Occassional thoughts about orienteering
|
|
| okansas.blogspot.com Occassional thoughts about orienteering |
|
|
Monday, October 23, 2006 Forecasting success: part IIIA little thought experiment in forecasting future success...Think of three junior runners from the U.S.: A, B and C. They run a 2-day race. The terrain is difficult. Let's say the terrain is not just difficult, but unusual. The terrain is forested sand terrain, with lots of depressions and knolls, but also a decent trail network. On the first day the results are like this: 1st B in 70 minutes 2nd A in 75 minutes 3rd C in 90 minutes On the second day the results are like this: 1st A in 60 minutes 2nd B in 70 minutes 3rd C in 65 minutes And the two day total time puts the runners in order A, B and C. Gold medal to A in 135 minutes. Silver medal to B in 140 minutes. Bronze medal to C in 155 minutes. I'll throw in another bit of information. If you put these 3 runners on a track and had them race for 5,000 meters, A would win. C would be a minute or so back, and B would be another minute or so back. So, you've got the results and you know that in pure running speed, A is fastest and B is slowest. I'll throw in another bit of information. A's parents are involved in orienteering. They travel to meets and compete a lot. B's and C's parents aren't nearly as involved, but they certainly support their kids' orienteering. Which of them will be most successful as a senior? At this point, you could make a guess and you could probably create a line of thinking to support the idea that any one of these three runners would go on to more success. If I told you that the answer was A, you might say: Yes, A, of course. It is obvious. A is faster, he's got the physical talent. He won the race - he performed best when it counted. His parents are really supportive. But, if I told you that the answer was B, you might say: Yes, B, of course. B showed a real consistency. His foot speed is lacking, but with some serious training, that could be fixed. Or, if I told you the answer was C, you might say: Yes, C. C had a bad first day, but came back pretty strong on the second day. That shows some character. His running is decent and with some better training he'd be faster. I guess my point is that it is very easy to go backward - from an answer to an explanation. It is much harder to, reliably, go forward - to look at some information and predict future success. I should also admit that this little scenario is based on three actual orienteers and a 2-day race that happened years ago. I should probably share the real answer - A, B or C - but I think I'll wait for a few days. That's enough writing for tonight, the football game ("Go Giants!") is about to start. posted by Michael | 7:14 PM 
Comments:
I'd say A - as I'm sure you'll give the answer some day;) With better speed and parents that do orienteering ...
# posted by
 : 1:32 AM
I'll guess about ABC with three guys my age:
James Scarborough, Eric Bone and Clem McGrath. All three started young and have gone to at least one WOC. Unless Matt Scott was in there. Nevin # posted by
: 10:34 AM
Must certainly be B: He places a good first on Day 1 and has the good fortune to get bonus points(?) to get second on Day 2 despite finishing 5' behind C. So C stays in third overall for bad luck. Overall: BAC?
Post a Comment
But then you really meant C in 75 minutes? So taking this into light: ACB: A comes from behind to win adapting to the terrain; B can't hold it together when the pressure is on and doesn't adapt. And C adapts to conditions to improve relatively, gets more skill training and rises to solid performances. George # posted by
: 4:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
