Ranking Lists

[SeanC]

Now we've got this urban/forest filter, another filter linking back to the localization point would be an 'event region' (please think of better phrase) filter. Ie the region the event was held in.

That way the ranking lists could be used by regions as their local individual leagues with no extra work. Using SEOA as an example, you could either select 'all competitors that competed in SEOA ranking events' or 'just SEOA competitors that competed in SEOA ranking events' and give prizes accordingly.

I think if there are those that are faster in easier areas because they are faster runners but not necessarily as technically skilled, then they would then be rewarded and encouraged. Hopefully to enthuse them to go to more technical areas. More winners = more happy people etc.

The flaw in this plan are HAVOC and SN, who are both in SEOA, and EAOA and SCOA respectively (unless this has finally been decided?).

[Atomic]

Now we've got this urban/forest filter, another filter linking back to the localization point would be an 'event region' (please think of better phrase) filter. Ie the region the event was held in.

That way the ranking lists could be used by regions as their local individual leagues with no extra work. Using SEOA as an example, you could either select 'all competitors that competed in SEOA ranking events' or 'just SEOA competitors that competed in SEOA ranking events' and give prizes accordingly.

I think if there are those that are faster in easier areas because they are faster runners but not necessarily as technically skilled, then they would then be rewarded and encouraged. Hopefully to enthuse them to go to more technical areas. More winners = more happy people etc.

The flaw in this plan are HAVOC and SN, who are both in SEOA, and EAOA and SCOA respectively (unless this has finally been decided?).

Theres a new option on the BOF site called "Ranking Leagues" which might be what this is all about. I couldn't actually make any useful sense of it. Do you have people competing in those regional leagues who are not BOF members like happens in Scotland?

[SeanC]

Theres a new option on the BOF site called "Ranking Leagues" which might be what this is all about. I couldn't actually make any useful sense of it. Do you have people competing in those regional leagues who are not BOF members like happens in Scotland?

I'm not aware of club or region only membership in SEOA. I can't see any INDs on the SEOA individual league.

Have you got a link for the 'ranking leagues' option? I couldn't find it.

[Atomic]

Regarding event quality, in principle level A and B events should be better areas,

no the area should be good enough for a level A or B event - but theres lots of level C, and even D events take place on exactly the same areas - sometimes on even better areas that don't have the parking or arena space for a big event.

more up to date maps

eh? brand new maps can be used on any level. Old maps can be updated for A/B/C/D but e.g. there's no requirement that level A events use LIDAR based maps. And no accreditation for mappers at any level. At the best events the controller should be saying no to poor maps but I've never heard of it happening.

and more experienced planners and controllers putting in more time.

but in my experience top planners/controllers quite often get involved in level C/D events too, and inexperienced planners can put in huge amounts of time which experience can save you. I think time is a poor proxy for quality.

I agree that some major events aren't better than level C, but we should still expect them to be a better test of skills

but my point is that there is nothing in the rules that says they will be a better test of skills; the extra stuff is actually mostly about stuff in the entries/arena etc.

and design a ranking system accordingly - the norm in most sports.

I think there is an element of this build in to the current ranking system. The best events should attract the best runners. People running on those courses then are benchmarked against the best. They then run lower level events where lesser runners are benchmarked against them. Rather than weighting the ranking to the grade of the event (which may or may not reflect a better quality measure of orienteering, and which may or may not apply on a particular course) the ranking is weighted to the quality of the runners on that course.

If its just a filter you can ignore it and still see where you compare against your local rivals on local terrain.

but its a filter that provides misleading information because the rankings are generally only useful for people with 6 events of the type you are interested in. My local rivals are easy - I can just look at the results list. Even on regional events I can look at the locals I know and judge myself against them. But where do I compare to the rest of the country: am I ok in a poor club (so appear to be great at local events) or good in a great club (so appear mediocre at local events).

I like rankings - I think they are a useful indication of how you perform from event to event (O is not like a 10k where you can just compare times). I'll never win at regional events but I can see if I can improve my ranking. They also provide an interesting tool for someone considering running up/down - look at results from similar events and see how people with your sort of ranking get on. Quite useful for understanding terrain effects etc.

[Auld Badger]

Do you have people competing in those regional leagues who are not BOF members like happens in Scotland?

Non BOF members don't get ranking points, nor do they affect ranking points won by BOF members. SOA (and IND) members do get league points in the Scottish forest and urban leagues. Indeed, one of the Urban League classes will be won by an English-based athlete this year.

[Tim]

Such a filter was discussed in this thread of 2013 (from 8th post onwards) - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14005

Glad to see BO taking on board comments - even if it took 11 years to implement.

