🇫🇮 Route to WOC25 Kuopio – Episode 2: Neulaniemi Insights (feat. Thierry Gueorgiou)

After the steep dilemmas of Puijo in Episode 1, we now turn our attention to what is arguably the most iconic stage of WOC 2025: the Middle distance final. This decisive race will take place in Neulaniemi, a strikingly wild peninsula of rocky hills, mature spruce forests, and intricate contour shapes just a few kilometers from downtown Kuopio.

For this episode, we’ve been fortunate to count on the insights of someone uniquely qualified to guide us through the complexities of this challenge: Thierry Gueorgiou. One of the greatest orienteers in history, with eight World Championship golds in Middle distance, Thierry is now Head Coach of the Finnish National Team—a role that makes this home WOC perhaps the most meaningful of his coaching career so far.

I must admit I’ve “abused” a bit of the friendship and trust I’ve built with Thierry over the years, but—true to his generous spirit—he kindly took the time to share his reflections and expertise with us. His observations, both practical and philosophical, elevate this episode immensely, and I’m sincerely grateful for his contribution.

---

🗺️ The Terrain: Neulaniemi in Focus

Neulaniemi offers a classic example of demanding Finnish middle distance terrain. It’s rugged, untamed, and rewards the most composed and precise navigators. Let’s break down the key features:

• Strong elevation shifts, with Neulamäki rising up to 120 meters above the surrounding lake, requiring careful climbing strategy and good terrain vision.
• High rocky hills and undulating contours define the map and demand expert use of contour lines for simplification and attack planning.
• Old-growth coniferous forests—over 80 years old across half the area—ensure stable visibility but inconsistent runnability.
• Spruce and pine dominate, creating mostly needle-covered forest floors, though stony ground and fallen trees appear regularly.
• Minimal deciduous forest, meaning seasonal visibility changes are unlikely to alter race conditions significantly.
• Good to excellent visibility, but with pockets of slower going due to undergrowth or natural debris.
• Sparse but present path network, which can be deceiving: some trails are technical, rooty, and not much faster than forest running.

In short: intelligent route simplification, rhythm control, and a refined compass are likely to beat brute force or over-reliance on small trails.

---

I couldn’t agree more with Thierry’s perspective on what it takes to perform at a World Championships, especially in such challenging terrain. The mental approach is just as important as physical preparation, and being mentally ready to stay calm and focused from the very first second can make all the difference. As Thierry puts it:

“Running a World Championships in Finland, France, or wherever is mostly about making sure you enter the game with the right attitude… with a higher map reading frequency than usual—at least at the start. During the first meters, the map might look blurry because of the excitement.”

His confidence in the mapping team also resonates strongly with me, as I have had the opportunity to enjoy Janne & Timo’s maps many times, and especially in our featured event in Spain: Maximus O Meeting. Knowing you can trust the map allows you to focus on execution and route choices without second-guessing the cartography. Thierry’s praise for the mappers is well-founded:

“Contrary to quite many out there, I believe Timo Joensuu and Janne Weckman belong to some of the world’s best mappers. If I had to prepare myself to run this World Championships, I would trust the information I get from their map. They have this ability to highlight the runnability and the features you can fully rely on.”

Finally, Thierry’s reminder about the terrain’s realities is a perfect summary of what makes Neulaniemi so demanding and fascinating. It’s easy to be tempted by small paths, but the key lies in the fundamentals:

“In terrains like this, quite many of the small paths are not helping much to increase the speed as they are quite full of stones or roots, and can be anyway hard to follow. So it gets back to mastering the basics: using the contours and compass to hit the controls perfectly.”

---

Now that we’ve set the stage, it’s time to move from theory to practice.

Just like in our first episode, we’ll now analyse two route choice legs, designed to simulate the type of decision-making athletes will face in Neulaniemi. But before diving into maps and splits, take a moment to visualise: How would you approach such terrain? Would you aim for safety, speed, or technical dominance?

Let’s find out.

📍 Simulated LEGs from the WOC MIDDLE FINAL

Here are the simulation legs (2 this time!) for this episode, which presents exactly the type of legs where winning or losing seconds will depend not just on your physical strength, but on your ability to read terrain and plan ahead.

➡️ Your task:
Take a close look at the map below. Draw your routes. Think not only about the shortest path, but about runability, climb, terrain type, and attack strategy. What would you do in race conditions?

