Discussion: A little praise (US Champs)

For all the (mostly mild) criticism/observations others and myself have offered about the recently held US Middle, Long, and Sprint Championships--and pertaining to items such as map case quality, map paper quality, and results service, etc.--I would like to say that at least from my own view, the overall weekend of racing was certainly a very fine one, and well worth attending. I give the organizers major praise and thanks for having selected and mapped 3 brand new areas (I know Fishtrap had been used before, but with an older map more harkening to the USGS standard, but with colors), which featured very different terrains and challenges, including 2 terrains (the sand dunes and scab lands) which essentially haven't been used before in the US--or at least not that I can think of offhand. Especially for a US Championship, it's a huge plus to have new areas for the venues.

It's also worth pointing out that the whole thing was orgainzed in a friendly fashion, and if the organizers were feeling stressed, it didn't seem to show.

So I give my thanks and congratulations to the organizers--without which, we would be nowhere!

I'm with you swampfox. EWOC is a small club that took on a big challenge. I am very grateful that they took it on. The new terrain was fabulous!

Thirded. Fun weekend and I enjoyed running and racing at all three venues.

Tom, dinner?

I was the vetter for the middle on Saturday, but I got to race on Sunday and Monday, and in both cases, I found the terrains and courses to be very good and certainly worthy of a championship. It was also great fun, notwithstanding the terrible blisters I developed during the long race.

I thought the maps, terrain, and courses were excellent. The only things detracting from my enjoyment were jammed toes, twisted ankle, and brain failures (it's just as well I forgot to turn on Garmin tracking for the sprint course...)
- Dean

Are there any maps hanging about anywhere for those of us that weren't lucky enough to be there? It'd be great to have a look!

I thought all three areas were excellent, well varied and extremely well mapped.
The planning was suitably challenging: I certainly got caught out by the change in style on the middle after the spectator, and in the rock garden on the sprint (though it would have helped if I hadn't wiped out my knee in a fall, ouch).

The long was the most enjoyable run I've done this year: Mapwise, I couldn't actually read the 1:15 map detail, but generalising and "hunt and peck" in the circle worked OK. Had I'd known M45 was to be printed at 1:15 then I would have brought a magnifier... (or more likely I'd have entered blue).

If all you have to worry about is the map&bag quality and the slow results, that's not so bad.

If all you have to worry about is the map&bag quality

I'd add worrying about being overtime for the Long. I'm in reasonably good endurance shape and tend to run 500–600-pt WREs, which is certainly not challenging any top awards in any country but is still about 150%–160% of the winning time, and last Sunday I was in a real danger of not making it back by the cutoff. (Which got officially extended after the fact, but I didn't have knowledge of that on the course.)

Did heat/conditions have anything to do with that? Or was runnability slower than might have been apparent on paper? Because on paper, those courses looked reasonable.

I ran two Long courses in Europe this spring. Both were about 15 km in open, runnable terrain. The winning time was under 80 in Portugal, low 80s in England.

And this one was 16.2. So why was it too long?

Last year MrPither ran 5.78 minutes per K at Fishtrap and I did 6.32, finishing third. Both were faster than the winning time time this year.

But, the results quickly tailed off. For both events. Of course last year was mass start and there was pack running.

I think there is an X factor with these courses because by many measures, they are not too long.

(I have only looked at the M21 results and course. Everything else may be egregious for all I know.)

Actually, what should the winning time be for the "Long"? I am unfamiliar with the US specs. If Pither ran the same pace as last year, it would have been a ~93-94 minute winning time. Is that OK?

Thanks to the organizers for a great weekend. It was a treat to race in 3 unique areas and well organized races.

The Long was definitely the highlight for me - great course, great map - the foundation for a good event.

Our (me and my 10 yr old son) first A-meet away from home turf. We had a great time! Thanks to the organizers and all the volunteers! IMHO, the venues, the courses and the maps were awesome! I agree that the Long was the highlight despite the utter ruination of a good pair of socks (10's of 1000's of embedded seeds).

