UK O League

[Sunlit Forres]

Don't know why it blamed it on you Andy (I highlighted the words, clicked 'quote' and assumed all was well). I would never confuse your style of banter with Graeme's, much as you might like me to.

[EddieH]

I don't believe that BOF have any concept of what they are doing. I don't know who is responsible for the UKOL but I am certain whoever they are they don't listen and don't think through with a competitor's head on.

BOF disbanded the (at the time very successful regional championships in favour of national events, a move with some support, but it didn't prove very successful.

They then tried to go back to "important" regional champs by labelling them level A. Whether there was any longer any desire for these events is debatable, however by creating the UKOL and nominating various random events (outside of the national champs and JK) and not including regionals they have killed any idea there ever was of level A being special. Why I wonder do clubs want to put on regional championships under level 1 rules? Scotland okay as we are a nation, but the midlands which due to their fiddling has now become a two early rotation round 2 regions that struggle to find a great deal of terrain.

I am happy with events up in Scotland. I despair when I see what BOF doesn't do to encourage major competition.

One can even see their total lack of care in British Chams prizes. It is now clear that they had a number of buffs some labelled "British Orienteering Championships" and some "British Orienteering Champion". However Some events get one and others the other, thus I have received the former for any victories I have had, but the latter for third place!

[Sloop]

I agree that the UKOL has sent totally wrong messages and in doing so made itself pointless. I am close enough to the sharp end to want all-year round top-level competition, and to me, that is what the UKOL should provide (and I'm prepared to travel ridiculous distances for it).

I completely lost interest when the Level A events were omitted in favour of SINS (for example). Nothing against SINS as such, but Level A it isn't.

People (including many on this forum) don't seem to understand that orienteers at different levels and development stages need very different things for motivation and relatively objective measurement, and that some of our systems work very well for the relevant people. eg. Badge Standards (Bronze, Silver, Gold, Championship) do a good job; higher up, ranking points also do a good job (whatever the flaws in the detail); higher up should be the UKOL/Masters Cup/whatever; higher still are Championship/JK medals; higher still are significant WMOC placings.

It is just silly to slate any one of these systems for its imperfections unless those imperfections apply to the most relevant consumer group. ie. UKOL can't really be dissed for issues perceived by the 50th best people cos they're not who it is (should be) for.

[mharky]

It is just silly to slate any one of these systems for its imperfections unless those imperfections apply to the most relevant consumer group. ie. UKOL can't really be dissed for issues perceived by the 50th best people cos they're not who it is (should be) for.

Firstly, why do you think the UKOL is only for those who can win it?

The primary objectives of the competition are as follows:

Encourage greater participation at a national level and thus increase the quality of competition.
Provide competition in a variety of terrain types, across the United Kingdom.
Promote new and alternative event formats.
Provide an excellent sporting experience.

Secondly, to say that you can only criticise something unless it directly affects you is a ridiculous philosophy.

[buzz]

I think the principle of a national league competition is great. Personally I enjoyed all the events I went to and felt that in each case the organising club had tried to make the events stand out over and above ordinary regional events.

It may not have specifically encouraged new types of events and terrain, but did include a wide variety including night and ultrasprint races.

I don't see why its only the leading competitors who are interested - as with all competitions you have your own rivals who you can measure yourself against.

The scoring system does favour the smaller events, although this perhaps encourages people to travel to events they might otherwise have missed. A fairer system might be to use BOF ranking points but only count those from UKOL events. Calculation of scores could perhaps be incorporated into the ranking event system.

The main issue though is the lack of publicity. What's the point of organising a competition and then not telling anyone about it! Perhaps this years winners could get some recognition and next years event could be promoted. How hard can it be.

[andypat]

Pretty much agree with Mharky.
It probably boils down to whether you think the UKOL works well as a jack of all trades.
Me I dont think so.
Sloop clearly doesnt think it should try to be, but as Mharky (and others) have pointed out, thats what is says on the tin.

[graeme]

I don't know who is responsible for the UKOL

Dave Peel. (RIP)
Peel has form on this. He brought in the UK cup and destroyed the "National Events" as serious elite race, using the same aggressive scheduling clashes. His rationale then was that we needed to have different race formats. I agreed with him, and I think I officiated more UK Cup races than anyone.
Homer will be thrilled to see the UKOL results are in. The winning individual is Dave's wife, and the winning club is Dave's club. Maybe he knew what he was doing after all

[Homer]

Homer will be thrilled to see the UKOL results are in. The winning individual is Dave's wife, and the winning club is Dave's club. Maybe he knew what he was doing after all

Thrilled indeed.

