Results after the first 2 events of 2009 S.E.Galoppen are on the S. E. web site http://www.seoa.org.uk/

I note that the results are in course order and that we have lost the age classification. Is this to be the norm? If it is then it is another blow for the older classes. Soon there will be no point in running since comparison with ones peers will be difficult if not impossible.

In the new level 2 events there are no age classes as such. I have done the best I can by separating the courses into male and female, but can not see any fair way to sort into age classes, when the whole point of level 2 events being colour coded, is so that competitors can run competitively on any course.

I am like you and can not see any advantages to this new system. Not only are the older competitors disadvantaged, but the female’s will not be encouraged having to compete against the men. I can say I did think of giving up coordinating this competition when I found out about these new ageless classes.

I think that there needs to be discussion within the SE clubs and through the SEOA committee to decide how best to deal with colours and classes for the Galoppen.

2009 is a transitional year - clubs don’t have to adopt the new colour conventions for regional events just yet. I note that our own regional at Winkins and the DFOK regional at Shorne will be keeping with the traditional ages class courses (although most of the other events seem to be going with the colour coded courses and suggested age class participants). There will therefore be a mix of formats in 2009.

Whatever is decided, it needs to result in a Galoppen that is relevant, popular, and also straightforward to administrate.

We could start the SO discussion on how we’d like to see it go on this thread.

I cannot see the justification of the new colour system. Nothing has been gained but a massive amount has been lost. Whilst I will never be at the top of the rankings I nevertheless strived to beat those above. The new system system will achieve only one thing - to remove the competative element and hence the attraction of the sport.
There is an old saying - If it’s not broke don’t mend it. The old system worked well and was definitely not broke.

My position in the M40/M45 National Ranking list has always been inflated because many of the better runners preferred to run M21 at most events. As an indicator of relative performance the ranking system is broken. A solution exists which is to have a single, all age-class, ranking list in which you gain points based on your performance against everyone else on the course that you run. Entering and doing well on a lower course will not be an easy route to more ranking points since you are likely to be running against more lowly ranked competitors. This single ranking list should hopefully be implemented in 2010 but who knows. A feature of the single ranking list is that it must be able to pull out those of the same age class into separate lists so all M65s (say) will be able to compare themselves against each other.

There is a certain comfort in the age class system and you could feel proud of winning the M45 class conveniently ignoring the fact that five M50s beat you on the same course. Less easy to hide under the new system, although ideally it should still be possible to sort course results by age. Mike Napier sort of did this for Yateley.

I think the solution must be to display the results in courses and classes.  The purists, then, can consider their position in the courses and the rest of us can remain in the comfort of the classes.

Currently, having just moved up a class, I am feeling frustrated.  I cannot even identify my direct competitors on the Short Green Course since their age classes are not displayed on many of the start lists.  I am currently, probably the youngest competitor entering this class, so if I were fit, I should win the class or be beaten by a fit 75 year old man!  This is fine although the other week I was beaten by a 45 year old man (not fair!), but how will I feel when I am 70 or 75? 

In the Green class W60s run against W16s.  If the W16 is a good orienteer and fairly fit I don’t think there is any way a W60 can win. 

Throughout a long career as a PE teacher, one of the most important things that I felt I did was to encourage competition and to provide success at all levels.  In this way even the most disenchanted or the most incapacitated of girls blossomed and learned to enjoy physical activity at their own level as well as the best of them reaching representation for their county or country. 

We need to ensure that competition remains at as many levels as possible.

I do not think I am alone in being 95% interested in my own age class and only 5% interested in others.  The old badge events (and National events) had the prime attraction of enabling comparisons to be made regarding my performance relative to my peers.  The fact that other classes ran the same course was totally irrelevant. The reduction of events to colour coded is extremely detrimental and as far as I can see achieves nothing.

There are also those that don’t see the point of going to a regional event and only racing against three others - as regularly happens for some age classes. At the Ditchling SOG the M60+ competitors were evenly split between the Blue and Green courses - presumably each running the course that they felt comfortable with. I suspect at SOGs people compare themselves with their similar-ability peers rather than their similar-age peers. This was the logic adopted by the event review group - let competitors choose which course they wanted to run at all event levels below championship. To allow age class comparisons to be made it is recommended that 1) Specific courses are recommended for each age class, 2) Results can be separated out by age class and 3) a single ranking list be devised that allows cross-course age-class comparisons. Interesting looking at the Black and Brown courses at Eridge I note that 6 out of the 8 SO members on these courses were running out of class, including 1 that wouldn’t have been allowed to compete on that course under the old system.

