Lincoln Park Score-O Cool and Windy
March 14, 2004

Editor’s Note: The results posted on the website show, from left: Overall time in minutes; Raw score of correctly answered questions; Penalty for Overtime over stated course time limit calculated at 3 points per minute; Point value of Missed Questions; and Overall score (equal to Raw score less (1) Penalty for Overtime, and (2) missed question point-value).

Two of the Club’s leading women battled it out for the top score at the second annual Lincoln Park Score-O on a cool and windy March 14. All the esteemed orienteering men in the Club ended up fighting for third place. Last year’s winner Kathy Bullard was edged out by a single point by newcomer Bev Hartline from Lemont.

Bev visited 34 of the 50 possible control locations, and only lost 2 points for a wrong answer on the tall stainless steel obelisk at the corner of Fullerton and Cannon Drives. Bev, like Kathy and many others, thought the object had four flat sides. In fact, the two narrow sides of the obelisk were curved; they arced inward in gradual curves, that could be noticed by standing at the base and sighting carefully upward. By standing back, the curving sides seemed to be yielding only to the laws of perspective...indeed, an optical illusion to which most fell victim.

Kathy Bullard actually had a raw point total of 117 which she accumulated by visiting 40 control locations in only 77 minutes. However she had five wrong answers which were deducted from her score to give her a net of 101. But Kathy also missed an easy one: the question which asked how many streetlight posts were on the bridge near the zoo. The two streetlights were accurately counted by almost every other competitor.

Newcomer Ed Solarczyk had the highest raw point total of 133 which he accumulted over almost three hours by visiting all 50 control locations. Unfortunately he was 82 minutes overtime so lost all of his patient point accumulation in penalties.

The challenge for the Meet Director in presenting a competition of this type is to make the questions suitably obtuse so that local residents won’t know the answers before starting. In other words, we don’t want to ask “who is shown in this statue” because some local residents might know the answer without even visiting the statue. But sometimes the questions can become too obtuse, and the Meet Director must hold the line against an onslaught of complaints. Unfortunately the Meet Director’s interpretation must stand in all cases. There will be no concessions. No score adjustments. No rearrangement of the results... Even for:

1. Those that struggled out to the end of the breakwater, against the howling, cold winds, to record that the “easternmost” iron pole had been uprooted from the cement and dragged west by its wire ropes, to a point at which it was no longer easternmost, or
2. Those that wrestled the large black transformer box cover back and forth, to find that the combination padlock only seemed to be securing the cover, and that someone who was strong enough could still rip the 4’x4’x4’ metal cover loose
3. Those that stroked the upright steel obelisk and applied straightedges, searching in vain for something other than flatness

This ruling is not arbitrary. We seek to be fair in these competitions. Indeed, we want the “best person” to win. But the rules were clearly stated in the registration materials, which, in fact, all competitors signed their agreement. To wit:

“.......The course is not for sissies. You will slip, fall down, get dirty, bleed, etc. This is fun, trust me. The course may or may not be marked accurately according to my mood....Whiners will be disqualified....”

Guys, give it up.....admit you’ve lost. Learn to accept your defeat by a couple of slender women gracefully. Lord knows you don’t hear them whining about misplaced control bags when they lose to you. And better luck next year.

Clark Maxfield, Meet Director