Results are in, but only if you know where they're hidden on the BO website. I assume the big announcement will be coming next week..

[Sloop]

Belated reply to Mharky. (Been away enjoying myself in Edinburgh).

1.

Firstly, why do you think the UKOL is only for those who can win it?

a) I did NOT say it is only for people who can win it. I said I think it is really for people who want to be competitive at that level. There is a difference.
b) because that is the (presumably unintended) effect of the chosen scoring system
b) because, as I wrote, there are sensible motivation systems for people at other levels.

2.

Secondly, to say that you can only criticise something unless it directly affects you is a ridiculous philosophy.

That is NOT what I said either. I didn't say anything about WHO could criticise. I did say something about what reasons for criticism would be appropriate.

Moving on ...

I think the idea of using ranking points rather than positional points is quite interesting, if the real purpose is a mass appeal ...

And if this is a good idea, should the Nopesport League be done like that too ?

[awk]

Moving on ...
I think the idea of using ranking points rather than positional points is quite interesting, if the real purpose is a mass appeal ...
And if this is a good idea, should the Nopesport League be done like that too ?

Please God No. And No again. And Thrice No!!!!!

The one saving grace of the ranking scheme is that it has no importance or application anywhere else. In very broad brush terms over a period of time, it sort of generally gets the general trends right, but only in broad brush terms. In taking specific events and scores, it's a vile system that produces ludicrously extreme results on far too many occasions (I have 'benefited' from this - but the score I got was totally bonkers). And what do you do about the fact that scores can change at any time after they are first posted? If they need to change because they can't relate to later events, then no way can they be used for a league competition that takes place over a period of time.

One can pick holes in the current scoring system, but for a league competition it's simple, straightforward, enables one to anticipate races, and makes sense (and you can calculate scores on the day, without needing a computer). Why do (British?) orienteers always seem to want to introduce scoring systems that ignore the fundamentals of racing, which is that it's the position that counts, and use mathematical systems that need a degree in advanced statistics to even have a vague understanding of how they work, if they do.

I, for one, would take absolutely no part in any competition that used the ranking system.

[buzz]

Moving on ...
I think the idea of using ranking points rather than positional points is quite interesting, if the real purpose is a mass appeal ...
And if this is a good idea, should the Nopesport League be done like that too ?

Please God No. And No again. And Thrice No!!!!!

The one saving grace of the ranking scheme is that it has no importance or application anywhere else. In very broad brush terms over a period of time, it sort of generally gets the general trends right, but only in broad brush terms. In taking specific events and scores, it's a vile system that produces ludicrously extreme results on far too many occasions (I have 'benefited' from this - but the score I got was totally bonkers). And what do you do about the fact that scores can change at any time after they are first posted? If they need to change because they can't relate to later events, then no way can they be used for a league competition that takes place over a period of time.

One can pick holes in the current scoring system, but for a league competition it's simple, straightforward, enables one to anticipate races, and makes sense (and you can calculate scores on the day, without needing a computer). Why do (British?) orienteers always seem to want to introduce scoring systems that ignore the fundamentals of racing, which is that it's the position that counts, and use mathematical systems that need a degree in advanced statistics to even have a vague understanding of how they work, if they do.

I, for one, would take absolutely no part in any competition that used the ranking system.

Well said (and I think I was the originator of the ranking points suggestion on this thread) - 'vile system' is perhaps a bit harsh, but it is a pile of pants.

I just think if you're going to have a ranking system it needs to reward performances at major races and the UKOL at least tries to identify a suitable selection of races in different disciplines covering the whole country.

[awk]

Hmmm? Yes, agree. 'Pile of pants system' would have been much better wording!

[graeme]

One can pick holes in the current scoring system

Like the way I tied with Jamie Stevenson (World Champion) in the UK Cup (which had the same system)? Ridiculous system - obviously I was better than that .
In literally hundreds of ranking events, I've never got a score close to one of our male WOC athletes.

