maptalk.co.nz News   |   Events   |   Forum   |   Photos   |   Links    

  Forum

Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

Double Dipping

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 April 2012, 8:43 PM  
This is worth its own topic, its nothing to do with the protest. Casser suggested...

I believe that the best time/athlete on course 1 should be the NZ open Men's champ - no matter what class they entered in (and the same should be the case in the Women's class). The W/M20 should be able to double dip - and of course then they should be part of the 21's start list as well.



Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 April 2012, 8:44 PM  
And mcroxford pointed out that the M35A, M40A and M45A Champ would be Peter Swanson, followed by Rob Collier in all three grades and then Hamish Goodwin would come third in those grades as well as winning M50A.



Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 April 2012, 8:52 PM  
There's certainly a rationale for this, they do it in rogaining. But there is always one and only one course there. In orienteering the allocation of classes to courses is variable. Are you happy with having the situation (what you can win by running a certain course) changing from race to race?

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 12 April 2012, 8:52 PM  
...and Jamie suggested that the best M40s in the country currently, and for the foreseeable future run the elite grade (same for the women too)...lets encourage them to do it for longer.

Show Profile  nick Posted: 12 April 2012, 9:45 PM  
If you're lumping everyone into competing across the same course, why have the age grades at all? Why the complexity?

Make it simple. Go for broad age bands, with an elite grade across the top open to anyone who thinks they're up to it? for arguments sake:

C1: Elite (open)
C4: Super Jnr (13-15)
C3: Jnr (16-19)
C2: Open (20-39)
C3: Vet (40-59)
C4: Super Vet (60+)





Show Profile  Casser Posted: 12 April 2012, 10:14 PM  
The problem is only where the actual National Champion (Woman/Man) is decided. And then someone has actually run faster on the same course. I don't see as a problem in the other age grade classes. Having a chance to win an age grade is a good motivation and I believe in keeping those. If one wants to be in with a chance to be the National Champion then one needs to enter a class that races on the appropriate course.
So double dipping between one age grade and National Champion - and not between more age grades champs.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 April 2012, 10:59 PM  
You're onto it Nick. Certainly where nav difficulty is the same (not always the case for juniors).

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 12 April 2012, 11:16 PM  
Casser are you saying that the classes that happen to be on the same course as M21E (or W21E) can get the elite title; but Pete Swanson (for example) would NOT be given the M35 and M40 titles? Then it would only apply to the sprint?

Show Profile  nick Posted: 12 April 2012, 11:17 PM  
Well I definitely prefer your suggestion to the status quo, but i still struggle with the distinction between M20A and M21E if they're on the same course. Whats the point of the age grade in that case?


Show Profile  Casser Posted: 12 April 2012, 11:44 PM  
I'm making a distinction between the Actual National Champion (Woman/Man) - and age grade champions. If in case the fastest M20 person did not win the National Title - that person would still win the age grade champions title.
One could hand out course champion certificates - but at the moment it is only National Champion or age grades champions that have a meaning attached to it.

Show Profile  Casser Posted: 13 April 2012, 10:51 AM  
Yes - at the moment it only applies to sprint - but I also think that W/M20 should be running the same course as the 21E on the middle distance, and then it would apply on the middle as well.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 13 April 2012, 3:26 PM  
I'm all for combining 20/21E for sprint and middle for trials and maybe lesser events.

For the nationals at Kristin school, I think there are different factors involved so I don't think you can really compare the two classes on the same course. The M20's all started from a later block (15.30 to 15.48) compared with the earlier elites (15.01 to 15.27). Starting later for whatever reason usually means faster times. Also,
the runners were competing amongst their own peers. If the classes were combined there would be a different result.

I also think, that for the nationals, we are trying to find the fastest person in a class, and a class should not be running with
others in another class where they could get an unfair advantage or disadvantage by running with someone else else not on the same class.

Show Profile  pete s Posted: 13 April 2012, 8:17 PM  
I'd love to win the M45/40/35 combined title if it werent for the fact those bloody elites keep coming along and pinching the titles off the rightful owners. Jeez, it's even been known for women to purposely embarrass their male counterparts by running the same courses faster than some men as well - just doesnt sit right, and they should realise that the male ego just isnt strong enough to weather that sort of humiliation. I understand even Jamie has been beaten by a woman in the past, which is what prompted a surge in his male growth hormone levels and subsequent hairiness. :-)

Anyway, and in all seriousness, I do think wider age bands would be a good thing, and in fact many vet age competitors want to be tested against their younger counterparts too. And we do get elites dropping into the older grades, as evidenced by ACW and Greg Barbour in M45's - which is a really good thing.

