I think one of the key issues that needs to be addressed is the reason behind the change. Call it the Kiwi attitude of ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ but I feel changes that are made need to have strong reasons behind them. That is they need to be made in order to achieve a goal. The Nordic group do a really good job of relating the changes to a set of strategic goals for orienteering.
Basically (you can read the document here http://www.orientering.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/WOC%20in%20the%20future%20NORD%2020120115.pdf ). They break the current ideas down into three main proposals, examine each and put forward their prefered option. They favor the establishment of a “terrain” and an “urban” WOC to take place on alternate years. They have some good, sensible reasons for this. Check the article for more detail.
I agree with them. I think that alternate WOC programs in alternate years is a good idea. Coming from New Zealand the perspective I have includes a different set of concerns and thoughts from many of the orienteers in Europe. Cost and difficulties associated with long haul travel are one of the key issues for Antopodean Orienteers. Attending an annual WOC is difficult for the individual athletes and for the national federation. Switching to a dual-WOC style event structure would create a chance for athletes to attend either biannually, or if the sprint WOC events can be moved to areas outisde Europe, reduce the travel expense. The 5 day event period also reduces costs and would allow for precious annual leave days to be utilised for more pre event training.
I think central to the success of the two-WOC model is that IOF actively seeks to ensure that the sprint, or urban, WOC is held in countries outside of Europe. For federations like New Zealand it is a very significant undertaking and assistance would be necessary. The organisation of WOC in non-european countries is critical for orienteering to become increasingly global, and is one of the main advantages of the dual WOC model.
Now how about the downside. One risk is that the sprint WOC will lose it’s prestige, especially when compared to the “traditional” forest orienteering. Efforts will need to be made to ensure that they both remain of equal standing. Some will also say that WOC is still an annual event and costs of travel will still be high. I believe this is unavoidable. The deal-WOC model is simply one way of addressing costs and is the best idea for now.
I support the establishment of an urban and a terrain WOC in alternate years. I think that the name of each will need some work for starters, but I agree with the principle and I am pleased that the Nordic nations have a similar view. I would love one day to be able to run a sprint-WOC in New Zealand.
Hopefully a dual-WOC program will help with a few more Kiwi podiums
