maptalk.co.nz Forum   |   Links    

  Forum

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  Keith Posted: 21 February 2006, 3:57 PM  
Your beloved Waikato is hardly any better. Martin and Tane know where the real engineering is.

Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 22 February 2006, 1:29 PM  
allright then smartpants what should we do?

it is obvious that some people want longer courses while still at junior level, but stll want decent numbers in their grades. m20 has sort of died lately in terms of numbers of competitors and the top guys all start rightfully running up at the moment.

all im doing is suggesting ideas. the current arrangement doesnt seem to be working in terms of producing world class athletes so why dont we align with the australians who are producing world class orienteers in the form of hanny and julian dent.


Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 22 February 2006, 1:32 PM  
i'll give you that the event database is a good idea.

but i dont see how its similar in workload to what im suggesting, all my needs is moving grades onto different, pre-existing courses and perhaps lengthening the courses concerned.
anyway i dont really care what you think simon.

Show Profile  Tane Cambridge Posted: 22 February 2006, 2:16 PM  
If some people(mainly M16-M18) want to run longer courses they should just run up in M20, by all means change the name to elite so it adds more prestiege and more spectacle.
As it stands M20A run Course 2. Course 2 is shared with M21A and W21E so it is no big deal to offer the M20A(or M20E) grade as an option, even if there is only one or maybe(?) two serious compeditors in that grade, at the moment. Offering it creates little extra work, and if you have no takers then its going to be used for the other grades anyway. M18A run course 3 anyway, so its not that much of a step up to Course 2.
If you keep it the way it is it still allows the compeditors to "take it at their own pace" and if they want better competition they should step up to the plate and run up a grade.

I do agree that there maybe be something Austraila is doing that we could learn from, but you have to remember Austraila is a lot bigger than NZ and has a larger compeditor base than us so they can sustain a grade like you have suggested.

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 22 February 2006, 9:45 PM  
I'm not sure whether Hanny and Julian have ever run a Junior Elite grade. It certainly wasn't around in my day....and the Australians are good in my day and before. Maybe there better because they don't spend so much time on maptalk?

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 22 February 2006, 9:47 PM  
Tom, I have to agree with Simon to some extent. What exactly is your proposal for ALL the junior grades. Your going to have to spell it out.

Show Profile  James Posted: 22 February 2006, 9:52 PM  
I havent read all of this thread, cos theres way too much bitching and going on about nothing, so maybe i shouldnt comment? but what the hell!
Yes hanny and julian both ran in the aussie junior league (a very successful competition might i add) and havent those two done well!

But wasnt the junior elite grade at Waitangi weekned absolute kickass???!!!!
I loved that the juniors had such wicked depth of competitors (didnt the junior girls have more than twice as much as the women elite?)
It was so good to see all the top nz competing against eachother for once even some that were 4years apart. and general feedback ive heard in person is that although the courses were physiclly tough, they all loved it!
I say bring on the M/W20E!

Show Profile  addison Posted: 23 February 2006, 6:57 AM  
Thomas, I am not the one proposing this idea.

Perhaps if you are wanting longer courses, then you should run these at your local OY series events etc. If you and your age group runners all want to run against each other on a longer course at a big event, then get together and run up.

Neil is right that Julian and Hanny never ran a Junior Elite grade. I remember Hanny coming to NZ when in 16's and just caning everyone. Its nothing to do with this 20E idea. Julian was class from a young age as well, so dont go banking on these two as your star examples.

You dont care what I think Thomas? Isnt that brilliant. I would care what you thought Thomas, if you ever showed signs of thinking on here. I can rest assured that wont happen anytime soon judging by what you have posted so far.


And James, Waitangi Weekend was an exception where the grade was just rebranded with E instead of being 20A. The next tier of runners were not at Waitangi, so you cannt use that as a fair event to judge off. Also for those that did get beaten handsomely, its ok to get beaten that badly for one event but how do you think they would feel getting beaten by that much every event?

This message was edited by Simon Addison on 23 February 2006, 8:00 AM

This message was edited by Simon Addison on 23 February 2006, 8:41 AM

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 23 February 2006, 8:02 AM  
Summary: if you care, read it. I used to like it, now I’m reserved. someone wanted stats, if you don’t like the stats I don’t care, statistics, analysis, don’t change it all right now, its too fast, change name of 20a for promo &feel good of top guns.

2 months ago I was all for it. Now I am hesitant. Yes Waitangi weekend was great, and I'm sure the selectors loved having everyone running in the same grade. But look at the time gaps evident in the longer courses, quite frankly everyone isnt up to running the longer distances that some of our top young guns want.