Show Profile  hughff Posted: 14 April 2012, 12:35 PM  
I specifically registered to get in on this discussion, not least because RolfB and I have come to blows over this several times over the weekend.

First I should say that, though I didn't realise it until I read this thread, I'm one of the people who benefited from the current rules. My third in the M45 sprint would have been foully ripped from my feeble grasp by well known age grade bully Hamish Goodwin (I hate that guy) had Casser's/Michael's suggestion been in operation. Even so, that doesn't change my opinion and, indeed, when RolfB and I were going three rounds about it, I was unaware (consciously) of that facet.

I'm also aware that my experience in orienteering is a lot more limited than most of the contributors to this discussion but I don't think that invalidates my opinions.

I don't believe any change is necessary. Here are my reasons:
1. Wider age bands are impractical at most levels. The difference between a W/M20 and a W/M21 may be fairly negligible indeed and similarly the difference between athletic prowess at 35 and 44 is often slight. I grant you that. However the deterioration in athleticism between a 60 year old and that same athlete at 69 is inevitably very significant. (Do I need to add that going to five year bands for juniors is just mental? I thought not; in fact, I won't bother.)
Wider age bands would simply lock athletes in the later years out of the medals. I notice that few of the contributors to this thread aren't in the age grades where those discrepencies occurred.
2. You enter the grade that you think is best for you (so long as you qualifiy, obviously. I was a little put out when my initial entry in the W10 Long was rejected.) The discussion of who won the M40 grade is tempered by the knowledge that CarstenJ was competing in the elites; I suspect that he'd've had a say in where the medals went if he decided to compete in his own age grade. However, he chose to compete against the best for whatever reason and good luck to him. MattO could've entered in the M21E grade (he has before, I believe) but didn't. That's his call. Some may think it may not have been the best one but isn't one of the skills in our sport making decisions?
From my point of view, I thought long and hard about entering the M40 grade instead of M45 because I knew that PeteS, RobC, JeffG and JohnR represented individuals who need to make mistakes if I was to get a medal. (Thanks to those of you who did, BTW.) In the end, I decided that I wanted to face those guys. My time was better than the winner of the M40 sprint but that's irrelevant because had I raced at a different time I may have made different decisions and different mistakes. (This is, I think, alluded to by Bryan.) For example, had I not seen RudyH duck round to control 19, I would probably have overshot.
3. Bragging rights still exist. Do you think that HamishG is going to let me forget that he beat me? (Actually, it could go either way with HamishG.) RolfB and I had some fairly serious quantites of chocolate on the results of our individual match-ups and I had to skip town to avoid paying. Sadly, he knows where I live.
4. Each race was a genuine race. One of the things I think I failed to make clear to RolfB, which is why our discussion kept going back around, was that he had beaten some clever athletes to win his two titles. You can only beat who's in your race and he did that. He's a deserved NZ champion, as is TimR, SteveO and anyone else whom these proposed changes may have affected, because each of you won your race. (Congratulations, BTW.)
5. Why would we want fewer medals? As I said above, each grade had some strong competitors; no one was gifted a medal and it's taken, for me, some of the shine off my place to read this discussion - I entered what I believe is the hardest grade for which I was eligible and, despite my failures in the middle and long, am satisfied that I met one of my goals; but the point that MichaelC made, that Hamish should've had my medal, stings. I think it must be worse for TimR.

Anyway, I have to go play footie, so I'll stop here. How's that for a first post from a know-nothing-noob?

Show Profile  Rolf Posted: 14 April 2012, 10:58 PM  
What chance did I have when debating against such impressive rationale!! It is like trying to compete against David Lange in a public debate about NZs Nuclear Stance!!

Personally I think 10 year age bands should kick in from 40.... however I realize this has been debated to death in the past!

But if it has to be 5 year age bands, then I reckon if someone in the older age band is the fastest then they should take both titles! Obviously they have to be on the same course. There can still be grade placings, but the 'oldy' takes all the silverware and the National title.
This is what happens in Rogaines and I think it seems logical...although I don't have a 5 point argument to back it up


Show Profile  Chris Forne Posted: 23 April 2012, 10:52 PM  
I fully agree with Casser!

Username


Password


Register  
Message


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz