Rankings

[FromTheGrassyKnoll]

Seriously a lot of members of my club are very interested in the rankings, and badge and colour standards. They are all strong motivators.

I would agree with that.

IMHO Any self respecting sport should have standards and be able to show its members are able to progress... be it.. from White to Brown badges, Bronze to Championship... from 1000th to 1st in the Rankings lists.

I can't see any excuse for running a ranking event and not submitting Ranking Results... it's all done by computer now... don't the officials just click and automagically export?

[awk]

IMHO Any self respecting sport should have standards and be able to show its members are able to progress... be it.. from White to Brown badges, Bronze to Championship... from 1000th to 1st in the Rankings lists.

Totally agree about having standards, but they have to make sense. I totally concur on incentive schemes, which of course can include a ranking scheme. I find the word 'ranking' unfortunate, as is the fact that the tail is allowed to wag the dog. I also prefer simple schemes, based on head to head racing. As soon as you start introducing adjustments, fudge factors etc., you just know things are heading downhill. The stupefyingly slow reaction time of the rankings doesn't help: it doesn't show current "rankings" at all, all too often being much more reflective of the situation as long as 9 months ago.

[Vidalos]

We may not all like ranking lists in their current form but they do allow for comparison of individual performances across a number of events smoothing out peaks and troughs. They provide an element of competition beyond a single event. So refining and improving them is the way forward

League tables in one form or another are a necessary part of sport, of the competition, beacuse without the competitive element isn't is just a pastime or recreational activity?

[DM]

OK, enough people do care about keeping the lists, even developing them. I agree with the view that the list should be the tail and not the dog.

The problem is how to get clubs to actually submit the results, a process which is said to be easy.

Time to name and shame;

POTOC/DEE Weston Heath Bury Walls, 25th March
British Orienteering, JK, 7th -8th April.

Over to the rest of you, don't be shy.......

[SJC]

What would really improve the Rankings would be to replace the current system of calculating rankings by individual classes with a system that covered all the classes.

These could still be published by age group, but would allow comparison between any two individuals regardless of their age (or running Short or Long courses).

Major benefit is that such a system would provide a much bigger base for the calculations - everyone running a particular course at an event - so would be more reliable. It also wouldn't matter if people ran in different age groups at different events.

All someone has to do now is design such a system!

[Ed]

The Germans have just such a system.

How the rankings are calculated is even more opaque than the British system.

Whether the results are any better I've no idea!

[SeanC]

IMHO - what would be more useful to the average bod is regional rankings based on colour coded courses. You could then have 3 levels of rankings for 3 levels of competitions. This would also spice up district events and help the case for cutting down on the number of regionals.

1) local leagues - for those who stay local.
2) regional rankings - based on colour coded courses - for the majority who rarely leave the region.
3) national rankings - based on jk, BOC, national events and a greatly reduced list of regional events. For those that travel to these big events.

But call them something else but rankings if you please

[King Penguin]

IMHO - what would be more useful to the average bod is regional rankings based on colour coded courses.

It probably varies from Region to Region, but don't the Gallopens / Regional inter-club Leagues provide this ? In the West Midlands there are about 10 events per year, age groups are assigned to colour-coded courses and points are scored by age group. "Rankings" are produced for individuals by age class as well as by club.

[johnloguk]

Sometimes it feels as though we are overloaded with rankings, but then people, including me, do seem to like them.

We have a club one based on colour coded courses over the year, with prizes for overall champ, top, junior/woman and "vet". There is a regional league, based on certain identified C4s in the region. Then there is the national ranking lists. We also have summer series leagues, which ironically are often the most fun and the most competitive.

Which lists are the most accurate in terms of orienteering ability would keep us occupied for years

And I haven't even mentioned night leagues

[FatBoy]

All someone has to do now is design such a system!

I would say it's quite a simple fix to the current system to do this.

At the point in time to switch from the current system, then multiply each competitor's scores by their appropriate age class handicap factor. Such factors are already agreed for L classes - come up with an appropriate L to S factor to apply. E.g. An M45L has a score of 1000 at one event, the handicap factor is (say) 0.83 then the resulting score is 830. Do this for all events then merge the scores and you have a start point.

Each event submitted then changes to submit results by course rather than class, and each course's ranking points are calculated as per the current system. It should just work as the whole system is based on the average scores of the competitors on that course - whether that average happens to be 1000 or 400 it produces equivalent scores. A neat side effect of this is that not just badge events can be scored. Whether we want to go down that route is another question...

The only difficult bit is getting clubs to submit the results, and now in a different format.

[SeanC]

King Penguin wrote:

"In the West Midlands there are about 10 events per year, age groups are assigned to colour-coded courses and points are scored by age group. "Rankings" are produced for individuals by age class as well as by club."

Yes you're right. I'm thinking about the south east where the south east gallopen and league are based around the regional/badge events. Local events are often part of a league which leaves the bog standard colour coded event in the middle feeling a less competitive than perhaps they should be.

[Spookster]

Time to name and shame;

POTOC/DEE Weston Heath Bury Walls, 25th March
British Orienteering, JK, 7th -8th April.

Over to the rest of you, don't be shy.......

Has anyone actually asked the JK organiser or results provider what the delay is, and when we can expect to see the JK ranking points? After all, there could be a good reason for the results being delayed and no need for them to be shamed!

[Gnitworp]

Yes, sent an email via the JK website's 'Questions, Comments, Feedback' form. No reply as yet.

[NickC]

JK rankings have appeared today.

[DM]

Time to name and shame;

POTOC/DEE Weston Heath Bury Walls, 25th March
British Orienteering, JK, 7th -8th April.

Over to the rest of you, don't be shy.......

Has anyone actually asked the JK organiser or results provider what the delay is, and when we can expect to see the JK ranking points? After all, there could be a good reason for the results being delayed and no need for them to be shamed!

Simple answer, yes.

I would not expect organisers to rely on seeing something on Nopesport to jog their memories. Regarding JK results, as for Gnitworp, email was sent to JK organiser and also BO direct.