okansas.blogspot.com Occassional thoughts about orienteering
Friday, September 29, 2006
Relays - the last selection
I spent more time reading the Bowerman biography by Kenny Moore. I'm learning some running history. One thing I hadn't known was that Oregon put together a very good 4 x 1 mile relay team in the early 1960s. They held the world record. That team went to New Zealand to compete against a strong team that included Peter Snell. Reading about the races got me thinking about relays...which, of course, got me thinking about orienteering.
It must have been something to be the 4th runner on either the Oregon or New Zealand team. Imagine how motivated you'd feel (and perhaps how stressed you'd feel) knowing that you were the worst runner on a team that either (a) held the world record, or (b) had the world's best runner, Peter Snell, to lead the team. I bet you'd get an immediate boost in your training. You'd train better than you've trained before. You'd focus. Or maybe you'd stress, over train and fall apart.
My guess is that most people in that position would rise to the occassion and perform at their best.
I think the same thing happens in orienteering relays. I think the people fighting for the last spot on a Jukola team, for example, start to focus and train well. And once you've been picked for that last spot on the Jukola team, you've got strong motivation to focus, sharpen and perform at your best. Or maybe you stress, over train and fall apart.
An speaking of orienteering relays, Simon has added WOC relays to his WOC database. It is definitely worth spending some time poking around the relay results.
You might find out, for example, that the five best U.S. relay results (in percent behind the winner) were the men in 1983, 1989, 1987, 1981 and 1993. I find it especially satisfying, but also disappointing, that I was on three of those teams. Satisfying because it is fun to be able to look back to days when I wasn't so old; disappointing because the U.S. really ought to be getting better and better.
posted by Michael |
8:03 PM
One of the great experiences in orienteering is talking about your race afterwards. Here are a few snapshots, one from Sweden and one from the sprint finals.
Something completely different
When I work on police audits, I always find myself paying more attention to crime. I read stories in the newspaper I wouldn't usually read. I look at FBI crime stats. I read murder mysteries. I look at academic papers. Today, I watched Steven Levitt, an economist talk about crack.
posted by Michael |
7:04 PM
From a discussion at Attackpoint about running speed...
Very interesting that the Norwegians use the 3000m as the test. Seems very short and fast to me - but probably important these days with so many shorter races at WOC than there used to be!
I'm pretty sure I know why the Norwegians use 3000 meters as a test distance. Obviously, it is easy to control and easy to compare times from year to year and place to place. But, maybe as important a reason is the graph below (lifted from Staff-valstad.com).
The graph shows you that at about 9 minutes you're running at about 95-98 percent aerobic. That's about the same as if you run for a longer time. If you run shorter, the aerobic portion declines. But if you run longer the aerobic portion doesn't really change. So a test run of about 9 minutes is the minimum you can use and get an aerobic/anaerobic mix that is just like a much longer race. There is no need to go any longer.
A longer test run would work, but it'd doesn't really give you any more information and it is just more draining. You could do a good warm up, run a 3000 meter test, jog a bit, and still have plenty left for a second session. But, if the test is 10K, that second session might not work.
Of course, I'm just speculating. Maybe I'm wrong.
posted by Michael |
6:15 PM
My legs felt great today. If I didn't know better, I'd think I was in really good form. But, I know better. As the days get shorter and the temperatures go down, I always feel good. Summer in Kansas City can be unpleasant - warm, humid, uncomfortable. You survive summer, you don't really get stronger. But, then the weather cools off a bit and the humidity drops and you feel better than you've felt in months. It is great. But, it isn't really good form, it is an illusion. Still, an illusion feels good.
Disappearing Index Contour
I was looking at maps from the Swedish 5-days and noticed something I've never noticed before (which doesn't mean it is new, just new to me). When the contours get especially tricky, they changed the index contours to regular contours. The map below (Olberget with Oystein Kvaal Osterbo's routes) shows an example.
See how the index contour changes to a regular contour between the blue arrows.
I've no idea if that is normal or not. Is it "allowed" by the IOF standards? I should probably know. But, I don't.
posted by Michael |
8:04 PM
I spent some time looking at the Attackpoint discussion on the plans to base World Cup entries on a nation's world rankings. The basic idea is that the IOF would base the number of runners a nation got to enter on the combined ranking of the top 20 ranked runners from that nation.
The specifics (e.g. how many runners to include in the national rankings) aren't especially interesting to me. But, the idea of raising the importance of world rankings and counting a fairly large part of each nation's talent distribution; well, that seems like a much more interesting idea (to me, any ways).
