndobbs - oh, I didn't realize that more than one country could be relegated. I was just proposing a way of deciding, under my mis-understanding, which of the teams would be relegated. By choosing the injured team there would be no penalty for stopping and helping someone (well, no relegation penalty)

@jagge:
(1) I fully agree with you ; I'd rather like one forest qual race for all runners, like you suggest. Feels like that's kind of off the table?
(2) The "low key" qual race would be part of the official WOC. The best 10-15 (a number which fits with the total) runners would qualify for WOC finals (just like e.g. in XC-skiing) - i.e. it wouldn't be just for fun, and for qualifying runners it would be something to write home about. The difference from today's WOC system would be that many runners would be pre-qualified for finals through the division system.
(3) Regarding sprint, my point is that athletes from the smaller nations would be in a vicious circle. They would be forced to focus on sprint in order to run WOC, but good results in WOC (on sprint) wouldn't bring them any further towards a place in a forest WOC the year after. Giving quota in middle/long based on good sprint result would help in this regard, but I don't think it is a good solution, no. I only pinpointed the problem ; my solution is not to give added quota based on sprint results, but rather to include an extra qual-race.

Hey Blair,
you might want to fix the typo in this paragraph before the whole thing gets made into law.

The number of countries listed above for promotion/relegation would be a minimum. If a country outside the automatically promoted group outscores a country outside the　automatically promoted group – despite having fewer　runners to earn points (e.g. if the　2nd highest-scoring country in Division 2 outscores　the 2nd lowest-scoring country in　Division 1) – those countries would also exchange divisions.

The paragraph appears in more than one place.

Thanks for picking that one up.

Something that's been mentioned earlier in this thread is the WOC 2009 relay scenario. In such a situation, I think it would be quite likely that the IOF would award points to the teams which stopped anyway (indeed in the testing of various systems I carried out, in cases where the 2009 results were used I gave NOR, FRA and CZE points for first place). A relay mispunch also doesn't mean automatic relegation, although of course it means one less race to get points from (and the 2012 Russian men had multiple mispunches, not just the relay).

Blair,
As I understand proposal and your posts you always operate with all races and all results in two years period. I think a lot about this paragraph. How many races (good results) do we need to have to fulfill this prophecy. All?
if an outstanding individual cannot score enough points on their own to qualify anyone else, that may be a barrier to elite development in that country as others see little hope of ever reaching a WOC team

1) Do we really need to count all results to find out which countries should be promoted/relegated?
2) Why the system should be closed to 1 relegation/promotion spot (Div1/2) and two spots for Div2/3?

With open division system for all spots the final result would probably be the same but the motivation of all runners would be higher. It would be needed more than one outstanding result. I come to number 12x (Div 1/2) and 8x (Div 2/3). It is strange to me that on the World level, 2nd division country could get an "automatic" promotion - in some cases with less points than 8th country in 1st division - with racing on the same events. It could happen. After all at the end absolute results should count more than final places inside divisions.

I think it would be quite likely that the IOF would award points to the teams which stopped anyway

On what basis?

And how about for organiser screw-ups? Eg in WOC 2006, volunteers were shouting at some racers in Long Q not to cross tall fences, saying they would be dsq.

All results will matter, everything will be protested.

Neil, I think what Blair is saying is that we can all trust the IOF to do the right thing in any unforeseen situation that might arise.

Rob, I think what Neil is saying is that we shouldn't force the IOF to decide whether "Relegate Russia" or "Relegate Denmark" (or whoever) is the right thing.
The situation may be unforeseen, but the consequences will be clear before the decision is made.

The pre-qualifier idea has lots of anomalies. For example

If middle and long are "different disciplines" which do you use? It would be like using 110m hurdles heat results to get into the steeplechase! (If they aren't different disciplines then what's the point)

Next step for the selectors will be to decide "Which of our athletes will we nominate to run the pre-qualifier to try to get us an extra place". If having three places is your priority, you wouldn't put that responsibility on your weakest athlete... If supporting your top athlete is the priority, then the guaranteed final place in the new system is a great outcome!

Graeme - I was being sarcastic - sorry if it wasn't obvious. I thought Blair's assertion that we should all just trust the IOF to do the right thing in any unforeseen circumstance was touchingly naive.

Oh well! Didn't we all agree just a few months ago that having a WOC longer than a week was impossible? And now we need a qualification race anyway...

Don't worry, Rob, you got a smile from me.

The bigger problem is that this system will generate situations where there isn't a right thing to do.

Sorry, it's that Japanese sense of humour: catches me out me every time.