[roadrunner]

more up to date maps

eh? brand new maps can be used on any level. Old maps can be updated for A/B/C/D but e.g. there's no requirement that level A events use LIDAR based maps. And no accreditation for mappers at any level. At the best events the controller should be saying no to poor maps but I've never heard of it happening.

That's true, but clubs are likely to do a full (or professional) update of a map for a major event and then use the same map (maybe with the odd update) for lower-level events

I like rankings - I think they are a useful indication of how you perform from event to event (O is not like a 10k where you can just compare times).

No - your can have a hilly 10k or a flat 10k, for example. Within an event you can compare times but not between events. (Actually, RunBritain have their own way of comparing different races of the same distance which is probably not dissimilar to our ranking lists, but they don't reveal the details of the calculation.)

[buzz]

Regarding event quality, in principle level A and B events should be better areas,

no the area should be good enough for a level A or B event - but theres lots of level C, and even D events take place on exactly the same areas - sometimes on even better areas that don't have the parking or arena space for a big event.

more up to date maps

eh? brand new maps can be used on any level. Old maps can be updated for A/B/C/D but e.g. there's no requirement that level A events use LIDAR based maps. And no accreditation for mappers at any level. At the best events the controller should be saying no to poor maps but I've never heard of it happening.

and more experienced planners and controllers putting in more time.

but in my experience top planners/controllers quite often get involved in level C/D events too, and inexperienced planners can put in huge amounts of time which experience can save you. I think time is a poor proxy for quality.

I agree that some major events aren't better than level C, but we should still expect them to be a better test of skills

but my point is that there is nothing in the rules that says they will be a better test of skills; the extra stuff is actually mostly about stuff in the entries/arena etc.

and design a ranking system accordingly - the norm in most sports.

I think there is an element of this build in to the current ranking system. The best events should attract the best runners. People running on those courses then are benchmarked against the best. They then run lower level events where lesser runners are benchmarked against them. Rather than weighting the ranking to the grade of the event (which may or may not reflect a better quality measure of orienteering, and which may or may not apply on a particular course) the ranking is weighted to the quality of the runners on that course.

If its just a filter you can ignore it and still see where you compare against your local rivals on local terrain.

but its a filter that provides misleading information because the rankings are generally only useful for people with 6 events of the type you are interested in. My local rivals are easy - I can just look at the results list. Even on regional events I can look at the locals I know and judge myself against them. But where do I compare to the rest of the country: am I ok in a poor club (so appear to be great at local events) or good in a great club (so appear mediocre at local events).

I like rankings - I think they are a useful indication of how you perform from event to event (O is not like a 10k where you can just compare times). I'll never win at regional events but I can see if I can improve my ranking. They also provide an interesting tool for someone considering running up/down - look at results from similar events and see how people with your sort of ranking get on. Quite useful for understanding terrain effects etc.

Level A and B events are intended to be better quality than level C including the terrain, maps and planning, there are exceptions, but they usually are. This together with the fact that they are spread around the country with a variety of terrain types and disciplines makes them a better test of orienteering skills, than 6 races around your local woods, parks or fells, and if you're using 6 local events to compare yourself with the rest of the country then you're getting misleading information.

If its an easy enhancement to implement why not do it for those who'd be interested.

[rf_fozzy]

Level A and B events are intended to be better quality than level C including the terrain, maps and planning, there are exceptions, but they usually are. This together with the fact that they are spread around the country with a variety of terrain types and disciplines makes them a better test of orienteering skills, than 6 races around your local woods, parks or fells, and if you're using 6 local events to compare yourself with the rest of the country then you're getting misleading information.

If its an easy enhancement to implement why not do it for those who'd be interested.

Local events are not included in the rankings.

If Regional events were to be excluded, then v few people would have rankings.

There is little/no difference between a Regional and National event - in fact there are v few National events really.

Not everyone can or wants to do Major events (IIRC most orienteers only orienteer locally)

[buzz]

Level A and B events are intended to be better quality than level C including the terrain, maps and planning, there are exceptions, but they usually are. This together with the fact that they are spread around the country with a variety of terrain types and disciplines makes them a better test of orienteering skills, than 6 races around your local woods, parks or fells, and if you're using 6 local events to compare yourself with the rest of the country then you're getting misleading information.

If its an easy enhancement to implement why not do it for those who'd be interested.

Local events are not included in the rankings.

If Regional events were to be excluded, then v few people would have rankings.

There is little/no difference between a Regional and National event - in fact there are v few National events really.

Not everyone can or wants to do Major events (IIRC most orienteers only orienteer locally)

Sorry, good point, I was using 'local' loosely I should have said 'regional' - the point being areas of similar type that people become familiar with and therefore offer less technical challenge.

As atomic says some level C events offer more technical challenge than A or B especially night events or areas with limited numners or parking restrictions, but most clubs use their best areas for major or national events and many level C events are on less challenging areas.