Someone mentioned statistics, so here's some based on Waitangi Weekend. They’re pretty rough stats, if you don’t like them, I don’t care.

Day 1, a classic race.
Mens: Fastest 77min, slowest 163min, difference 86min or 212% of WT.
Womens: Fastest 65min, slowest 113min, difference 47min or 172% of WT.

Day 2, sprint
Mens: Fastest 19min, slowest 32min, difference 13min or 166% of WT.
Womens: Fastest 18min, slowest 28min, difference 10min or 153% of WT.

Day 2 middle
Mens: Fastest 38min, slowest 51min, difference 23min or 160% of WT.
Womens: Fastest 34min, slowest 55min, difference 21min or 160% of WT.

Day 3, loops
Mens: Fastest 62min, slowest 96min, difference 34min or 153% of WT.
Womens: Fastest 52min, slowest 74min, difference 22min or 142% of WT.

I’ve chosen to look at the fastest, slowest and difference in time, and have also looked at the standard deviation. My reason for this is that the majority of the concern about the concept of 20E is the weaker runners, not the top guns.

The “best” results came in the loops race where the field was closest – especially in the guys where 4min covered the top7, and the last 4 were in close succession. In the girls there were 3 10min ahead and 9 others within 10min of each other. Some close racing. BUT that will be due to the mass start so although it looks good, don’t take too much notice of it.

Day 2 middle and sprint results in my view are good results for the 20E system, the entire field is in within approximately 160% of the winners time, just over 10min in the sprint and 20min in the middle.

The major flaw in 20E is evident looking at day 1 results, especially given the turnout of second tier orienteers. A whooping 86min time gap in the mens is over 200% of the winners time, likewise 46min in the womens is over 170% of the winners time. The majority of both fields are spread out up to 150% behind the winner, but the remainer of the field straggle in later.

Going through and looking at the results, having the whole field contained within 150-160% of the winners time is what I’ve called a good result. Using the points system for multiday events, 150% is a key statistic, and it is the same in WRE points. So it must be important for something!

I’d conclude that for the shorter events, sprint and middle 20E would be fine. Not everyone is up to running long distances.

Solution: don’t make widespread changes, they won’t benefit the whole. Waitangi was cool, calling them junior elites was cool. Change the name of 20A to 20E and call it junior elites – that’s just superficial. If you want longer courses then run up a grade, if you don’t then don’t run up, just go faster and harder on shorter courses and be the best. 20E could be used for selected middle and sprint races, but I would be hesitant about using them on longs.


Show Profile  addison Posted: 23 February 2006, 8:29 AM  
I think Martin raises some really good points in there, and its great to have the statistical backing of those points.

Perhaps if this grade was to go ahead, I dont necessarily think that they should be barred from running classics.. but this does highlight the fact that it cant always be classics that they run. The key is variation in distance.

Show Profile  Dave Barr Posted: 23 February 2006, 11:09 AM  


This message was edited by Dave Barr on 14 March 2006, 8:31 AM

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 23 February 2006, 11:35 AM  
I point you to paragraph 3, Dave: "They’re pretty rough stats, if you don’t like them, I don’t care."

Show Profile  addison Posted: 23 February 2006, 2:07 PM  
"The first problem is that the analysis clearly does not allow for the removal of out-liers. For instance on the first day it's clear at first glance that Aiden and Pauls time cannot be included. By my reckoning Aidan was approximately 9 standard deviations outside of the mean time and Paul's time was over 20 out."

So in other words you are trying to say these people are completely irrelevant? Just imagine what it would be like when you get a group of semi-keen orienteers running in this grade! Paul and Aiden both attend lots of events, so IMO should be included in any statistical interpretation of the grade.


Also further to your argument, should we make it compared with the winners time that should have occured? That would have meant I would have taken over 10minutes of time off, which means the statistics of the classic would be anything but satisfactory.


"The fourth problem is that you have failed to link your analysis to a cost - what real detriment is caused to NZ orienteering by the failure of the field to finish within 150% of the winners time?"

Read the rest of the post, this question has already been answered. Demoralisation of those who are incapable of winning is not something we should be aiming to do all the time. The cost - them quitting orienteering.

Show Profile  Dave Barr Posted: 23 February 2006, 3:41 PM  


This message was edited by Dave Barr on 14 March 2006, 8:32 AM

Show Profile  Dave Barr Posted: 23 February 2006, 3:44 PM  
Let me rephrase my last two posts.

Don't try and form conclusions based on half-arsed analysis. The anecdotal evidence was both more compelling and less specious.


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


Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions maptalk.co.nz