Home / Orienteering News / NORT Stage 2: Victory for Lysell and Vinogradova

NORT Stage 2: Victory for Lysell and Vinogradova

Jerker Lysell and Galina Vinogradova both took their first World Cup victories in the KnockOut sprint which was the second stage of the Nordic Orienteering Tour in Göteborg, Sweden today.

Both Lysell and Vinogradova must be counted as KnockOut sprint specialists. Their only Top 3 World Cup results are from KnockOut sprints – Lysell with second spot in Stockholm last year and Vinogradova with 3rd spot in Stockholm last year.

Comment by winner Lysell: – In the quarterfinal and in the semifinal I hardly looked at the map. But in the final it felt like I wanted to show a bit more.

Maps and GPS-tracking from the semifinals and finals:

Update June 21st, 23:55 CET:
Still no overall NORT results after two stages – kind of kills the NORT concept. Studying the results briefly also indicates that Olav Lundanes – a runner who was far behind in the final in stage 1 and nearly last in the quarterfinals in stage 2 – is around number four five in the overall NORT after two good qualification races. I’m not sure the average viewer would understand why Lundanes is in the top after that performance… Good for Lundanes – not too good for NORT.

Update June 22nd, 00:05 CET:
NORT Overall results after two stages up. 4 x Switzerland in the top among the men Finland-Denmark-Sweden among the women:

Name total time Diff
1 Daniel Hubmann 42:16
2 Matthias Kyburz 42:46 0:30
3 Matthias Merz 43:00 0:44
4 Matthias Müller 43:07 0:51
5 Olav Lundanes 43:21 1:05
6 Pasi Ikonen 44:12 1:56
7 Fabian Hertner 44:29 2:13
8 Scott Fraser 45:09 2:53
9 Carl Waaler Kaas 45:55 3:39
10 Andreas Kyburz 46:09 3:53
Name total time Diff
1 Merja Rantanen 44:46
2 Maja Alm 45:17 0:31
3 Annika Billstam 45:23 0:37
4 Heidi Bagstevold 46:07 1:21
5 Mari Fasting 46:07 1:21
6 Tove Alexandersson 46:10 1:24
7 Linnea Gustafsson 46:14 1:28
8 Lena Eliasson 46:38 1:52
9 Tone Wigemyr 46:52 2:06
10 Rahel Friederich 47:26 2:40
Results Final NORT Stage 2
Women final 2040 meter 6 anmälda
1 Galina Vinogradova Russia 10:39
2 Linnea Gustafsson Sweden 10:41
3 Lena Eliasson Sweden 10:47
4 Maja Alm Denmark 10:50
5 Annika Billstam Sweden 11:02
6 Mari Fasting Norway 11:11

Men final 2290 meter 6 anmälda
1 Jerker Lysell Sweden 10:24
2 Daniel Hubmann Switzerland 10:26
3 Matthias Kyburz Switzerland 10:27
4 Scott Fraser Great Britain 10:28
5 Frèdèric Tranchand France 10:32
6 Matthias Merz Switzerland 10:42

Results Semifinal

Women semi-A 1780 meter 6 anmälda
1 Linnea Gustafsson Sweden 8:37
2 Annika Billstam Sweden 8:39
3 Mari Fasting Norway 8:43
4 Maja Alm Denmark 8:47
5 Tove Alexandersson Sweden 8:51
6 Emma Claesson Sweden 9:09

Women semi-B 1780 meter 6 anmälda
1 Galina Vinogradova Russia 8:48
2 Lena Eliasson Sweden 8:50
3 Merja Rantanen Finland 8:51
4 Amélie Chataing France 8:54
5 Angela Wild Switzerland 8:56
6 Ines Brodmann Switzerland 9:04

Men semi-A 1900 meter 6 anmälda
1 Jerker Lysell Sweden 8:03
Frèdèric Tranchand France 8:03
3 Matthias Mueller Switzerland 8:07
4 Øystein Kvaal Østerbø Norway 8:09
5 Gustav Bergman Sweden 8:15
6 Alexey Bortnik Russia 8:16

Men semi-B 1900 meter 6 anmälda
1 Matthias Kyburz Switzerland 7:53
2 Daniel Hubmann Switzerland 7:54
3 Scott Fraser Great Britain 7:56
4 Matthias Merz Switzerland 8:00
5 Martin Hubmann Switzerland 8:17
6 Alexey Sidorov Russia 8:18

About Jan Kocbach

Jan Kocbach is the founder of WorldofO.com - taking care of everything from site development to writing articles, photography and analysis.