The IOF proposal increases the incentives for the USOF to hold world ranking events. I suspect that might be one of the reasons behind the IOF proposal.
I came across this comment on Attackpoint:
...and also point out the ridiculous argument that it will now be the job of a country's 2nd best runner to convince the country's 19th best runner to go to more WREs....
What the poster is getting at, I think, is that the IOF proposal makes a big change in the incentives a nation faces. The U.S. national team, for example, doesn't really have much incentive to care about the performance of orienteers who aren't among the top 10 orienteers in the U.S. That's maybe a bit strong. Let me put it another way - the IOF proposal increases the incentives for the U.S. team to care about the performance of orienteers who aren't among the top 10 in the U.S. That might be a good thing.
Whether it is a good thing probably depends, to some extent, on the national strategy. Think of a WOC team as like a club's Jukola team. One way a club could put together a good Jukola team is to have say 7-10 good runners and really invest in trying to get those runners to be as good as possible. Another way a club could put together a good Jukola team is to have say 15-20 runners, spread the same resources (e.g. coaching and travel spending) thinner, and then pick the Jukola team from the best 7 runners. Either approach can probably be successful.
posted by Michael |
6:55 PM
When I was running today, I looked at the ground, saw the maple leaf and thought, "I'd better start thinking about the race in Canada in a couple of weeks." The race is the North American Champs in Ontario. We get three races: sprint, middle and long.
When I got home from my run, I took a look at a map of the limestone pavement terrain we'll be running in (the map below shows Peter's routes on a map that is next to the area we'll be running in).
I also watched a video of Mike Waddington talking about the terrain (among other things). The quality of the video is not good. That's what you get when you rely on a little camera's microphone and mis-set the white balance. Even with the low quality, you can get a few good ideas about orienteering in the limestone pavement.
In addition to the maple leaf, I came across something a bit unusual in the forest today.
...raced with his cheeks weirdly puffed out, as if trying to blow a walnut through a soda straw....Air pressure in the lungs affects how readily oxygen molecules hop across the alveolar membrane to be grabbed by red blood cells....reasoned that if more pressure means more molecular hopping, a runner applying back-pressure when exhaling could force a little more oxygen into the system.
The quote is from Kenny Moore's new biography of the Oregon running coach Bill Bowerman.
I have no idea if the idea of trying to create back-pressure makes any sense (it seems a bit farfetched) but I love reading about unusual ideas.
I remember reading an article that said runners from the old-USSR would hold their thumbs between their third and fourth fingers when they got tired. It was supposed to help a tired runner hold their form. Who knows?
Lakanen's time is really good. I've never raced Lidingoloppet, but I've run the course. It isn't easy.
I wondered how Lakanen's time compares to other orienteers who've run the race in the past. I don't have the patience to go through loads of results, but I came across a list of top Swedish times and saw some orienteers I recognized on the list:
Mats Hellstadius ran 1:38:56 Anders Karlsson ran 1:40:59
I came across a few other orienteers results from 2003:
Mats Haldin ran 1:47:06 Jamie Stevenson ran 1:47:49 Johan Nasman ran 1:49:24 Gabor Domonyik ran 1:51:14 Erik Axelsson ran 1:56:30
I'm sure I could find some more orienteers' times, but I think I'll go and watch the KU football game on TV instead.
posted by Michael |
8:04 PM
But, when I look at his route from a recent night O', I see that a great orienteer can run just like the rest of us. And while I shouldn't take any pleasure in the misfortune of others, there is something satisfying in seeing a great orienteer having a rough day (or in this case, night).
I was looking at some maps from sprint races and was reminded of how easy it seems to be to skip a control in a race. I suppose it is because there are so many short legs and direction changes, combined with the feeling during a sprint race that you've got to rush.
I checked the WOC results database to see how many people DQ'd in the different races at this year's world champs. Based on a quick look:
4.4 percent of the starters in sprint races in Denmark DQ'd
Given that the field is some of the best orienteers in the world and that they are taking these races seriously, 4.4 percent seems quite high.
But, you can't really say if it is high or not until you have some contest, so I checked the DQ rates for the middle and long races in Denmark.
1 percent of the starters in the middle races in Denmark DQ'd
3.7 percent of the starters in the long races in Denmark DQ'd
That last number surprised me. 3.7 percent seems quite high.
More context...how many of the U.S. and Canadian WOC runners over the entire WOC history have DQ'd? What about Sweden, Finland and Norway?
The U.S. has 1.6 percent DQs Canada has 1.3 percent DQs. Sweden has 0.6 percent DQs. Finland has 0.6 percent DQs. Norway has 0.4 percent DQs.
Those numbers provide some context and suggest that the DQ rates for both the long and sprint races in Denmark was pretty high.
Some discussion over on Attackpoint about how fast top orienteers can run inspired me to look up some 3000 meter running times. Here are a bunch of 3000 meter times from very good orienteers:
Jan Fjaerestad 7.57.06 Truls Nygaard 7.59.60 Oyvin Thon 8.23.8 Jon Tvedt 8.24.42 Rolf Vestre 8.26.60 Tore Sagvolden 8.30.33 Oystein Kvaal Osterbo 8.31 Havard Tveite 8.32.25 Harald Thon 8.32.4 Audun Weltzein 8.44 Petr Losman 8.47 Oystein Kvaal Osterbo 8.49 Emil Windstedt 8.50 Anders Holmberg 8.51 Mats Haldin 8.52 Lars Skjeset 8.54 Hakan Eriksson 8.55 Mats Troeng 8.56 Audun Weltzein 8.57 Mattias Millinger 8.58 Lars Skjeset 9.00 Jonn Are Myhren 9.25 Ingunn Weltzein 9.39 Birte Riddervold 10.32 Birte Riddervold 10.52
Most of the runners on the list are Norwegian men. I'm not sure why, but it was relatively easy to find results for Norwegian men.
Some runners have more than one result. That's because they ran more than one race.
I think the results are a real mix of personal bests and whatever time was easy to find. Hakan Eriksson, for example, has probably run a lot faster than 8.55. But, when I did a few google searches, 8.55 was the time I found. Probably Oyvin Thon ran slower than 8.24, but the time I found for him was 8.24.
The question that came up on Attackpoint was something like "how fast is fast?" The list I've put together gives you a decent idea. I'd say the answer to the question, for men, is "under 9 minutes." For women, the list doesn't give you enough to answer the question.
A better question
I think a better question is, "how slow is fast?" By that I mean, how slow can a world class orienteer run.
If you could answer both questions - how fast and how slow - you'd have a good idea of the range of running speed among world class orienteers.
Answering the second question - how slow - is going to be tougher. Largely because you'd expect the world class orienteers who run slowly are a lot less likely to show up in 3000 meter race results.
That's enough writing for now. If anyone reading this knows of other times (fast or slow), feel free to use the comment function and post them.
posted by Michael |
7:51 PM
I ran 4 races in just over 24 hours last weekend. That's unusual and turned out to be really interesting. The total racing time was modest, maybe 2 hours.
One fun part of having so many races in such little time was that it compressed the learning you usually get after a race. Typically, after a race you spend some time thinking about your run, talk to some competitors, look at the map and your split times, think about what you'll do better next time, and maybe even "kepsa" a little. With relatively litte time between races, you need to be efficient with your learning.
My favorite baseball writer, Bill James, has a theory about how sports teams and individuals learn. He calls it the theory of competitive balance. Basically the idea is that if the team did well, they tend to be conservative and not make any changes. But, if the team did poorly, they look for ways to improve. Those approaches tend to pull both teams toward a middle ground. Better teams get conservative and tend to weaken. Weak teams take some chances, innovate a bit, try something new, and tend to improve.
Did my racing and learning fit James' theory?
As a matter of fact it did. Saturday afternoon's race was not very good. But, Sunday morning I ran well in my first race. But, the second race wasn't quite as good, I made a big, dumb mistake. The third race I bounced back and had a good race (though by this time my legs were quite shot). I can't be certain, but I'm fairly sure that I spent more time and effort trying to understand my races and make some adjustments after my two weaker runs than I did after my better run.
It might be fun to do some more racing like this (i.e. lots of races in a short period of time). I think I'll have a chance to do something like that at the North American Champs (with three races over three days). We'll see how it goes.
By the way, the snapshot shows John F. and Eddie B. at the last control on the first sprint race.
posted by Michael |
7:52 PM
When I was running today, I looked at the ground, saw the maple leaf and thought, "I'd better start thinking about the race in Canada in a couple of weeks." The race is the North American Champs in Ontario. We get three races: sprint, middle and long.-745752.jpg)
posted by Michael |
6:49 PM
posted by Michael |
8:09 PM
