Occassional thoughts about orienteering
|
|
| okansas.blogspot.com Occassional thoughts about orienteering |
|
|
Saturday, May 07, 2005 A first look at the WP day 2 courseIf you want to understand a team sport, you begin by looking at the team, then you look at the individual players.I'm a Kansas City Royals fan. To understand their season so far, I look at the team statistics. Through yesterday, the Royals scored 101 runs and gave up 154 (league average runs scored and given up are 134). The Royals don't score much and give up a lot of runs. They don't really do anything well. Looking at a course is a bit like looking at a team sport. First, you look at the course as a single thing, then you look leg-by-leg. The picture below shows the red course I ran on the second day of the West Point race last weekend (with Peter's routes). When I look at course setting, the first thing I do is look at the map and see how many different types of terrain the course uses. I compare that to how many different types of terrain I see on the map. I see 3 types of terrain on the red course. Legs 1-3 and 6-10 are on big, rocky hillsides. Legs 4-7 are in flatter terrain. Legs 13-F are in a flatter area with lots of marshy areas and trails. So the course went through three distinct types of terrain. It looks to me like the entire map has 4 types of terrain. The three we ran through and a terrain that I'd call super-steep, rocky hills. Look at the big hill south of 13. The course went through 3 of the 4 terrain types. That's really good. That variety is one thing I like in a course. Using the 4th terrain might have been nice, but I'm not sure it was practical. As it was, the course was fairly long and the 4th terrain type is not the most interesting for orienteering (though a leg along the side of those super steep hills can be a huge challenge). The next thing I look at is the variety in leg length and direction. I count the number of legs that are more than 2 times as long or less than 1/2 as long as the previous leg. I look at direction change by counting the number of times a runner would feel like they left a control by changing direction. I'd count leg 2 as having length variety because it is less than 1/2 as long as the previous leg. I'd count leg 2 as having a direction change because I think an orienteer leaving the 1st control would have to make a sharp turn at the control to head toward 2. By my count, the course has 6 legs with variety of length and 10 with direction changes. That tells me the course has some variety. Variety is good, I think. I also look for long legs. Long legs can make a course more interesting because they often give you some interesting route choices and can reward an orienteer who is good at changing speed -- running most of the leg hard, then slowing down to take the control. I count the number of legs longer than 1 km and longer than 1.5 km. The red course had three legs over 1 km (1, 4 and 7). That's pretty good. The red course didn't have any legs over 1.5 km. If the Royals as a team don't score and give up a lot of runs, how would I describe the red course as a whole? My short answer is "really good." The course had a lot of variety (terrain, leg length, direction changes) and a fair number of longer legs (but no extra-long legs). The next thing to do to understand the Royals or the course would be to start to look at the indiviudal players and legs. That'll have to wait for another day. posted by Michael | 6:46 PM 
Comments:
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