I'm not an expert on venues but I thought both courses (M & L) were very runnable (staying off the trails at M and out of the rubble at L). I was expecting a reasonably clean run to take me about 120 - 130 minutes. The warm temps on Sat and Sun definitely caught up with me around the 15th control on the Long course; My legs started to cramp and I was reduced to a walk.... My bad for not bringing electrolytes.

I agree with or encountered just about everything you just said, Bill. Only thing for me is that my cramps started on control 7. :-)

Thanks to everyone for a great meet. I had a phenominal time and will miss everything from the great people to the rocks at Fishtrap (OK OK, you got me; I wont miss those), at least until next time.

Actually, what should the winning time be for the "Long"?

I think we (the organizers, Orienteering USA) should be inclusive with the Long, rather than setting it for 12 people who can manage the course within 3 hours and have fun at the same time. If the olderfolk like Joe/Sergey V/Greg B feel that the course is not for them and choose to run their age category, it's most certainly too long.

I don't know that it would be fruitful to debate this on this forum, but there is a lot to discuss... I am just curious--I don't (yet) have a strong opinion.

In your example, those folks made their decision ex ante, which suggests there was something wrong with the general parameters on paper, independent of anything that happened on that day.

Presumably this argument would apply to the US Ultra Long, too? Is it too long? Or has it been too long?

The Ultralong is not an IOF format. It's a more extreme adventure than "regular" "everyday" events. I'm trying to say that these "regular" "everyday" courses shouldn't scare people away. Nobody is served by making the Long an exclusive format for the really fit; it'd be fine if we were Sweden. At the point U.S. orienteering is, we benefit more from inclusion and the camaraderie that ensues from larger numbers of competitors than from isolating the small handful of the really fit into a league of their own.

Bottom line; a numerologic estimate—a borderline "elite" runner like myself (600 IOF points or so, where the IOF places the cutoff) should finish the Long in 2 hours, under the worst possible temperatures. That means that the Rosses and Patricks should be in the 90–95 minute range. They'll be in the 80–85-min range if the weather is better than awfully hot—and that's fine. You won't be ranking the field that way based on who's able to survive the heat, but on a combination of navigational skills and endurance.

P.S. The IOF is intentionally vague on the Long winning times, recognizing, perhaps, that each nation's environment has its own peculiarities. The IOF requires a winning time of 90–100 minutes for the men's WOC and World Cup finals (70 to 80 minutes for the women). These times are given with "for example" in the WRE Handbook. They are not absolutely required.

I like long courses to be truly long. It is a way of preparing for the rigors of international events. Too often, organizers err on the short side. I'd like to see courses set for 90-95 minute winning time (9000-9500 GV, in rankings terminology), and that will mean that they are occasionally a little over, due to weather, field strength, and maybe "X" factors. The point is not exclusivity, but rather to have a suitably different challenge than those presented by a sprint, a middle, or a classic race. If the time limit in the rules needs to be extended to accommodate this, then let's do that.

Regarding j-man's analysis, I think the X factor in this case is the increased technical challenge and rockiness of the U.S. Long Distance Champs relative to the goat, although I'm sure the mass-start in the goat increased the speed some in that race.

I was course consultant and have first an apology for the too-long long course and then a comment on the X factor. I hounded John (the course planner) to increase the technical difficulty and the amount of route choice from his goat event. So not only did the technical difficulty reduce the tpk but also I am guessing that in the goat people ran very much "on the line" while at the US Champs perhaps they more often chose to go somewhat "off the line". This means that 16km goat would require less distance to be run than the 16km US Champs. So I think perhaps part of the X factor is that people actually ran a bit further. I should have cottoned on to that and had John reduce the course lengths. Dang.

Well, I didn't run there last week, but I wish I had!

I'd like to see courses set for 90-95 minute winning time (9000-9500 GV [...])

Valerie is still crunching the numbers, but it's safe to say the GV for the course in question was above 10,500.

If Pither ran the same pace as last year, it would have been a ~93-94 minute winning time.

Patrick ran this year, until about the 1 hour mark. He was in 3rd place at that point. It's safe to say Patrick's time would not have been much faster than the actual winning time of 108 minutes.