 PaulS
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 12:28 PM
Do you want a tissue Jack?
|
|
thomasr
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 12:46 PM
firstly... Simon:
you say Australia have a bloody legend in Hanny, and they do! she is amazing! but how do you know we dont have a "hanny" waiting in the ranks? and even if we dont have a talent like hanny we should be trying everything we can to get as good as the aussies. You forget about guys like simon, jasmine, and ryan over there who are bloody good orienteers too.
secondly....
It looks like a few people have decided that they cant be bothered trying to be the best so they have taken to trying to shut down the ideas of other people who are still commited to achieving something great. Who cares if its street o! at least they know that orienteering isnt sum stupid nerd sport like most people think it is!!
And the stuf in the herald is nothing compared to what they had in aus.
|
|
thomasr
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 12:47 PM
and paul....
Bridget is a damn sight better at orienteering than u.
|
|
PaulS
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 1:03 PM
That cuts me deep tom, stop it.
|
|
Martin
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 1:11 PM
enough of the personal attacks guys. go have your fight somewhere else.
perhaps you've heard enough of the positive and negative comments here Jack, now write up a proposal if you wish (include the positives and negatives everyone's put into this discussion), and take it to your club. The onus is on us juniors to get it to the next stage - if we want it.
|
|
Greg
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 1:37 PM
Come on Martin this was just getting good, old fashon maptalk styles.
|
|
maxwell
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 1:39 PM
whats an onus?
|
|
Jack Vincent
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 1:47 PM
Yeah will do.
|
|
Neil K
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 3:06 PM
Firstly a question to the Krew?
What are ALL the grades and courses proposed? What is the overall effect on course grades and lengths?
My thought was to replace the 18A and 20A with the proposed E grade. 2 grades down to 1. Instantly more competition and nobody has to run up a grade.
Whilst people have been running up a grade for years to counteract the problem of lack of competition…this tells us that there is and has been a problem with official grading. The solution that SOME people used was to run up was not an ideal one as it has its draw backs and doesn’t solve the problem at the source.
So the question is why shouldn’t 17 year olds compete against 20 year olds. First argument is that they are less likely to win. Well I think what most juniors are saying is they can handle that…they want competition rather than easy victories. And the same goes for those down the order…they too get more competition and stay longer in the grade so therefore can celebrate their improvement better. The second argument is that a 17 year old has less physical stamina and will not be able to handle the M20A length courses. Okay, a fair point and especially relevant for those more recreational and less trained 17 year olds. My proposal (similar I think to Australia) is that the course selected for this new grade 17-20E be the current 18A length (For the men 3 or 4).
Now I can imagine that many are thinking this makes it a massive jump from course 4 to course 1 when it comes time for the juniors to become Elites. However, I don’t believe it will be a much bigger leap than it is currently for the following reasons. We are proposing the new grades for major events. I believe that major events are the pinnacle of our sport in NZ and should be about the competition itself. Club events OY’s and training are plenty enough for a budding young elite to develop the length attributes required to run elites. They are far more likely to train to be an elite if they are forced to train at an earlier age (17 onwards) because of good competition (because of is twice as many people and the top juniors not running up in a separate grade).
I have a strong believe that longer course do not have a huge influence on developing better orienteers. I staunchly believe that better competition produces a better orienteers both technically and physically. I also argue that the physical training required to improve in course 2 as apposed to course 4 is not distinctly different so it should not hinder the development of a junior’s fitness. The same basic physical attributes will contribute to a victory whether the course is longer or a little shorter…so it won’t change the type competition just improve the level.
So to summarise I’m still in favour of the new grade. I applaud our head honcho for asking questions and raising issues first rather than passing judgment (which haven’t really be answered), and would like to see some better debating on the problems and solutions, rather than a close-minded argument.
Kind Regards
Neil
|
|
Neil K
|
Posted: 6 October 2005, 3:34 PM
I have another question. What are other sports doing? What ages or skill levels do other sports segregate by? And of those sports which ones are “athlete vs athlete interacting†eg Rugby, Soccer, Basketball, Tennis, Wrestling; and which ones are “athletes score/time vs anothers score/time) eg orienteering, golf, running,
For example I remember from my Rugby days we went mainly on age, but also had weight restrictions, to stop the smaller ones being slammed. Tennis where I came from it was a junior age I think it was under U18, and then you were ranked in your team to play the corresponding rank of another team so it was more about level of ability then age.
|
|
HeadHoncho
|
Posted: 7 October 2005, 1:29 AM
Why thank you Neil.
Jack, I don't think this idea has been "rubbished and disregarded" as the majority of posts on here have been in support of the idea. As far as "oldies know best" there have been very few "oldies" post on this thread (unless you count Greg and Neil as old?) and for the record, my original post was asking some questions, not rubbishing the suggestion.