Check Also


Route to Christmas: Day 21 2019

Today’s leg in Route to Christmas is a long leg from the largest individual orienteering ...


  1. Wasn’t it first that Merja Rantanen was supposed to make it to the final as a lucky loser with Mari Fasting? (or do I remember wrong) Was there a timing mistake for the 1st semi or what?

    • Answer for myself:
      “First it looked like that Rantanen would make it to the final with her time, but later it turned out that the times for the first semifinal were announced incorrectly.” (YLE)

  2. Well, guys… Do you really consider such a stuff interesting to see? It was a miserable course which make it really boring for me to watch as for an orienteer. Everybody just follows each over, splits just occasionally and that splits do not affect the results almost at all. Following a gps translation of an ordinary say middle is much more interesting for me.

    But also, does anybody really know any single person out of O-community which calls this “performance” interesting to watch? I suspect, that 3000m in athletics looks much much more exciting for them!

    I really beleive this is an absolute dead way of orienteering.

    • … not my kind of entertainment either, but some seem to like it. I’d be much more happy with a long- or middle distance race with proper GPS-tracking, a proper red group start list to make the excitement rise gradually, some headcam action etc.

      But as people find different concepts interesting to watch, I see no problem in developing the KnockOut sprint concept in parallel with a good long distance (or middle distance) concept. I think they speak to a different audience.

      For the KnockOut sprint (or any mass start event) to be interesting, I think it needs to somehow ensure that the runners can not know if they have the next control in common with the other runners, i.e. you’d need map exchange and some sort of forking. One control would be enough (and it would be a bit boring the second time to a similar control for the runner) – the important thing is for the runners to not be certain that they have the same control as the others next, so they will have to think independently. Even having all the course equal but the runners thinking that there was forking would be good enough:) I’ve tried to advocate this view many times.

      • I thought the TV coverage was good and that it was a huge step forward compared with last year’s Gamla Stan coverage. Parts of the production were a bit rough – a few times the GPS tracking didn’t work and some of the camera shots weren’t great. I think a non-orienteer would have understood what was going on and would have been able to follow the action. I think there is value in presenting the sport to non-orienteers.

        I hope we’ll see more experiments with the format and how the events are covered. I’m optimistic that it can be improved.

        • Yes, as I wrote on the LiveBlog, I think it was a lot better than last year. Many steps in the right direction. And I also think developing the KnockOut sprint concept along with other concepts is a good idea.

          • I absolutely agree with Okansas and Jan. The improvements compared to last years competition were huge; there were some route choises, the TV broadcast was better, Swedish commentators were good…

            But it’s true that organisers should try to increase the importance of orienteering. Jan’s idea to introduce a map exchange would make it more exciting ’cause we could see some mistakes too. If map exchange is “too much”, wouldn’t even small butterfly loops make it at least a bit better?

  3. I would add , L Gustafsson and L Eliasson has been placed top three in the two “finals”, but is still far behind the top in the total. Lysell is not even top 10.

    I know it is actually the time in the qualification that counts for the total, and not the time in the final. I did enjoyed the broadcast, but prefer traditional orienteering.

  4. I thought it was really boring as it didn’t look like orienteering at all – just who could keep up and follow the leader until a sprint finish. How about building a labyrinth in the arena for some real head to head navigation?

  5. To make it even more funny why not IOF consider the following minor changes:
    1. Change o-rules to exclude unpassable walls completely, make olive painted territories passable, and leave only forbidden areas marked in red/magenta.
    2. Invite traceurs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour) for ‘mixed fights’ with orienteeres – for 8-9 min runs they could be highly competitive in urban areas after some city o-training.

    Expected advantages:
    1. Exremely TV-favourable
    2. Obviously more attractive for young people
    3. Could involve participants from non-IOF member countries
    4. Will force orienteers to develop, improve their physical cnditions and acquire completely new skills.