Multi day scoring systems

[DJM]

awk wrote

Given that one needs to have a system where days can be dropped, I like the simple way the Scottish 6-day now uses. One point for 1st, two for second, and so on. (Or one where you score something like 100, 99 for second etc.). Simple but effective, and focuses on what matters: orienteering is about your position in a race not about your time (you don't get medals for finishing close behind the winner).

Yes, but the biggest problem with this (and the old 6Day 1000 points for the winner system) is that the overall competition can often be sewn up after the first 4 days. No one can get a look-in thereafter, however well they might annihilate the opposition on the last two days.

[andypat]

awk wrote

Given that one needs to have a system where days can be dropped, I like the simple way the Scottish 6-day now uses. One point for 1st, two for second, and so on. (Or one where you score something like 100, 99 for second etc.). Simple but effective, and focuses on what matters: orienteering is about your position in a race not about your time (you don't get medals for finishing close behind the winner).

Yes, but the biggest problem with this (and the old 6Day 1000 points for the winner system) is that the overall competition can often be sewn up after the first 4 days. No one can get a look-in thereafter, however well they might annihilate the opposition on the last two days.

I'm not sure I see this as a problem. If you win the first 4 days dont you deserve to win?

[awk]

Yes, but the biggest problem with this (and the old 6Day 1000 points for the winner system) is that the overall competition can often be sewn up after the first 4 days. No one can get a look-in thereafter, however well they might annihilate the opposition on the last two days.

I don't see that as a problem. So somebody wins the first 4 out of 6 days. Why should anybody else get a look in? They'll just have to go for the minor placings.

However...the way some competitions deal with this is to make the last day a requirement, or a double scorer (or both!). Might not be able to do that if wanting to include helpers, but could always do something like require two out of the first three days plus two out of the second three days.

[Paul Frost]

Like AWK I don't understand why people think that winning 4 out of 6 days should not make you the winner. How can someone that only wins 2 out of 6 be considered better.
Even if they win by a large margin on those 2 days it's irrelevant. Orienteering is not a fixed length/difficulty like a 10K or marathon, it has too many variables. So the time taken can't be compared to other days, it's all about your position and consistency.

What's wrong with the winning place being certain before the last day?
Is it that winning is the only position worth having, so if you are not going to win you might as well not bother to run?
If you are the one that is going to win do you feel cheated that you weren't under pressure to the very end?

I'm also baffled by the concept (in some sailing competitions for example) of getting double points on the last day. Why should a good result on the last day be worth twice as much as any other day?

I feel more frustrated when complex statistical driven points systems that don't seem obvious, seem to rate what I thought were my better days in the same way. I think transparency and simplicity are more important in these holiday type multi-day events. They are individual days strung together for convenience and enjoyment rather than a structured/balanced test.

We also have the problem of needing to allow at least one discard due to volunteers helping out and not able to run (or being too tired to be competitive). The scoring system must take this into account if we are to continue to be a volunteer driven sport.

[Gross]

What's wrong with the winning place being certain before the last day?

I don't think Jess Ennis should be awarded her Gold Medal as the outcome was basically known before the last event

[andy]

the biggest problem with this (and the old 6Day 1000 points for the winner system) is that the overall competition can often be sewn up after the first 4 days.

As with most sports with a static-points-for-a-win scoring system. There are a huge number of examples of instances where something can be won in advance of the final day/event in sport: any league (like football), F1, even the ukcup.. It's really really not broken, rules shouldn't be introduced just to avoid people winning until the last day... madness!

[roadrunner]

What's wrong with the winning place being certain before the last day?

I don't think Jess Ennis should be awarded her Gold Medal as the outcome was basically known before the last event

If you scored the heptathlon on a 1 point for a win etc basis, all events to count, she'd still have won by miles (31 points to 56); the same if you allow the worst score to be discarded (21 points to 37). Those systems would change the other places round quite a bit, though; the athletes who came 7th and 11th (who both had one weak event) would gain the most - up to 3rd or 4th equal and 6th respectively.