Discussion: Distance/Time for Ultra

How long is the estimated distance or time for the ultralong champs?

USOF Ultra Long specs from the Rules of Competition.

So apparently the Ultra-long is not mass start this year (it hasn't been for a while, has it...)

And as for distance, the USOF rules seem vague, allowing for anything between normal length, and a specified upper limit. Are the organizers this year aiming for the upper limit, or something in between?

24.5 Ultra Long Course for which the times and distances of the brown, green, red, and blue courses will be increased, may be organized. Ultra Long Course is characterized by long legs with complex route choice problems.
24.5.1 The estimated winning times of the following courses in Ultra Long Course should not exceed these lengths.
a) Brown 60 min.
b) Green 75 min.
c) Red 100 min.
d) Blue 145 min.

Mass start races are unranked, providing an incentive against holding them for organisers worried that people care about rankings.

When the bid went through sanctioning, what was mentioned was '50% longer than normal.'

For folks like myself who don't care for long runs, will there be any advanced courses in the 4-7 km range? In 2008, OCIN included a (non-championship) "short" brown course in their Ultra Long event. To the best of my knowledge, it was composed entirely of controls used on other courses.

A Long Brown course should be in the 4-7 km range.

I don't like the laxity about ultra long course lengths in the USOF Rules, and in particular I'd like the see winning times over 2 hours (for Blue) at all events, preferably well over 2 hours. I think 145 minutes is too short for a maximum winning time. 165 or 180 seem like better upper limits, so as to create a distinctly different event from a long course, with its 90-100 minute winning time.

I'd also like to see the Ultra Long Championships be a mass-started event (at least in most years), with or without spreading methods (motalla/farsta forking, butterfly loops, boxes of free order controls, choice of controls to skip, etc.)

Regarding mass-start events not counting for national rankings, I see two ways to address this:
1. count them, or
2. make separate ranking lists for the various discipline formats, so that--for example--middle distance rankings are not polluted by technically easier sprint or long races.

Published in June 2009 ONA, are the recently written definitions of course formats. I thought these were formally adopted/accepted by the USOF Board and incorpoated into the published rules. However, I just tried and failed to find them on USOF's website.

Regarding the Ultra Long- The winning time (100pt performance) is specified to be 140-180minutes for M21 and 120 -150 for F21. Other class times should be "proportionally longer" but have not yet been specified. Start format has not been addressed, but I agree that a mass start for this event should at least be an option.

This revision process for course rules/guidelines will probably be very extended, and we will probably have to live with contradictory information for some time, but progress is being attempted.

Glad to see 180 minutes for men and 150 women and mass start is on the table. Surely a champs race should trump ranking and our elites could use more big race head to head racing.

So, is a mass start Ultra Long really desired by most (or at least most M/F21s)? I always figured there were enough goat events to satisfy mass start desires.

We are planning interval starts at this time. I can't speak for the Meet Director or Course Setter, but I was more concerned about the following issue, given it is a US Champs event and most people's mass start experience is in events where following is quite welcome; the ranking (rather, non-ranking) issue was secondary.

EricW, I think the procedure for posting USOF rules changes is for the Rules committee chair to send me the entire Rules document to put on the USOF site. That hasn't been done. If I'm wrong someone on the committee needs to let me know.

As ROC is in the active course design process for the ultralongs in September, we're very interested in having the most current rules to work from. There is certainly still time to have our courses reflect any recent rule changes, but not a lot of time.

So anything that can be done to make the changes "official" (if anything is needed) and to make the rules available/visible will be greatly appreciated, and will be followed in the designs of the courses.

I saw and approved a version of the current rules which incorporated the new language. I did not check for residual conflicting information. As far as I'm concerned, this section of work is out of my hands. I encourage people to communicate with their representatives.

Hmm, when Eric's work went to Rules Committee, I asked the committee chairman to see if there was anything in it that required Board approval (i.e. changes the existing rules) and he said no. So it never went to the Board. Now it appears that there was, at a minimum, a change in the winning times for Ultra-Long that has not been passed by the board. I have printed it in ONA, however, giving the membership the impression that it is official. I say, go with what's in ONA, make sure the event information is very clear on the winning times you are shooting for, and if someone complains, send 'em to me.

The rules chairman typically tries to put out a new version every year, at the beginning of the year. The 2009 version is what is up right now, so we probably won't see the incorporated changes reflected on the website until 2010.

So, is a mass start Ultra Long really desired by most (or at least most M/F21s)? I always figured there were enough goat events to satisfy mass start desires.

