Comments on: GPS Tracking from Runners Choice Test at Camp Norway

By: Jagge

Jagge — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 13:59:42 +0000

Or alternatively each team coach would sort those 25 maps, the favorite first, least favorite last. Runners would get a map based on this selecting rule:

Runner gets favorite map, unless (1) it is already taken by other team member (better placed in prologue), or (2) someone who starts inside one minute ahead has got that course. If course is not available, runner gets favorite #2, then #3 and so on. If none of the maps are available runner would get in similar way the map with least runners.

Like this there would/could be well enough spreading, and no one who starts inside one minute before or after is not expected to have same course (for example there could be 25 first controls). The best strategy would be navigating independently and race should be quite fun to run too. And note, a good course variation is selected by team coach and EARNED by running well in prologue. It makes it fair – one can blame only himself or coach for not getting the best course variation.

Course/spreading scheme would look for example something like this:
http://www.routegadget.net/misc/25map.png
There could be more spreading if it is needed, up to planner. It would still be easy enough to compare runners in GPS tracking and see who is leading.

By: Jagge

Jagge — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:34:14 +0000

One alternative would be letting team coaches to choose a course for each team member in advance. Like this there could be more course alternatives, like 25, competitors would never see other alternatives or memorize possible common controls, no need for course choosing on clock and no map exchanges. And naturally coaches would have to choose different course for each team member. Coaches already choose runners for each dicipline and runners fore realy legs, so they already have a big impact on final result. This would just slighly extend their role.

By: Jagge

Jagge — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:20:30 +0000

Well, having choice doesn’t mean all alternatives must be printed on one map. An example: http://www.routegadget.net/misc/2x4mapspreading.jpg Here athletes get four maps at start and they need to choose just one. At halfway there is map exchange, 4 new maps. Still runners choice. I am sure people behind runners choice can figure out better solutions than these, and are smart enough to test them properly in trainings and using it at national level races couple of years before saying anything about WOC.

By: Martin

Martin — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 13:05:14 +0000

@jagge: ‘other spreading alternatives should not be printed on one’s map.’

Then it isn’t ‘runners choice’ anymore. The ‘choice’ is mandatory to justify unequal courses to a comparable result.

-> The test was a failure.
-> The method has several fundamental errors and there are more negative than positive effects (
– element of luck/unfairness in regard of the splitting effect and the unpredictability of the best choice
– unequal courses
– splitting groups into smaller groups or isolated runners
– transparent to the runner
– no real splitting effect on top runners
– no real splitting effect on ‘groups against groups’
– choice of other runners is readable by the following either at the punch or according to the run-away direction
– choice can be agreed beforehand for example inside the leading pack or inside a national team
– ‘not better’ than a butterfly
– there are no blind followers on this level
+ some action in the hour before the collective sprint at the run in :-P

->The method is an attempt to fig leafing the fact, that massstart and chasestart with a huge starterfield of top runners are boring formats with a low level of independant navigation as soon as bigger leading groups form (which is highliy likely; See even Hubmann and Gueorgiou catched at WC Liberec). In that perspective it is less a separating method but an argument against mass-&chasestart at the WOC. :-)