Occassional thoughts about orienteering
|
|
| okansas.blogspot.com Occassional thoughts about orienteering |
|
|
Wednesday, January 15, 2003 P is for park orienteeringEarlier this month, someone wrote a comment...Park Orienteering. I read the PWT web site but I still don't understand it completely. What is it? How is it different from the short course (tactics and such)? What do you think about the Park World Tour, and why don't Americans join the tour? It seems that it would be a good way for Americans to break through in international racing. I know very little about the park O' or the PWT. I haven't run many park O' courses. I haven't thought about it much. But, that won't stop me from speculating a bit...Just keep in mind that this today's writing is something like a "stream of consciousness"... My definition of "park O'" is broader than the PWT. I'd include local events put on by clubs all around the world, the sprint champs at the WOC, and the PWT. I see park O' as having two characteristics: it isn't in the forest and the winning times are generally under about 20 minutes. Both of those characteristics aren't hard and fast. For example, I'd consider the sprint O' at the 2001 WOC a park O' event even though it took place in some forest. I'd also consider the Forest Park event that SLOC used to host a park O' even though the winning times were over 40 minutes. Are strategies different? I don't know. But, it seems like strategies would be a bit different. The demands of a park O' are a bit different than the demands of most orienteering. Physically, park O' is much shorter so you can run a bit faster. Though, park O' is still long enough that it is a distance event. The running surface in park O' is less likely to be rough. You can probably get by with a running technique that is more like a road/track runner's technique than an orienteers technique. Decisions about navigation need to be made quicker. In most races, the route choice decisions and navigational difficulties are likely to be simpler. I read an interview some years ago with a top park orienteer (it might have been Rudolf Ropek) who said the technique was a bit different from regular orienteering. He relied mostly on buildings for navigation. What do you think about the Park World Tour? I think it is interesting. I don't like the idea that it is so expensive to organize (e.g. the organizers are expected to pay for "The costs for accommodation (three-star hotel) and catering covering a two-day period - including all breakfasts, lunches, dinners and banquet - for all the 50 runners and 10-15 international PWT officials."). I understand why the PWT organization requires so much and I recognize that they don't seem to have much trouble filling the schedule. I like that the organizers treat orienteering like a "real" sport. I just think it is a shame it is so expensive. I like that they've managed to get some really interesting orienteering in urban environments. Take a look at the maps and courses Matera and Alborello in Italy for some cool orienteering. On the other hand, take a look at the map and course from Bangkok for some ho-hum orienteering. I'm not sure that PWT is the best way to spread O' or that park O' is what the sport ought to be working on. But, I respect (and even admire, I guess) that some people are working hard on the PWT. On the PWT homepage, it says "The Park World Tour contributes to spreading the sport all over the globe, with our ultimate goal - inclusion in the Olympic Games - in sight." Those goals are admirable -- spread the sport and get O' in the Olympics. But, I'm not sure the sport as a whole is better if park O' becomes an Olympic sport. Isn't regular (in the woods) orienteering a better sport? Should orienteers change the sport to accommodate the Olympics? Personally, I think orienteering -- the regular in the woods variety -- is a fantastic sport, but it isn't a typical spectator sport. I don't think it ever will be. That's just the nature of the sport. It can be made interesting for TV, but it can't be made interesting to spectators. Is park O' a good way for Americans to break through in international racing? It might be. Americans are at a much smaller disadvantage in park O' than in regular O'. The physical and navigational demands are lower (though the margins are tighter, as well). An American training for park O' would have a much easier time finding relevant training opportunities (e.g. it'd be a lot easier to find a college campus to run around than a forest that is like a Swiss forest). But, there are also some real problems for an American training for an international break through in park O'. I think the level of competition in the US in park O' is less than the level of competition in the US in regular O'. We don't have many park O' races and those that we have are at the local level. The top US orienteers don't meet head-to-head in park O'. I'm not sure what it'd take to get an American to race in the PWT races. But, right now we'd probably only get in as a novelty or if a US club hosted a PWT event. One way to get around the problems facing an American would be to move to Europe. Race park O' events at the local/national level in Europe, gain a bunch of experience, and then show what you've got at the sprint WOC. posted by Michael | 1:26 PM 
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