FWIW, I'd love a mass start. I personally have never cared about rankings, but I do care about fun, and mass start races are more fun (to me, anyway). (and I doubt I'll be running M21, so a mass start on M35-45 would be cool as well). (And, BTW, why can't we have rankings on mass start races? Just like other races, it is the same for everyone).

Well, we can have fun on any orienteering weekend event, but if an event is labeled US Championships, fairness should come before any other factor in deciding the race format. And a format in which I can bring several cross country runners from the club I do track workouts with, and they can go out and run with Eric or Will and get a Championships medal is not very fair.

Just my $0.02

I'd be curious to see if you and they could do that, Nikolay!

Well, we can have fun on any orienteering weekend event, but if an event is labeled US Championships, fairness should come before any other factor in deciding the race format.

We've had mass starts at US Long champs in the past. I've even run in them. Unless the format has become more unfair in the last few years, I'm not sure what the big deal is? (and FWIW, people cheat in interval start races also. I'm not sure about a "degree of cheating" argument).

An argument in favor of fairness for mass start events is that everyone has the potential for the same conditions -- both weather and course. If it's a warming day, the temperature could be easily 10 degrees F higher for later starters than for earlier starters. Or it could be raining hard at the first start, and nice and clear by the latter starts. Course conditions could be easier for the latter starts as herd paths develop. The list probably goes on ...

I'm not arguing for or against mass starts, just mentioning that interval starts aren't totally fair either, because of different conditions for late starters vs earlier starters.

Course conditions could be easier for the latter starts as herd paths develop.

I read somewhere a while back that this advantage was estimated to be worth about 3 minutes in elite level classic distance races. I don't have the link anymore.

If true, seems to be a wash vs a 3 minute interval start race.

And a format in which I can bring several cross country runners from the club I do track workouts with, and they can go out and run with Eric or Will and get a Championships medal is not very fair.

1996 Billygoat - Dave Dunham (decent orienteer, very strong trail/mtn runner) clung to hammer most of the way until being dropped by hammer who won by almost 5 minutes. I also note the name Matt Cull about 20 minutes back that year - if its the same Matt Cull I'm thinking of then there's another extremely strong trail runner that should have been at the finish with Mike if the above argument holds which I don't think it does.

I think a mass-start Ultra Long would be at least as fair as an interval start format - certainly you add a few more tactical issues as route choices can be utilized to break from the competition. A lot can happen in a 2+ hour race...

if some good runners can follow their way to a US title then good for them. I doubt they can (track speed is not woods speed e.g., dunham's 10K PB is over 5 minutes faster than mine). If the runners do win then The incentive for the orienteers then should be to get faster... And not blame the format.

Last US Champs mass start race I did the results were pretty much as expected based on
Classic interval start results.

Mass start races also offer more in-race social aspects as well as pre an post race. I've been to too many races where the start draw I so long that you don't see half of your competitors.

Being one of those runners and not so much an orienteering its probably easy for me to say it would be nice to have a mass start and head to head competion. However in my experience of running with people in the woods we have pushed each other. Now fast runners may be following but they can help keep the pace of the race up. If we as a country are ever going to compete on a world level then we need to get a lot faster in the woods. A race like that could possibly help. It would help people get used to orienteering at a faster pace not just in the sprint but in the woods as well. The main argument against this is that a runner can follow and then out kick an orienteering in the end. So they would proably win. But I think we all need to get past the idea of winning right now and think about how we are going to get better. We have so many US champs in the US its not funny and it kind of makes the sport look like a joke. I guess this could start some fires but really if we are going to rise up to be competitive on the world statge winning the US champs really does not mean to much, becuase right now its the team trials that gets you to WOC. So if we have to make a couple of these races at a little of a disadvatage to the orienteerins for their growth then I think its worth it.

Schirm is absolutely right!

I've never really enjoyed mass start events, but only because I've always had such a hard time with them. The more I do them, the more I realize the potential for fun, and also that schirminator and hammer are right about a lot of things - mass start ultralongs are good for us. And I see no reason why they shouldn't be ranked.

Here is a quote from the training log of Anna Forsberg, member of Swedish JWOC Team..
I edited out part where she relates how she has been sick and not running for 9 days, so she is going slower (jogging).

"orientering race (ultralong-SM) 2:00:00 [3] *** 13 km (9:14 / km) +437m 7:54 / km Swedish champs Ultralong.

.......EDIT Stuff.......
I was just jogging around the whole race, and it was quite boring with mass-start, every one run after each other. I´m a bit angry of that. Want to run ín norway (or denmark) with induviduell start and good courses. So suppose I have to changes club to a norwegian one now! otherwise I will keep on dreaming of "real "long-distance races.

Interesting other view..