Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13  

m/w17 - 20e

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 2 March 2006, 10:05 AM  
anyone care to summarise simon?

Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 8 March 2006, 8:54 PM  
m17 -20e is not an attempt at making people feel good bacause there is an e there. All it is is some top juniors wanting harder, longer courses and a grade that provides more competition.

m16 should stay, it is unfair to ask them to run a junior elite grade, especially if the whole idea behind the grade is to provide a challenge.

the aussies have m17-20a running below the e grade. This will cater for the less able runners while maintaining the 'a' grade status. E will be for the top runners.

At the oceania mtb champs this year the under23 grade raced at the same time, and for the same race distance as the elite grade. Im not saying that this would work for orienteering. But for sprints and middles it would work to have the m17-20 grade on the same course as the elites.
For classics i think that it is best to keep it simple, put m17 20e on course2, w17 - 20e on course3, m17-20a on course 3, w17-20a on course 4. then change m/w18b to m/w17-20b and leave it on the same course as it is now. That way top runners run on the same course as the current m20,forcing all the 17 and 18 year olds to run a longer course if they think they are up to e standard.
Why not just leave it m20 i hear you say, they run course 2 dont they? This is because the best 19 and 20 year olds, who are clearly better than the younger runners should graduate to 21e. They will gain the benefits of this grade during their earlier years. In mountain biking there are 3 19 year olds racing pro elite this year, one has even won 5 out of 7 races. There is no reson why 19 and 20 year olds, or even 18 year olds should not be running the e grades, and being competitive.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 8 March 2006, 9:17 PM  
Are you saying that that you can't be competitive running in a 20a grade? Who cares what it is called, contact all your opposition and make sure you are all running the same thing no matter what numbers and letters are stuck in front of it.

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 8 March 2006, 10:27 PM  
What kind of bundy sport relies on people chatting to each other and arranging to run a certain grade to create competition?

I never wanted to chat to my supposed competition, the likes of Dave Barr, Matt Backler et al. I just wanted to turn up at a race and kick their arse.

The current reality is that for four out of five years the M/W 20 grades are pathetically weak and fail to fulfill their purpose of bridging the gap between junior and elite competition.

How about cutting out the M/W20's and M/W35's and creating a more competitive M/W21AL. Would this solve the problem or would it fail to stoke the egos of the top juniors enough? We could rebrand it Open Expert or something.

Fading elites may also run this grade if a course is looking particularly onerous (I'm accepting challenges for course 2 at the Nationals classic :-) ).

Show Profile  Dave Barr Posted: 9 March 2006, 8:45 AM  
quote "What kind of bundy sport relies on people chatting to each other and arranging to run a certain grade to create competition?"

Answer "orienteering"

quote "I never wanted to chat to my supposed competition, the likes of Dave Barr"

You cut me real deep right now Jamie, REAL deep.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 9 March 2006, 10:21 AM  
Actions speak far louder than words, what course are you running at nationals tom?

Fair enough the aussies have m17-20a running below the e grade. In theory it will cater for the less able runners as you say BUT there is the mental barrier that in reality it is a 2nd tier grade.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 9 March 2006, 11:51 AM  
On another thread someone wrote... duncan smoked the mountain biking. He won two races this season and got second in another. He will be in da nz team for world champs for sure. under 19 is more like m17-20e than m21a. haha

It seems the MTBing has an -18 class. So does orienteering. It has good fields. In making changes you take care not to change things that are working well.

What hasn't been working so well is the post-secondary-school area (as in many sports). The Junior Superseries is therefore aimed at the -20 class. A, E, don't care what you call it, but I hope the -18 class will stay until we see whether the JSS "works". Both in competitiveness and also retention of the less good orienteers.

Someone else also said "How about cutting out the M/W20's and M/W35's and creating a more competitive M/W21AL" The JSS already includes M21AL who are under 23. Raising that age limit or even doing away with it are tuning options that should be considered.

Just give the JSS a chance to see what it will do. Particularly as the currently strong 18 fields flow into it.

Michael Wood, Former HP Director

Show Profile  addison Posted: 9 March 2006, 12:04 PM  
We are yet to see what exactly your full idea is Thomas.

Simon Addison, Former M14A Winner

Show Profile  Tane Cambridge Posted: 9 March 2006, 3:30 PM  
Has there been any takers for this under 23 competition yet?

I dont think so.

Maybe this competition should be run like the Neil Shield and Rayner Trophy, or sort of like the White jersey (top under 23) in the Tour de France.

I dont think there needs to be any more grades or competitions out there, there are already enough. Chopping and changing grades and names is not going to do much. Just train harder and faster...

Tane Cambridge, Former M21A Winner

Show Profile  stu barr Posted: 9 March 2006, 3:42 PM  

stu barr, Former Maptalk Poster

Show Profile  SJ Posted: 9 March 2006, 10:23 PM  
To Jamie: I agree.

To Greg: I disagree.

To those of you who say "why not just organise amongst your competitors to run the same grade": if that is your reason for keeping the grades as they are then it seems a bit senseless to me.

To Thomas: Forget about Mountain Biking, you can't compare between very different sports. However, I agree that for middles and sprints the top juniors should be competing on the same courses as the elites, it makes a lot of sense in "bridging the gap" between junior and senior.

To Martin: Perhaps we would be running the current course for M20A if there was a 20E grade. Personally, I will be running it anyway.

To Simon: Read my full 13 page report including outline of the complete rules and guidelines for the proposal at - Simon Jager, Former M14A Winner

To Tane: The grade changes we are suggesting are not going to create any more grades - that's the whole point is to get everyone competing together like elites.

To Michael: I actually suggest that we make the 20E grade the same as the "Junior Super Series". This means that there is no need to have more than 1 grade, and means that 18s will not be in a dilemma as to whether they should run their grade or run up for Super Series points. Also, I think Under 23 should be scrapped because all it does it encourage Juniors progressing into the senior ranks to keep running the same courses and grades rather than stepping up to 21E. It also means that last year James Bradshaw or Greg Flynn could have been in the same competition as a 16 or 17 year old and that is just ridiculous.

To Stu:

Show Profile  SJ Posted: 9 March 2006, 10:26 PM  
I think people need to remember that the reason this change was proposed (or at least the reason I think it should happen) is to try and get a competitive grade running for juniors the same as 21E is for seniors. At the moment that is not happening, and I think it is evident today, with the majority of the top juniors progressing into elites being well off the pace for at least a couple of years.

This grade change would bring juniors up to a higher standard, I am sure of that.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 10 March 2006, 8:13 AM  
The point you are trying to make is a name change will make you better (and thats all it is a name change, not a grade change). It wont! You can make yourself better, run whatever it is that is going to be most beneficial for you, it doesn't matter what the hell it is called. All you juniors have got up in arms because Oz have changed theirs to E, guess what they are not the best in the world. Nothing is wrong here at the moment, you guys keep kicking Aussie ass and the latest set of Juniors into Elites, Bryn and Ross, both clocked up Elite wins last year, so there goes that argument.

What got M21E competitive of late is the Super Series, a grade has been defined for the Junior League so that should solve the problem of creating competitiveness.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 10 March 2006, 9:21 AM  
Simon, you are lost in the gloomy dark dream of -20E.

There is nothing to stop you running M20A right now, it doesnt have to be called M20E for you to do that. Think back to your time in M16 - you quite readily ran M18.

Martin Peat, Never ran M14

Show Profile  addison Posted: 10 March 2006, 11:38 AM  
I never ran M14 either martin. I ran M14A. Cant you see this whole argument is about a single letter, so please respect why I make this point.

Simon Addison, Former 1st XV Rugby Player "2000-2003"

1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions