Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

junior superseries

Show Profile  thomasr Posted: 11 May 2006, 6:01 AM  
lets start again

I agree with james. I never said that the junior superseries was a bad idea, it just needs some fine tuning.
the 17-20e thing would have been good. But im not going on about that again because it was my own fault for not putting in a remit.

all it needs is some tuning:

1. Run it on m/w 17 20e
2. run it over the full superseries
3. make people be able to drop more events than in the usual superseries

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 11 May 2006, 6:25 AM  
1. There is no m/w 17-20e
2. It was decieded to fall inside a calendar year because of the change of grade at 1st Jan effecting Juniors
3. How does this help, it gives the message you can miss more races. Then you will not have full fields at any stage and then it really would be a joke.

Your agrument for m/w17-20e is starting to get a bit drawn out Tom if you now are using the Junior Super Series for it. How are the 21-23 that are part of the Junior Super Series ment to enter?

Before Simon has a dig at you, you should probably think about the 3 points your have listed and the reasons behind why they are as they are at the moment, then give your own reasons as to why your ideas will be better rather than just stating them.

Show Profile  Jamie Posted: 11 May 2006, 6:33 AM  
1) 17-20E remains a good idea
2) When the superseries is only one grade (17-20E) people don't change grades that much
2b) The junior super series is also a teams competition
3) Super series races are good quality events, why not encourage the juniors to run them as much as possible...then drop more races sure because of the funding issue, sure some fields won't be strong...and the central team will inevitably benefit.

21-23 year olds should be running elite, what are we trying to produce, soft cocks?

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 11 May 2006, 7:23 AM  
the original proposal for a junior superseries (which got shunned by those higher up) didn't include the 21-23 bracket.
part of the aim of the Junior superseries is aimed at bridging the gap between secondary school competitions and the club scene.

17-20e still remains a good idea in theory, soemone needs to do some serious planning and put forward somethign in writing before it can go any further. the major concern is the 2nd tier of orienteers who are currently surviving in the A grades but would struggle with the extra length of an E course. There is no incentive for them to compete in 17-20A, everyone would want to run the 17-20E because it's the top grade. look at the results from easter 3day in aussie - that proves it.

Show Profile  jeffg Posted: 11 May 2006, 9:29 AM  
Martin, the numbers in 17-20A didn't look too bad for Easter 3day, over half the 17-20E grade entries for both men and women. Or was there something else other than numbers?

Show Profile  Nah Posted: 11 May 2006, 10:00 AM  

The Junior Super series isnt a bike, you can't tune it.

So Nah!

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 11 May 2006, 10:38 AM  
Whoops it was the Aus Middle Dist champs numbers that i remembered, they were only 1 or 2 in the a grade

Show Profile  James Posted: 12 May 2006, 12:57 AM  
Well im sure that most orienteers could handle running an 'elite' grade in a middle distance championships, because the course then is likely to be only about 1km longer (if that). So thats why i reckon the 17-20A grades were depleted at the aussie middle champs (afterall the navigation level is the same). Then aussies easter numbers were brought up (allbiet by accident) but it showed that entries were in fact pretty damn good, which i believe proves that the 17-20E grade works well

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 12 May 2006, 1:53 AM  
You can't base NZ off OZ, it is not the same, it will not work the same

Show Profile  SJ Posted: 12 May 2006, 7:39 AM  
That's a pretty rigid statement Greg. I think there are a lot of similarities and I think the grade would work in much the same way, just with less numbers probably. Having said that, look at the numbers in the M/W20 grade at Waitangi - they were pretty good. And I think that is a great example of how this grade would work - successfully!

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 12 May 2006, 7:48 AM  
There is still no offer for those below a 17-20E grade. Thats where I believe the major problem is. If a plan can be presented that covers for those not up to E level, then I would back it, but as it stands the arguments coming from those who would do well in an E grade are: It would be good, Oz does it or it just would work.

Oz has numbers and depth, less numbers would not mean it would not work the same way here, if you have less numbers in an E grade, then there are even less in the (non-existent) non E grade, that is when you will loose these non E runners, look at your own club structure, how many of the main people involved in running the club use to be elite runners?