(Though actually, I think IOF/controllers usually do the best thing in unforeseen situations and the new qualification policy is better than any of the counterproposals.)

(I think Blair and crew did a great job, given the task set... but most everyone I've spoken to prefers the status quo)

Neil, "most everyone I've spoken to prefers the status quo" didn't act when they have had time at the last IOF's congress. It seems that runners and officials don't speak at all when they should for the sake of the sport.

From International or media point of view I don't mind if I don't see 2nd or 3rd Slovenian or Irish runner in the final at the expense of a better elite runner from other development country but I would be upset if I see African runner in the final (500 WRE points) instead of 2nd or 3rd Slovenian or Irish runner with 1.200 points.

If IOF decided to cancel qualifications then they need to set up a better quality benchmark for every runner in the final.

I think IOF/controllers usually do the best thing in unforeseen.. I agree - usually. And of course they are acting with the best of intentions.
I just meant that we can't rely on these things - otherwise we wouldn't need rules at all - it's naive to say 'I think it would be quite likely that the IOF would award points...' - if you need to be able to override the standard allocation of points in special circumstances then there needs to be a mechanism for that clearly stated in the rules.

My problem is not with Blairs proposed system - it's the basic changes to the WOC format. The current system has its problems but it's better than the new proposal. And rule number one is any change has to significantly improve on the status quo.

Kofols - I think it was quite clear to anyone who was paying attention that there was plenty of opposition to the changes. I remember Jankoc commenting on his excellent live coverage of the IOF congress that he felt many of delegates didn't seem to really understand what they were voting for.

Yes in theory the system is democratic and the runners should make their views known via their national delegates who will faithfully represent them at congress - but that doesn't work in practice. In reality there are very few opportunities within the IOF system for anyone to effectively voice their opposition - that is why they are reduced to venting their frustration on web forums. And no doubt those making the decisions generally say to themseves that they can ignore web forum discussions as just a the vocal minority. They may be right about that - but somehow I feel that in this case it is more than just the usual suspects venting on web forums and there are significant numbers of people with genuine concerns about this development that should be listened to. One thing is clear - those views do not seem to get heard through the 'correct' process I decribed above.

Perhaps the major flaw in the decision making process was to decide to change the format before doing the work to design a new set of qualification rules. The implications of the new format become clearer afterwards. In this case,maybe thinking like an ent would have been smarter.

The full implications haven't become clear yet. The long start lists and short interval means there's only one individual race left. Who'd have thought that sprint racing would be the last bastion of individual navigation in pristine terrain!

Compared with this, the spat about qualification is a trivial distraction. The new reality is sprint, scalextric, peloton and two sprint relays.

In this critical decision making period it is strange that Athletes’ Commission at IOF is not working. It might be good to have it. I also read that IOF finally start a revision of WRE rules. We need to have more structured IOF elite events structure from the bottom to WOC and I think they are finally working in the right direction.

The proposal is extremely good when you think about the fact that they had to cut participation numbers from 150 runners (3 heats) to 80 runners. If we agreed about changes during the 2,5 half year of brainstorming then we must at least give a chance to the new model.

We all know that with more professional approach, more sponsors, more visibility also rules about participation will go in direction of quality. Eventually I predict that in 10 years we will have more personal selection process and not solely based on nation's strenght. If you can make a good results at WRE, ROC, WC you are in. Today runners are a bit selfish in a way. They want to race at WOC just because they have raced at WOC in the past. In many sports there are quality norms to qualify (national rules) to participate at World champs. We are on the start of this path. If the WOC qualification system will be open enough I see no problem for motivation for any runner.

We just need to see how Blair & Co. will solve the open questions and tweak the final proposal. I think they are aware there are some other approaches and solutions which might be good to look in from fundamental level. I hope they will be able to give exact answers & explanations on all open questions.

And we first need to make a decision what WOC middle/long should be - Elite event for the best runners or Elite event to gain experience for all. I think it should be for the best runners because IOF, sponsors, media expect that and runners should gain international experience at other IOF events (WC, ROC, WRE,...).

kofols, I'm going to call bullshit on that.

1) Each country's best runners are at WOC, running for their country, not (just) for themselves. I remind you that there are national teams, it isn't a competition for individuals.

2) IOF, sponsors, media expect that --- As you yourself might say, we are the IOF. Media, what media? Media care about 1) their own country's best performers and 2) the medallists and 3) human interest stories (e.g. 2009 WOC Relay). Bullshit to the idea any media outside of Sweden cares what Sweden's 9th best runner is doing. The same goes for sponsors. Have you even just one teeny weeny counterexample?

