If gps tracking is our future in TV, then we don’t need mass start. Only gps tracking sync and on the TV control we’ll see individual doing. Today the best orienteers has good skills and maps are usually excellent. Time difference is only some seconds in controls – easy to catch on the next leg.

Ofcource we can test it ex. in some Wcup.

As we seen last WOC relay, only Thierry+Valentin skills was enough for this kind of forking to runaway from other atheletics.

MASS START (solving the problems)
– has to be same course for everybody (obligatory element)
– long race, 2h or more
– stress at each control point (elimination or other method ?)
– tactical decisions must be large part of the race
– other runners should not know your tactic (runner must be forced to change tactic, speed, following strategy during the race ?)
– runner should be forced to run in front ( eliminated even if he run in the pack ?)
– every runner must be forced to navigate/ and get stress when he follow (how ?)
– new software/hardware (Touch free punching ?)

At mass start races it is nonsense to search for a format where you could say everybody have to navigate independently. Even if “runner’s choice method” would be great it is still just about the choice and which gaffing you chose. This doesn’t tell you anything about the navigating on the terrain. So in reality difference between one course for everybody and runner’s choice course is that you have at some legs fewer runners at your shoulder. But you still have one navigator and lots of followers.

So, in theory I was also thinking something in this direction. How could look like science fiction development based on World Cup Ultra Long in Idre. I have been just playing, no limit.
– 30 runners (example)
– touch free punching (maybe 2-3 units)
– sofware have been able to talk with the control point (in/out)
– elimination method (not fixed method, open structure)

Basic problem with elimination is that you can’t have 30, 29, 29 controls at each control point. So touch free punching is needed (signal in radius of 0.5-1m). Additionally each runner has some kind of stick (as today) with the screen.

EXAMPLE
Someone run in front and someone following through first three controls. The first runner get 3 points (first one at each control, based on time) and the last one (3 times) 90 points. Elimination method starts working after 3rd control. Elimination method (course setter design at which controls, how many runners will be eliminated and navigating level ?).

So, after 3rd control every runner has got different points. Runner gets info from SW on his stick that must be at least among 15 at next control. In a way: 3/30, 5/30, 10/30 (10 out of 30 runners). At each next control you get information about at which place you have to be at next control.

Level of stress is rising as each runner has to achieve different place, otherwise he is disq. SW tells you. Tactic and strategy comes in front. Yes, you could follow but not without stress and not always at same place in the pack as after maybe 3 CP in the back SW will tell you that at next CP you must be at least among 5. Course setter could make easy and hard (navigating level) control points. SW soon after each CP gives you that info. You are forced to come in front and start navigating. Navigating level method is like a course setter black box. At one control point could be that 4 runners must be among 2 and 25 runners among 15. So if you punch as 16th you are out. But it is so many combinations, probably you need programming some kind of algorithm to be able to make scenarios and prediction what could happened when you put course setter wishes in the program . Course setter could start with easy selection or hard, but the best could be that you first forced runners to come in front. So, let say ½ pack have interest to lead and then start with eliminating them. So you know already at the start that navigating and running in front is one part of strategy as you will have batter chance to punch first and at the end also more chances to win. On Top of that you could have additional 2-3 elimination control points like at Idre. In a way: elimination 15/20 (5 out of 20 will be eliminated).

I can’t imagine in reality but in theory sounds almost perfect (don’t trust anyone, run in front, make good strategy and tactic decisions for each CP).

Is it fair competition? We can ask if interval start is fair. We have to understand that interval start and mass start races are different. Interval start is for navigating alone (basic idea) and mass start is more tactical and it causes more psychological stress for competitors. Interval start is competing against time. Mass start is especially in the last part of the race man against man competition. I think there is space for both competition formats.

As important as discussion about gaffling system, it is important to discuss about suitable terrains and basic course setting for mass start. If visibily in terrain is good and course is technical, following is easy. Route choices are needed. Control points have to be sometimes enough easy for keeping the speed constant. Sometimes control points should be in positions that if you have 20 seconds lead to some other competitor he can’t see your route choice. When looking GPS tracking of the last Blodslitet there were made many different route choices already in the first part of the race. I have noticed that top orienteerers have mental power to make own choices if the course gives that chance.

There is also physical gaffling. If I have understood right, in WOC2010 Trondheim long distance, all those who wanted to follow couldn’t do that until finish. Maybe this is one reason why so many don’t want mass start. It is more comfortable to run alone and keep own pace.

It is very challenging to plan mass start competition for WOC. You need a suitable terrain and good arena on the side of terrain, you need regular coverage for TV to make better broadcasting than in interval start race, you need fair gaffling and good course for mass start, you need interesting legs for GPS tracking. Challenging but possible.