🧠 Think About…

• Identify the most runnable areas and mark sections to avoid, such as dense undergrowth, steep slopes, or stony ground that reduce speed.
• Evaluate the steepness and runnability of each option: is a longer but flatter route faster overall, or does the shorter, more technical route pay off despite requiring precise, continuous map reading?
• Consider using paths, trails, or other linear features to simplify navigation—but weigh the risk of overshooting or losing direction against the potential speed gain.
• Balance the need for precise execution with the risk involved: is it better to choose a technically demanding route with high concentration or a simpler, possibly longer path with less navigational risk?
• Determine the best attack point for each control to minimize hesitation and improve accuracy, especially in terrain with varying visibility and runnability.
• Plan how your mental focus and map-reading approach will adjust when transitioning between detail-rich, rocky areas and more open, runnable forest sections.

📆 Stay tuned for more simulations, route challenges, and analysis all the way to WOC25.
The forest of Finland is calling. Will you be ready?

SPOILER ALERT!!!

If you haven’t drawn your route yet, do not keep scrolling down!!!
The analysis of the routes is posted just below!!!

EPISODE 2 – ROUTE #1: Simplicity Done Well

As we saw in Episode 1, route choice isn’t only about distance or elevation—especially not in Finnish Middle distance terrain. The responses gathered through WebRoute reveal a wide dispersion of drawn lines across this leg, showing just how many micro-choices and subtle trade-offs Neulaniemi terrain presents. But this raises an important question:

What really matters when those micro-decisions can cost—or save—precious seconds?

In this leg, the first challenge is immediate: a small but prominent hill must be tackled—either climbed directly, skirted to the right through light green, or avoided more radically by taking a flatter option on the track further down. Once that choice is made, the leg opens into a web of different progression lines, each with varying degrees of visibility, runnability, and navigational complexity.

There are numerous features along the way—cliffs, stones, contour forms—which can either become allies or traps. Success hinges on identifying key features to structure your route and finding clean lines of movement through the forest. In terrain like this, it’s not always the route with the least distance or climb that wins, but the one that avoids slow-running sections and enables simplified, controlled navigation.

As I often say: in middle distance legs like this, the goal is to execute simple things, done well.

---

Option A (610 m / +15 m)

This is the most left route, climbing the initial hill early and then following a clean line just below a set of clear slopes on the left. While it involves crossing a somewhat slow patch after the path, it offers a very clean and readable attack to the control.

➡️ Not the shortest or fastest, but a solid one if well executed.

Option B (590 m / +20 m)

(Thierry Gueorgiou’s choice)

Slightly left of the line, this route also climbs the hill early, then threads together areas of better runnability with technically readable features. It requires consistent control in key areas and a good feel for subtle contour shapes.

➡️ Technically demanding but smart—especially if you trust the map and your compass.

“As I wrote earlier I would trust the map when it comes to runnability. If Janne and Timo are using light green or black triangles/stony ground, I would try to spend as little time as possible in those areas. Thus I don’t think it is a good idea to try to avoid the first hill under the line as it would push you to run more in those slow running areas. Instead, I will try to find quite a straight line, staying in control by extracting contours from the map till the flag.”
— Thierry Gueorgiou

Option C (590 m / +20 m)

(RF-COACH route)

Slightly right of the line, this variant also climbs the hill early but then follows a slightly different progression, linking distinctive features that simplify map reading and decision-making. It emphasizes control through recognition, not just compass work.

➡️ Clean and readable—an effective blend of flow and technical confidence.

Option D (620 m / +5 m)

Takes a more conservative approach, avoiding the climb by contouring through the light green. It then merges with Option C later in the leg. While it may seem efficient on paper, the slow green section and lack of elevation gain might not compensate for the time lost.

➡️ Potentially smoother on paper, but terrain conditions likely make it slower.

Option E (750 m / +5 m)

The most extreme alternative, heading far right to use the track from the start and staying low throughout. While it minimizes climb, it adds significant distance and includes slower rocky ground near the end. Requires excellent compass work to hit the control cleanly.

➡️ Physically easy to execute but likely too long—20–30 seconds slower.

---

Conclusion: Know the Terrain, Trust the Basics

This leg is a great example of how Middle distance in Finland isn’t just about picking a route—it’s about understanding the terrain structure, reading the map with confidence, and executing with precision. While several options appear viable, the differences lie in how each one manages runnability, visibility, and simplification.

• Avoiding the initial climb may seem attractive on paper, but as Thierry points out, this often means stepping into slower, more chaotic forest sections.
• Routes B and C stand out by combining clarity, clean features, and balanced physical effort—provided the execution is sharp.
• In contrast, Option E, though physically simple, illustrates how extra distance and subtle terrain slowdowns can quickly add up.

In the end, the fastest choice isn’t always the one that looks the shortest or easiest on the map—it’s the one that lets you flow through the terrain with confidence, staying one step ahead without hesitation.

As always: the best route is only as good as the execution behind it.

EPISODE 2 – ROUTE #2: The Hidden Simplicity

Unlike the previous simulation legs we’ve analysed, this one presents a clearly superior route choice—but seeing it isn’t as easy as it might seem. Once again, the WebRoute submissions show an interesting dispersion, suggesting that under race pressure, many athletes may overlook the most efficient line.

The core difficulty here lies in having a wide-angle view of the leg, rather than falling into the common Middle distance trap of “narrow focus” thinking—staying close to the line, seeking flow, and avoiding extra distance at all costs. That habit, while often useful, can backfire if it blinds you to a faster, simpler route hiding just outside your immediate field of vision.

This is why I often remind my athletes: “First, look at the control you’re going to. Ask yourself what’s the best angle of attack—and only then read backwards to connect with the starting point.” If you do that here, you’ll notice a major path running just below the control, offering a direct, readable, and runnable approach. The only catch? The best option starts in the opposite direction—a hard thing to spot under race stress, high heart rate, and the sound of the arena speaker in your ears.

---

Option A (1070 m / +30 m)

(Thierry Gueorgiou & RF-COACH route)

The best route by far. It takes a wide curve to the left, starting away from the control, but follows a fast, wide track nearly the whole way. The final climb is sharp, but it’s on a visible path that makes the attack simple and clean.

➡️ Longer on paper, but faster in reality—if you spot it, you win valuable seconds.

“If it was a leg for the long distance, I would not even try to go straighter due to the scale, and as the name of the game in long is to avoid the large mistakes, and it often pays off to secure the navigation when you have the chance to do it. But I expect this last hill near the arena to be quite rough, so once again I would read the map of Timo and Janne quite carefully. If they use the symbol 505 (foot path) and not 506 (small foot path), I will take it as most probably you can run quite fast there—even if the final climb to take the control.”
— Thierry Gueorgiou

Option B (1005 m / +15 m)

Begins similarly to Option A but cuts off earlier, leaving the track to navigate through the forest. While it may look efficient, it loses the major advantage of full-speed running and simplicity that Option A offers.

➡️ A halfway solution—not fast enough to compete with A.

Option C (870 m / +35 m)

The shortest line, heading more directly through rough forest terrain. Technically intense, with many fine details and low runnability. Although the distance is nearly 200 m shorter than A, it’s significantly slower and more error-prone.

➡️ Tempting for its directness, but the terrain makes it slow.

Option D (950 m / +45 m)

Perhaps the best of the “right-side” alternatives. It still involves a good amount of climb and forest navigation, but offers better structure and visibility than C.

➡️ Viable, but unlikely to match the efficiency of a full-speed track run.

Option E (1055 m / +45 m)

An outer loop to the far right, climbing more and missing the fast sections that make Option A so attractive. It may seem clean, but the extra climb and less efficient terrain hurt its competitiveness.

➡️ Too much physical cost for too little gain.

---

🏁 Final Thoughts: Middle Mastery in Neulaniemi

Both simulation legs in this episode reveal the true essence of Middle distance orienteering in Kuopio’s wild, rocky forests: it’s not about finding the shortest line—it’s about finding the smartest one.

We’ve seen how a well-placed path or a readable slope can turn a seemingly long route into the fastest. And we’ve seen how direct lines through difficult terrain can seduce even experienced athletes into costly time losses. The takeaway?

📌 Success in Neulaniemi will come to those who:

• Think beyond the magenta line
• Trust the map—and compass
• Prioritise clean execution over theoretical efficiency
• Recognise that simplicity, when done well, is a weapon

Special thanks again to Thierry Gueorgiou for sharing his insights and helping us uncover the deeper layers of strategy in this fascinating terrain.

Stay tuned for Episode 3 of Road to WOC25 Kuopio… with some inputs from the mapmaker Janne Weckman!