3) Today runners are a bit selfish in a way. They want to race at WOC just because they have raced at WOC in the past. --- And as for that... it's not really worthy of a response, see point 1).

4) And we first need to make a decision what WOC middle/long should be Orienteering, one would have hoped...

Neil, I just highlighted what is written in IOF Strategic Directions. Apparently is not so obviously. IOF need to solve also these questions when they are deciding which
WOC model is the best model for the future and how to jump on higher level.

IOF officials don't want to run sport only as a recreational activity (as most runners would like to have) with no hope to gain momentum in media, sponsors and IOC.

EDIT: Our national team was in most cases two or three people/runners. No support team. From WOC 2012 bulletin 4 I see that are some other countries in this development phase (ARG, BLR, CRO, GRE, KEN, KGZ, MDA, MNE, NED, PRK, ROU, RSA, SLO, URU) not to mention all teams with 1 official. Hard to say when runners are part of a "national team" or just individuals competing under country flag. For JWOC it is clear if we can't send a team (runners+national coach+at least one logistic man) then we don't have a team.

EDIT 2: My rough estimate for "WOC quality benchmark" is around 300th place at WR list. International quality norm for any runner who wants to start WOC middle/long. It would be great to see WRE standing for each WOC runner as standard WOC info.

@kofols: I don't think I agree with what you are after with "WOC quality benchmark", but at least here are media startlists from all individual WOC races at WOC 2012 which includes WRE standing for each runner (at that time).

http://runners.worldofo.com/StartlistWOC2012LongQu...
http://runners.worldofo.com/StartlistWOC2012LongQu...
http://runners.worldofo.com/StartlistWOC2012Middle...
http://runners.worldofo.com/StartlistWOC2012Middle...
http://runners.worldofo.com/StartlistWOC2012Sprint...
http://runners.worldofo.com/StartlistWOC2012Sprint...

I made this type of extended-information startlists for EOC, WOC and NORT last year.

I remind you that there are national teams, it isn't a competition for individuals.
For your point 1 and 3 I forgot in the first time to connect my dots a little bit better but with "If you can make a good results at WRE, ROC, WC you are in." I meant, you are officially qualified by international standards and national coach or (it is just your personal satisfaction, because you can go to WOC) should look at you as possible national team runner for WOC. It might be good to have this approach because we are in a situation where most 3rd division countries are without any strategy, coach or national program for elite runners. Runners should have at least one reference point to motivate themselves towards WOC goal. To get WOC norm for middle/long should be seen as achievement for any fresh runner from development country.

And for "Today runners are a bit selfish" I meant that runners need to be a little bit selfish as all top athletes in any sports are if they want to do something on the elite level. To put this in the right context; we would need to have WOC quality benchmark so runners know when they are OUT even if they have strong wish and motivation to participate or national team have a free place on the bus.

Great startlist Jan. I haven't seen it before.

"Elite event for the best runners or Elite event to gain experience for all"
Neil, from your answer I still don't know what is your position. This is fundamental question, where all WOC rules start. Jan proposed extra q race so I suppose he is for second option. It would be great to know what elite runners want. Black or white?

I found great explanation on NZ forum. I fully agree with that.
there has been someone who has attended the last three WOCs for NZ and not qualified for a final once. "Experience" - or WOC-specific experience to be more precise, is a minor, not major, reason. Ability and (right) preparation are much bigger influences. I agree with Rob G. that experience outside of WOC can be just as valuable.

"Today runners are a bit selfish" Ah yes, I can see how I totally misinterpreted your earlier remarks. They were so ambiguous.

WOC is for the best runners from each country. Is that complicated? If you want, you could just get the 15 best runners in the world and have them race on their own in front of a few cameras. Or you could have a world champs.

The current system says all countries start as equals. The future system gives an advantage to the better and better-resourced countries, as well as f**king up the navigation side of the sport.

It depends whether you want three people from your country rolled over in a qualifier in front of nobody, or one or two people in the World Championship race.

Agreed about messing up the navigational side of the sport/quality of field. To me WOC orienteering is about the 90 minute classic. So how many Irish/US guys got to a 90 minute classic at WOC lately?

Graeme, you're so behind the times. No Irish made it to a 90 minute classic lately, but Nick has made two 94-107 minute WOC finals the last three years.

Compare 80 runners to other sports. I think it is very respectful number. As I understand you - many elite runners don't want to be pushed under any international selection criteria and they want back their qualifications races.