As for dismissing ideas because they come from juniors - I'll excuse you because you don't know me very well. I don't care how old people are when it comes to listening to people who are passionate enough about our sport to express their ideas about how it may be improved. If "NZOF" really thought our juniors had no brains then they wouldn't have allowed a 16 y.o. to volunteer his services as their webmaster. Nor would they write in their plans that they want to encourage juniors to have their say in how the sport should be managed - the last thing I want is for our juniors to feel their ideas are not listened to and/or not taken seriously. They are, as Simon says, the future of our sport.
Back to the issue at hand, I don't actually have a strong opinion one way or the other - but if a change is to occur, I'll make sure it is done for the right reasons. Just because Aus do it is not a good reason in my book. Up until recently, Aus and NZ handled JWOC selection differently. Aus had the 18 and 20 grades running the same course and the introduction of the 17/20e grade has been a result, if you believe one of the earlier postings, of the 20's being compromised in course length. NZL just said any 18's who wanted to be considered for JWOC had to run 20's. Personally I believe our system was easier, simpler and better.
Please remember when thinking about this, it is unusual to have a group of top juniors who are close in ability, competing against each other and pushing each other. That's great, but you are fortunate in my opinion. Usually, there are only 1 or 2 juniors coming through each year and they do suffer from a lack of comeptition. The question in my mind is would having a 17/20e grade be any more beneficial in the years say when there is only a Greg and Ross around compared to the current crop or the Brent/Karl group of 10 or so years ago?
The other question is the affect on those juniors who are not at the top. Neil says, quite rightly, that better competition produces better orienteers. However, field depth is also a factor. Basically the idea is to split the 18's and encourage the top 18's to run 20's in a renamed grade. Well, what's the affect on the 18's who finish say 5th to 10th? Will they be encouraged/motivated to stay in the sport when their peers are buggering off to compete in a different grade?
When making changes, I believe you need to consider what the effect will be on ALL those affected by the change, not just a select few at the top. And these are merely questions, not hiding any preferred opinion I may have.
P.S. Ross, "onus" is something involved in felching. Borrow Andrew's dictionary.
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 7 October 2005, 1:59 AM
Right here we go.
Jack:
Go have a cry on your Mrs's shoulder. Every idea people have has positives and negatives. All you are seeing is the positives and when constructive debate occurs which outlines the negatives, you begin to have a cry. Every idea needs to be considered with respect to both the positives and negatives of that idea. If that did not occur then we would get some ideas which had great intentions but which in the end would kill our sport.
Thomas:
Firstly, when you first began orienteering I bet your goal was to beat the best. It wasnt to say "lets aim to beat the person who came 5th". So why aim to be on the level of Australia, we should be aiming to be the best. Australia believes that the new grade will make them the best, but whats to say it will.
We have our own brains so why not use them. Our country is different to Australia in a number of ways, especially so in respect of orienteering. Sure they are 'big brother' to us but that doesnt mean anything. We have different terrains, different school competitions, and different numbers of orienteers. Ideally I would say model ourselves off Sweden, but that is just too unworkable due to the fact we dont have a big enough orienteering population. You see my point?
Also I am not doubting that Australia has some bloody good orienteers on the way up. But we have some just as good if not better. Ross was right up there with the Australians at JWOC and if you go by population the chances of getting Australia having a "Ross" would be 5x as much as us. Simple statistics.
While I agree with the idea in practice, I believe it does need some refining. Put together a proper proposal and then get us to comment on it.
Rob:
I couldnt agree with you more. You are one of the fairest people I know when it comes to listening to ideas/complaints/farts. All I can say is that I wish all others would be as fair as you are.
Neil:
I agree with you. But perhaps we could have a bit more variance in the course. Maybe one or two events during the season could be on Course 2 for classic?
Martin:
Dont stop the personal slagging. Encourage it. Foster it. Let it grow.
Peace
|
|
Michael
|
Posted: 7 October 2005, 4:46 AM
Let me just say that there's a bunch of old guys who are seriously considering this question. The High Performance Director has sought the advice of the Coaching Director, the Secondary School Coordinator, the former NOS Coaching Coordinators and the D Squad Coaching Coordinator. In the main they are listening, and thinking.
Jack, I think the amount of newspaper coverage in Oz vs NZ is a red herring. I would think there are many factors besides the classes that influence this. Small towns (and states) are easier, the skill of the media officer etc. Perhaps you'd like to put your hand up for NZOF Media Officer?
This message was edited by Michael on 7 October 2005, 12:48 PM
|
|
addison
|
Posted: 7 October 2005, 4:54 AM
So Michael why have we (the ones affected) not heard a word from you other than via the D Squad Coaching Coordinator when we got told the dates for the Junior Superseries?
I would have thought we would have been the first to have had consultation about the dates, but I was obviously wrong to think that
This message was edited by Simon Addison on 7 October 2005, 12:59 PM
|
|
PaulS
|
Posted: 7 October 2005, 4:57 AM
Indeed. Juniors should be making the decisions here.
|
|
© Ruffneck Productions