Ludicrously extreme results on far too many occasions

So you'll be able to tell us who has a ludicrous ranking position then? There may be the odd funny score, just like I've had the odd fastest split against World Champions - didn't mean the race was flawed.

Even so, I've just done the Nopesport and SOUL League presentations, and it was nice to have a system I could work out with a pen and paper and present prizes within 30 mins of the final course closing. (OK - slightly delayed until spookster got back from a warm down jog)

...

Top UK male orienteers (UKOL)
1 Romualdas Stupelis
2 Joe Taunton
3 Richard Robinson
4 Robert Kelly
5 Alex Rothman

Top UK male orienteers (Ranking List)
1 Murray Strain
2 Kristian Jones
3 Graham Gristwood
4 Douglas Tullie
5 Matthew Speake

[DJM]

scoring systems that ignore the fundamentals of racing, which is that it's the position that counts

Of course, this is fundamental when one race is involved and it also has currency when a series is involved where the same runners compete in each race but, and to use the current vernacular, the position-based system is a "pile of pants" when different runners (and different numbers of runners too) compete in each race.

Coming 10th in a field of 15 is rather different from coming 10th in a field of 75, yet both get the same points in a position-based system. Coming 10th in a field of 15 when the whole of the squad is running is rather different from 10th in a field of 15 when no squad members are there.

In other words, "it's a vile system that produces ludicrously extreme results on far too many occasions"!!

mathematical systems that need a degree in advanced statistics to even have a vague understanding of how they work

awk - as you have never been known to exaggerate for effect, you must really believe this

The statistics behind the rankings is pretty basic and one which a decent GCSE Maths class would follow. Understanding it should not be beyond the ability of many (most?) orienteers therefore, especially as a large number seem to have Maths-based degrees of some sort.

Could it be that many of those who profess it's too complicated haven't got round to finding out how it works?

[awk]

Like the way I tied with Jamie Stevenson (World Champion) in the UK Cup (which had the same system)? Ridiculous system - obviously I was better than that .

A league is aimed at those wishing to compete in it. Was Jamie competing in the League? Were you?

In literally hundreds of ranking events, I've never got a score close to one of our male WOC athletes.

So what?

So you'll be able to tell us who has a ludicrous ranking position then?

Did I say they had? I said that at the cumulative end, where all those races over the past year are taken into account, then in broad brush terms it may work, i.e. ranking positions may not be precisely accurate, but aren't ludicrous.
However, at the individual race level, I can point to plenty of silly scores over the years, as can most people I suspect from the comments here.
And do you really want a league where the scores for previously run races change as the year progresses? That's pretty ludicrous to me, even if not to you.

Top UK male orienteers (UKOL)
....
Top UK male orienteers (Ranking List)
...

All that proves is that the top UK male orienteers didn't compete in the league.

Of course, this is fundamental when one race is involved and it also has currency when a series is involved where the same runners compete in each race but, and to use the current vernacular, the position-based system is a "pile of pants" when different runners (and different numbers of runners too) compete in each race.

Coming 10th in a field of 15 is rather different from coming 10th in a field of 75, yet both get the same points in a position-based system. Coming 10th in a field of 15 when the whole of the squad is running is rather different from 10th in a field of 15 when no squad members are there.

In other words, "it's a vile system that produces ludicrously extreme results on far too many occasions"!!

No it's not, and it doesn't. The league was previously announced. If some runners decide not to compete in some rounds, that's their decision. A league is about competing against each other, and the results of that league depending on that competition. The ranking scheme is not: it's an attempt to assess a person's run regardless of who is at the race. The ranking scheme may appeal to those who like to try and obtain an objective measure of an individual's performance, but it has little to do with head to head competition. Next you'll be suggesting that we need to give Man Utd more than three points because they beat Arsenal rather than Crystal Palace, or Yenew Alamirew less points in the Diamond League because Mo Farah didn't turn up. It's a league, not a ranking competition. And just as the best runners, tennis players, swimmers etc. probably don't compete in domestic competition (Andy Murray for the UK League anybody?) , nor are our elite competitors likely to either.

And you should know me better David - of course I use hyperbole. But the very fact that the ranking scores continually change over time, and that, prior to that, they were getting harder and harder to score, suggests that they aren't exactly the best to use (and, no, I don't understand why that happens). Especially as they are definitely unreliable with lower numbers - so what do you do for those courses if that happens? Void a race?