When we come to the division's rules this is totally different debate. Locked system to 1 and 2 relegation/promotion spots is real disadvantages of the system.

Here is how things stand in skiing. FYI; FIS points = WRE points.

Minimum requirements

Slalom/Giant Slalom:
FIS points in one of the fourdisciplines (DH, SL, GS, SG) on the valid FIS points list.

Downhill/Super G/CombinedDownhill/Nations Team Event Super G:
Maximum 120 FIS points in the respective discipline according to the valid FIS points list.

In XC skiing top places in World Cup races will earn your country even more starters the following year up to a maximum (I think) of 8-10 racers. Apparently no intentions to help the weak countries but instead get more room for the BEST skiers...

Since I don't give a rat's arse about skiing, and fail to see the relevance to orienteering, I looked up the closest sport I could think of, mountain running. 138 men raced in the last world champs. I don't see the relevance of that to orienteering either.

@kofols: I don't understand you. You are making disparaging remarks about top orienteers and making it sound like the remarks are coming from me. Stop.

@neil
Fair point - good effort by Nick.

Under the old system, World Ranked 125, ran in the WOC long final.
In the new system he would be ranked 125 and run in the WOC long final.

Am I missing the wickedness?

No wickedness, just not as good as the current system. Say you are an Irish 21 year old. Maybe you made a JWOC A final, doing better than Nick did when Nick was a lad. But Nick has three years on you, Nick is improving and will be running WOC Long for the foreseeable future, maybe breaking into the top 20 at some point. With only one spot on the team, in order to run Long at WOC you have to get better than Nick faster than Nick is improving. Maybe it will take eight years of training. Or you could do something else.

So, for six or seven years, maybe no-one new will train super hard at forest orienteering, and then the youngsters will only have this old fart Nick that they can't relate to to inspire them and mentor them.

With only one person making the team, and selection not being surprising, life becomes less interesting.

With only one spot on the team, in order to run Long at WOC you have to get better than Nick faster than Nick is improving. Maybe it will take eight years of training.

That is my point. I have mentioned this before but to be more clear here is an example.

EXAMPLE
To use 8x best results for comparison of Div 2 and Div 3 countries in two years period.
Div 2 = 4x middle + 4x long + 6x Relay = 14x valid results
Div 3 = 2x middle + 2x long + 6x Relay = 10x valid results
Relay = count as 3x valid results
Small correction at Individual Pointsscore system to balance Ind./Relay Pointscore system.

Irish team could use for final score all 4 Nick's results but they need to run also a relay (at least once) to be close to max. 8 best results. IOF wish is that 3rd division teams send also a relay team and this could be a good solution. You don't need to have a relay but if you would like to compete for second spot you need to send it at least once (with TOP runner you could probably make it also without a relay). I see this as a good compromise.

In case your best results would be from two relays (points) you would use in addition only two best results from individual competitions. Country in div 2 has better starting position (more attempts) but with outstanding runner Irish team could beat 2nd division country. In absolute system you don't need any automatic relegation/promotion spots. All 14 spots for Div 2 are on the table.

To avoid the above situation we just need to convince Blair & Co. that division's system need some corrections. I think that absolute system is much fairer to everyone.

If your #1 regularly breaks into the top 20, you get another place. Else if you can't compete with someone who isn't good enough to get your country another place, you were never going to run the WOC final anyway.

For countries like the US, the "qualifiers" have sort-of moved to NAOC (or APOC? - there's some clarification about which region and who is eligible needed there)

One good result should not be enough for another place. In this model you need consistency showed by one athlete on more races (as it is written in the proposal) or to have deeper national squad of 3-4 runners (Div 2 country) with average results. 8 best results for each country can give us an answer who deserves more to have 2 spots or 1 spot. If you are not good enough (who says that you can't become a better runner) if your #1 have a fair chance to secure another spot. It is a game - 8 best results will give us an answer which country has a better runners. Points distribution for individual events and Relay is important. Relay should have relatively same status as individual achievements because 3rd division country will need to send a Relay at least once if they want to race for another spot. Now as it is in the proposal all 3rd division countries race only for 2 promotional spots but I am saying that this race should be open race between all countries in div 2 and div 3 for all 14 spots.

EDIT
Locked system with fixed promotional/relegation spots is based on past results. Good information that we know what we can expect - maximum of 2-4 changes each year. Runners should have chances to do better and to prove that they can make it better than what is prediction of the system. This is all what is really important for 3rd division countries and what I think is crucial rule to motivate runners in the future.