I don't think there would be 'very few' ranked - looking at the BOF diary there are about 70 level A/B events in the next 12 months (a lot more than I thought actually) - there are about the same number of A,B and C urban/sprint races. As you say a lot of people prefer to stick locally but we still get quite large numbers at championships and the big multi day events.

I'm not suggesting regional events are excluded from rankings - as atomic says its great to be able to measure yourself against your local rivals. I just suggested a filter for those who are interested in a more realistic national ranking.

[rf_fozzy]

There really isn't that much difference between a Regional and a National event.

I think the distinction has probably gone and it might be something the sport can get rid of to simplify matters.

The *only* difference between a Regional and a National in practical terms is that there are a wider spread of courses.

As for "better" areas or maps. As someone who's planned and organised at both levels (and Major events) recently and mapped at all levels, there's basically no difference.

And as a level B controller (although I'm yet to control a National event due to the lack of them nearby that aren't organised by my club), there's not *that* much I'd do differently either - certainly not on the bits you are talking about - the fairness of courses and map would take the same priority.

Contrast to a Major event where there are huge differences.

I'd suggest if you want rankings that only look at "elite" events, then use the UKOL - which covers most Major and selected national events.

We don't need another ranking list - in the end it's all a bit of an ego driven thing anyway.

[Scott]

I think the distinction has probably gone and it might be something the sport can get rid of to simplify matters.

We tried that about ten years ago and the sport almost descended into civil war, culminating in a (member-initiated) AGM vote which decreed that there must be four levels of event. I expect you can find a very long Nopesport thread about it if you're really interested.

The only thing that has caused greater ructions among the British Orienteering membership within my memory is map scales.

I would personally agree that the level B/C distinction is fairly meaningless, but I expect the appetite for reopening that argument is pretty minimal and there are probably better things we can all be spending our energy on.

[buzz]

There really isn't that much difference between a Regional and a National event.

That's just not true. How many National events have you been to recently? Certainly the summer multi-day races and regional championships tend to use the best areas and clubs make a bit of an effort for other national events from my experience.

I'd suggest if you want rankings that only look at "elite" events, then use the UKOL - which covers most Major and selected national events.

You've got something there in that it covers a limited selection of events. The trouble with the UKOL is that it uses position in class for points so it depends on who turns up and you can't compare across classes. Most people score less points at the major events because more people turn up - the opposite of what I'm proposing. It also requires you to go to 8 events out of 26 which is a bit demanding. Perhaps the UKOL should use a filtered ranking list instead.

We don't need another ranking list - in the end it's all a bit of an ego driven thing anyway.

Lots of people enjoy the ranking list - it certainly generates a lot of interest on Nopesport!

Incidently I noticed the UKOL Leeds urban event that I think you planned was a regional event not a national event. I thought it was a great event despte the rain - with excellent planning and you'd clearly put a lot of work into it. The exception that proves the rule (whatever that means!).

[rf_fozzy]

It also requires you to go to 8 events out of 26 which is a bit demanding. Perhaps the UKOL should use a filtered ranking list instead.

Incidently I noticed the UKOL Leeds urban event that I think you planned was a regional event not a national event. I thought it was a great event despte the rain - with excellent planning and you'd clearly put a lot of work into it. The exception that proves the rule (whatever that means!).

8/26 is not much different to asking people to do 6 major/national events/year. A lot of people who orienteer can't commit to that - they don't want to do the 6/5 days or orienteer every weekend. The rankings by definition have to be as inclusive as possible.

That's why UKOL is there - for those people who do! It's not perfect (too many events!) but it's supposed to be for exactly what you want as I understand the competition. Isn't there some Elite level something on top of that too as well?

The Leeds event was improperly logged on the AIRE website - on the BOF website it was registered as a National level event, which was correct. The Saturday sprints were the regional part. We certainly stuck to the national level guidelines and appointed an out of area controller as required.

[Scott]

There really isn't that much difference between a Regional and a National event.

That's just not true. How many National events have you been to recently? Certainly the summer multi-day races and regional championships tend to use the best areas and clubs make a bit of an effort for other national events from my experience.

I think the fact that I have no idea which events I've been to were National events shows the irrelevance of the National/Regional distinction.

It's the summer multi-days that are the outlier here, in that they are in no way representative of the typical National event. There are 18 National events between now and the end of February, of which eight are South-East League events, seven are CompassSport Cup heats, and two are association championships.

I'm sure they'll all be good events, but I'd also be surprised if they are noticeably better in quality than the Regional events that I've pencilled into my diary for that period, including the Lakeland Warrior weekend (which features a Level C WRE!) and various Cumbrian Galoppens.