I agree with Neil about small classes not being very meaningful (though it was still good to win), but it was always possible to compare one’s run with others in different classes on the same course.

I note that the Eridge and Pippingford events are still not on the ranking lists despite a posting on the List website on 30th Dec stating that “The submission system has been updated to allow colour coded results to be submitted. The results should be in SportIdent format and will be converted to age-class format automatically by the submission system”.  Maybe this is also proving tricky…

Is it intended that you will be able to gain ranking points from your allocated course or if you run up a colour? I can’t be alone in wanting to gain ranking points and avidly watching the lists, can I?

My main wish remains that results should be posted in classes and courses and that classes be visible on start lists.

There has been much confusion and uncertainty about extracting ranking points from the new “ageless” regional events - the main reason why SO and DFOK decided to stick with the old system this year. The interim ranking points calculator will give you ranking points for your age class if you run the course recommended for your age class according to draft guideline B
http://gborienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/EventGuidelineBLevel23CrossCountryEventsJanuary2009DRAFT.pdf
If you run out of class the software will try and match you to an appropriate age class for that course and give you ranking points for that. I’m not sure of the exact details eg would an M45 on Brown get points for M40 or M35?

As for the lack of ranking points from Eridge or Pippingford - perhaps a polite enquiry to the organisers?

So small classes are not meaningful; so Elizabeth Brown world champion W90 is not meaningful - I think not!
In my fathers generation to actually be running at 60 let alone 65,70,75 or older was inconceivable.  Small classes are highly significant particularly for those effected.  Just look at the current ranking and you will see that as age increases into the super veteran classes the decrease in the number of competitors makes the competition all the harder.
As far as running out of class, this has always been possible.

I think that we’re wandering a little off the original subject. All good stuff to discuss, but doesn’t help Ed and the SE Galoppen!

I notice that Philip Gristwood is still awarding points based on age class (not course) for calculating SE League points.

Results from this event are based on the new BOF classes.  Provided that people run on the theoretical colour for their L or S course (or run up) they get the same points as before. Philip Gristwood - From the Eridge SE League Summary.

Obviously, to make this a workable approach, you need to have the age classes listed in the results for each colour. It should then be relatively straight forward (e.g. in a spreadsheet application like excel) to sort each colour course on class to generate a subset result for each classes. The event organisers need to include the classes in the published results - it’s not reasonable to expect Ed (or anybody else) to have to work this out themselves.
cf the mistake that I made with Bryony’s class (now corrected) in my recent news article about the British Night Champs!

If it were possible to generate galoppen tables on a similar basis to Philip’s method for the SE League, then we would get something pretty similar to what we had before. As Neil has mentioned, there would still be the anomally of people running up (i.e. which class to count them for). My suggestion for that would be to arbitarily allocate them the class on the course that runs them up the most (e.g. a M45 running brown would be allocated to M35, or W60 running short blue allocated W45, or W16 running short blue W20…etc..).

As far as small classes are concerned: “You’ve got to be in it, to win it!”.
In other words, if some of your peers chose to run up (good luck to them), or there aren’t many entered at all, then you can only compete against the competition that is available on the day. You can make your own assessment on the relative merits (or racing form) of the others in the class to validate your own result. I personaly take the view that if I’m running on the course suggested for my class by BOF or the organiser, then I should legitimately expect to get a valid result (pretty much regardless of the courses that my peers may chose to compete on - up or down).

As John says running out of class has always been possible, but for the older classes, this generally means running up so they will still be classed as competitive.  One of the problems that the new system tries to address is that of the younger newcomer who does not feel ready for the distances of M21L/S and yet if they run a course suited to them they will be classed as non-competitive. This is not very welcoming or encouraging for them.

If clubs respond to the obvious concerns of people and produce their results both in courses and in the recommended Age classes, then we should have the flexibility for people to choose the course that suits them and the age class competition that many people relish.

Back on topic then.

The intention of the event review was that competitors should get a free choice of which course to run at all events up to championship. I seem to recall that the original original proposal only had two levels. Regional was then brought back in.

Whilst Philip Gristwood is still basing SE League scores on age class (at least your points are related to your speed relative to your age class standard) he is not embracing the ageless concept. Eg if an M21 runs the blue he can only score 25% of the points that he could have done on Black.

Ed on the other hand is embracing this concept and basing the galoppen scores purely on courses. Many other regions have similar leagues based on colour coded courses and of course so do we with our SOGs.Some will claim that the age-based galoppen system was not broken - although I suspect that few competitors were that interested in it. I say good on Ed for going down this route - he may even decide to go further along the SOG idea and offer certificates for the best junior, veteran etc performance on each course.

Now there’s a good idea.