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 12 May 2006, 8:58 AM  
That's where you're wrong Greg.
There is an offer for those below 17-20E. It's called 17-20A and 17-20B. This has not been discussed as much as the Elite grade.

17-20E runs same course as 20A
17-20A runs same course as 18A
17-20B runs same course as either 18B or 20B (Orange course)

The change from 20A to 17-20E is not substantial, you could almost call it superficial. The big change is giving some of the 19 & 20 year olds the chance of running a shorter course than the current 20A. It works in theory.

I feel the problem arises in that the theory won't work. Juniors will still keep running up grades, and running E when they would be 'best' suited in A. they call it pride.

Show Profile  James Posted: 12 May 2006, 9:09 AM  
greg you are always looking on the negative side, or trying to go agaisnst opinion of others.
If there were an elite grade introduced for juniors, then like previous posts have suggested an 17-20A grade would accompany it. Does this not cater for the non-elite??

I believe that NZ is beginning to develop numbers and depth. Arent our secondary schools numbers increasing??? I heard something like 300+ attending NISS a few weeks back............
Plus recent NZSS numbers have also been really good.
As Simon pointed out, the grades at Waitangi were damn good, and the competition rocked! Of particular note was the depth in the girls 20's grade (much better than 1 or 2 competitiors we have seen for the last 4-5years). On that note how many athletes were trialling for JWOC this year??? When have we had so many??? If ever at all?
I believe this demonstrates depth in NZ.

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 12 May 2006, 10:23 AM  
How is my post looking at the negative side, I'm trying to make sure we get the maximum number of juniors continuing with orienteering past junior level, I call that positive, rather than looking at the select few will benefit from the E grade. (Tending to a smaller number = negative trend)

Your examples of secondary schools are a crock of shit, how many of those 300+ do events outside of the secondary schools scheme, bugger all, if you want to do something positive for our 17-20, work out a way to get all of the 300+ coming to non secondary schools events.

As Martin points out (and he is the only one who has mentioned a 17-20 A grade as well), in theory it won't work as those not good enough will still run up, get an ass whipping and give up.

One weekend of good numbers does not mean there is depth in our junior ranks, it means there is a good year. Unless it is the same year after year its not depth and depth should be the first priority.

You forget I was the mastermind behind Waitangi Weekend and the grade/course combinations, I know what it was and how well it work. Now convince the NZOF technical committee and everyone else who wants to win their respected 5 year age grade to only having senior M/W Elite and Junior M/W Elite plus 3 other COURSES to choose from (plus a Yellow and White). Then I think it will work, like Waitangi Weekend as there were no other labels.

Show Profile  Martin Posted: 12 May 2006, 10:55 AM  
the theory is that people run the appropriate grade. the practical side is those not good enough will still run up

The Waitangi example is wearing thin with me, it isnt so stunning and indicates a 2nd tier would be of use. Have a look at the times for day 1 again:
1st &2nd within a minute
3-7 5-10min behind
8th 20min behind
10,11 +1hr
one MP

1st &2nd within a minute
3,4 ~5min behind
5-10 10-20min back
11-14 30-50min back

There was no 17-20A course offered so the comparisons are not complete.

Offering Senior & Junior elite, plus 3 courses (& Y & W) is NOT a reality. What labels are you talking about?

There are an increasing number of school orienteers doing club orienteering, largely in HB, I know of a few examples in auckland (jourdan & Greta & Linkorn sisters, few others from EGGS & Kings & Westlake & AGS)

Here's some stats regarding James' comment on secondary school numbers:

Participation in Schools:
1998: 858
1999: 828
2000: 671
2001: 571
2002: 636
2003: 584
2004: 697
2005: 736

Number of students representing school:
2000: 671
2001: 571
2002: 636
2003: 584
2004: 697
2005: 736

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 12 May 2006, 11:15 AM  
Labels as in 17-20 E, 17-20 A, dolphins and porpoises what ever is pc, but you got my point it is not a reality.

Whats the point behind the numbers? you have listed say about a dozen, out of 736, = 1.63%, there is a pool, but no depth.




Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions