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  Tane Cambridge Posted: 5 October 2005, 11:35 PM  
Why does NZ always have to copy Aus, haven't you seen the movie "Cool Runnings"

Currently as you say the M20A grade is almost non-existant, so what you want is another grade to make the competition more intense. This addition would kill the M20A grade, so essentially all that would change is the name of the grade.
Why not be realistic and just keep the grade how it is (maybe change the name to E, if it would make you feel better). If you had a M17-20E grade you would still be runnning against the same people as you would if you ran up a grade in M20A. So how would this make a difference?

Show Profile  nick Posted: 6 October 2005, 10:58 AM  
It would be a largely cosmetic change, but bigger fields/more competition would be automatic, rather than specifically engineered by entrants before every event.

While you're waiting for the political wheels to turn (ages - you might be 21 before this changes!) you young fullas can still help yourselves by all agreeing to run up. Then you'll be competing amongst yourselves, with the 20's *and* with other strong orienteers on Course 2. You'll be able to pick the brains of runners in W21E and M40A.

Show Profile  A1 Posted: 6 October 2005, 11:31 AM  
The idea behind changing the junior age groups in aus was mainly because of problems with jwoc selection classes at easter. a while ago it was decided that 18s and 20s would run the same courses so that everyone could run their own age class and still be compared for selection. this created the problem that the courses ended up being too short (because they still had to cater for 18s who had no intention of going for jwoc) and therefore was not a good selection trial (especially for the girls - ended up with a <50min classic). by spliting that age group (17-20) on ability rather than age it gives the chance for the better juniors to run longer/harder courses (and a proper jwoc trial) and still allows other juniors to run A courses without having the elite distances. this wasn't about adding extra classes, it was re-arranging the age classes that existed to better cater for the needs of that age group.

Show Profile  James Posted: 6 October 2005, 12:43 PM  
dont know who this 'A1' character is, but his got some really good points!
So it has been established that the changing of grades is more cosmetic than anything.
Yet almost every top junior supports the decision.
So why not listen to them?
An earlier post asked 'Why does NZ always have to copy Aus?'
well we did it with the changing of difficulty of the junior grades.
Which i think had a distinct effect on our schools teams results in aussie this year.
So why not follow aussies lastest change? they seem to be doing a liitle better on the junior world stage than we are. maybe this will help us? and if not, its certaintly not going to be a detriment, cos after all its just a cosmetic change right?
Our current crop of juniors are arguably the most promising group of orienteers seen in NZ, so why not help them towards their cause of getting NZ some great results? Lets give these juniors what they want, its not going to affect the rest of us, so why are so many non juniors complaining about it??

Show Profile  Jack Vincent Posted: 6 October 2005, 1:29 PM  
Exactly! We want harder courses and harder competition. Having a 17-20 grade caters for the best juniors and also the ones who can't survive course 2 by having the A option. All the juniors who have posted have experienced the grade in Australia and are all in complete support of it. Why cant we have it!

Show Profile  Bridget Posted: 6 October 2005, 1:49 PM  

hey guys, ive read over this whole thing and i fully support the idea that you should get 17-20e. as an australian ive expierienced it myself and all i've heard from it is nothing but good remarks and as i will be starting 17-20e next year i'm slightly nervous about running against 20 year olds but i'm up for the challenge and its only going to make me train harder. so i hope you guys over there get 17-20e because it's great expierience running at an elite level and it gives the juniors great publicity as being junior elites.

Show Profile  addison Posted: 6 October 2005, 2:21 PM  
Thomas - the only reason Australia looks to be the first non-european country to have a World Champ is not because of them having a 17-20E grade. You justification is bullshit.

It is a good idea in terms of trying to promote the "JWOC" age grade to the community via newspapers etc.

It is also a good idea in the respect it makes the selectors get a better indication of the levels people are at compared to others in the wider age group. This prevents 'bolters' and bad selections that are prone to occuring when all you have is one trial race. Increase the number of events decreases the error for selecting.

And may I add that the only reason Australia is looking like having the first World Champion outside of Europe is because they have a bloody legend coming up by the name of Hanny.

Show Profile  Kate Posted: 6 October 2005, 2:56 PM  
One point seems to be, if juniors want to run up a grade, they will run up a grade, so there is no need to change from the current m/w18a and m/w20a system. But, if there are all these juniors running up anyway, shouldn't the name of grade reflect the ages of those competing?

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 6 October 2005, 3:28 PM  
So change 20 to 18's? and 21 to 19-45?

Show Profile  PaulS Posted: 6 October 2005, 3:31 PM  
Don't get your girlfriend on here to back you up jack!

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 6 October 2005, 5:20 PM  
Who outside orienteering knows what M16, M18 or M20 is - theyr basically U15, U17 and U19, and i've found this sometimes needs explaining. From a publicity point of view "junior elite" would be much easier to understand and promote.

Bridget, running 17-20E is not experience running at elite level - elite level is 21E, juniors is different.

that question: 'Why does NZ always have to copy Aus?'
Australia has a larger number of orienteers (and a larger population, but thats beside the point). In NZ one of the ultimate aims must be to increase numbers, thus looking to the larger Australian model of grades shows one possible path ahead that caters for more people.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 6 October 2005, 5:36 PM  
Oz 20,000,000 people, NZ 4,000,000. The majority of numbers in Oz come from street orienteers, as far as I'm concerned the less street oing the better, if you want to know the true reason for Oz producing top elites at the moment, look back at European race results for the last few years.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 6 October 2005, 6:00 PM  
my reply to 'Why does NZ always have to copy Aus?' didn't talk of elites, just the ultimate aim of increasing numbers. Grade sturctures change with a change in numbers.

NZ Long Champs 2005: 447
Aus Long Champs 2005: 722

Show Profile  Jack Vincent Posted: 6 October 2005, 6:48 PM  
Seems like any ideas that people put on this site get rubbished and disregarded. Screw the whole idea then. It was just a positive suggestion to try and improve junior orienteering and its reputation in NZ. It"s working in Aus. They report the results for 21e and 17-20e in their papers and every day had a two page spread. It would have been a good way to increase publicity for O in nz through elite juniors and seniors. But no, seems like the old guys always know best and there is no way a junior could ever have a good idea about the setup of orienteering in NZ.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 6 October 2005, 7:14 PM  
You're finally getting the idea Jack!! It is maptalk, not "offical NZOF ideas forum"

Auckland OY results are always in the Herald, for each grade as well.

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

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions