okansas.blogspot.com Occassional thoughts about orienteering |
Friday, July 27, 2007 Running elite at OringenThe U.S. had one runner who ran M21E (not super-elite) at this year's Oringen. He took a long time to finish each day. His efforts prompted some discussion over at Attackpoint about the pros and cons of running elite races.In some ways, it is an interesting question. When I lived in Sweden, I ran a couple of elite races, but for the most part I stuck with M21A. The organizers usually limited the field (maybe 60-90 runners) and places were filled based on ranking points. The top ranked runners got to run M21E, the rest got put in M21A. When I lived in Stockholm the fields were deep enough that if I ran in M21E, I'd be keeping someone with a better ranking from making the field. I could have run M21E by appealing to the organizers and explaining that I was a top American runner and "wouldn't it be good to have an international runner in the field?" Most organizers would probably have given me a place. But, if I took that place, someone else wouldn't get that spot. Even though the organizers ultimately would have made the decision, it struck me as selfish. So, I ran M21A. I learned just as much running M21A. The courses had the same difficulty (though were typically 1-1.5K shorter). The competition was tough. Don't get me wrong - the winners in M21E are better than the winners in M21A, but the people who were around me in the results were close enough (both ahead of me and behind me) that a small mistake would hurt my placings. I won 2-3 races in M21A over the years. I looked up the US runner's results from this year's race. Here they are: Day 1 - 3:20, the winner ran 1:01. Day 2 - ej godk (which usually means mispunched), the winner ran 1:25. Day 3 - 1:40, the winner ran 0:35. Day 4 - 2:46, the winner ran 1:10. Day 5 - 2:33, the winner ran 1:08. I wonder if you learn anything running races where your best result is more than double the winning time. Back to okansas.blogspot.com. posted by Michael | 6:43 PM
Comments:
How much do you learn out in the forest or before looking at results, compared to after looking at results of others?
I've followed this topic on AP, and I really feel for the guy receiving as much criticism as he's had, because if I were given the chance to run elite in Sweden, I'd probably do it, too, just so see what it was like.
Last summer, I ran blue at US Champs, even though a) I'd never M21 before, b) I'm not in that great of shape, and c) I had a bum knee. And as a result, I finished 1.8 times slower than the winner. Did I still learn from it? Heck yes. But after reading the thread about this runner "embarrassing" the US in that race, I can't help but wonder if I "embarrassed" Orienteer Kansas by pretty much doing the same thing, just on a smaller scale.
I feel a bit bad that folks have been giving the guy grief, too (one reason I didn't name him).
The idea that a result embarrasses a nation is silly. I don't think anyone really cares. Embarrass OK? Not a chance. Now when Fritz is running around in his pink and blue tights, orange shoes, and dyed red hair...well, that might be getting close :-)
I would say that you learn more being double the winners time than winning a class against weaker competition.
Patrick,
I completely understand the desire to run blue at US A-meets to see how you stack up against the best in the US. But I don't see the point of running against the best in the world until you have at least reached the level of being competitive with the top American orienteers. What is the point of starting a race knowing you will be dead last by a huge margin? And, as Spike said, what exactly do you learn from that?
Why compare extremes (double the winner vs 1st against weak field)? Can we agree there is a whole world in between that is clearly preferable, and it is not difficult to find?
EricW
You wonder whether anything can be learned in a race where the best result is more than double the winning time.
The successive ratios of the runner's times to the winner's times were: 3.28 2.86 2.37 2.25 That looks like a substantial learning experience.
This is a somewhat superficial analysis, as
a) He DNF'd day 2 b) The first three days went in much more challenging terrain than the last two, and the last two days had a lot more trail running, as well as few controls that weren't close to trails.
You can run in a marathon against the best in the World and be 2-3x their time and feel really good about yourself. It is embarassing to think that some people feel this individual has embarassed the US. I say good for him.
Post a Comment
-Mike W. |
|
||||