Results and Rankings.

[housewife]

I haven't really looked much at the rankings before, but don't really understand it. Why would people get lots of points at the jk etc rather than your average badge event? itdoes seem to be the case. is this just a case of people peaking for the big races?

[rocky]

In theory they shouldn't. Its more the case that people who only had 6-8 counting scores, including three from the JK, drop down a lot when they lose the three JK results as they no longer have the full quota.
There is a smaller impact of people who were counting the JK losing this score and falling, whereas - the majority - have no impact on their own scores from the removal of the JK and they "rise" as others fall below them. This is no different to the regular weekly drop out of results.

This raises the question in my mind - is Easter weekend the biggest participation weekend for ranking scores on the BO calendar? I suppose it might be second behind the Six Day "weekend" depending on when the cut off is for counting scores - is it Mon-Sun, in which case you will have five ranking events with 2000+ ranked runners dropping out in one week, or is it Thur-Wed, in which case the six day splits into 2x3x 2000ish and is more comparable with the JK (though probably still slightly bigger).

Stats is fun.

[Kitch]

I was reading that 2nd paragraph thinking "He's slipping, he's really slipping"
but you partially salvaged it by recognising that you had been geeking.
Not sure I forgive you though.

[EddieH]

It seems clear to me this year that at every event that I have attended, (or might have done,) the points I have received, (or would have been likely to) are not able to threaten my previous counting scores.

Am I massively worse/ less fit than last year? - I don't think so.

Is it because finally the true gap between the top guys and us mortals is really beginning to be reflected in the scores?

Is it a regional variation?

I've no idea and maybe this weekend's Southern British champs may show suggest so - we'lll have to wait and see.

Who else is finding this?

[King Penguin]

I am finding exactly the same as Eddie.
My suspicion is that the longer the ranking system runs for, the greater the effects of normalisation on new scores. I recall some, including Greame I think, arguing that the same seed data should have been run through the system more times to obtain a stable base. What I suspect we are seeing now is the result of not doing this.
However, if this is the case it should (I hope) be having a similar effect on all, meaning that it should not have much of an effect on individual's positions in the ranking lists, and it is after all the relative positions, not the absolute scores, which are most important.

[andy]

It seems clear to me this year that at every event that I have attended, (or might have done,) the points I have received, (or would have been likely to) are not able to threaten my previous counting scores.

...

Who else is finding this?

Me too. Last year I was fairly consistently between 1200 and 1250 and now I'm 1150 to 1200... I thought I was going better than last year (but in reality probably about the same)

[EddieH]

Well the moral is if you are interested in ranking points and are not eliteish, take a sabbatical - you're not going to get anything worthwhile for a while. That's why I'm planning plenty of upcoming races

[awk]

Well the moral is if you are interested in ranking points and are not eliteish, take a sabbatical - you're not going to get anything worthwhile for a while. That's why I'm planning plenty of upcoming races

Possibly, but my oldest set of ranking points counting are from this year's Burns weekend. Could be something to do with a little thing called fitness in my case!!
(And there are people who I've started to beat who do seem to have some humungous scores from last spring/summer, which means that for me they are unovertakeable until later in the year).

[m4rk]

Just to clarify, at level A events and the like where entry is done by course, do you still get ranking points if you enter a course that you're not eligible for?

For example, I entered M21S at the southern championships and ended up with no points, because even when combined with W21L, M18L, M20L there were still less than 10 'ranked runners' (because everyone was running elite). Seen as there's nothing to be gained from winning a short class anyway, will I get points if I enter (eg) 55L/16A etc which was only 400m shorter and had loads of entrants?

Alternatively, if a course has very few entrants maybe the organisers should consider combining some courses in order to ensure more competitors on each?

[madmike]

Mark,
the event guidlines for both BOC and Area Champs contain the following clause:

1.3 Nature of Event
1.3.1 Single-day cross-country competition held in daylight. Runners compete as individuals in age classes.

Seems to me to imply that you can't have a non-competitve run at Level A and be reflected in formal results. It is a shame that your excellent run at the Southern Champs didn't gain you the points you deserve but at colour-based events (level B/C) you can enter any course you like for ranking purposes.

That said there are not that many level As and lots of level Bs and Cs - if you always run like you did at Southern Champs then you should pick up 6 good ranking scores pretty easily.

[DeerTick]

It seems clear to me this year that at every event that I have attended, (or might have done,) the points I have received, (or would have been likely to) are not able to threaten my previous counting scores.

Am I massively worse/ less fit than last year? - I don't think so.

Couldn't agree more, Eddie, but in my case the reason is clear - improved fitness (can I recommend retirement) more than cancelled out by massive mistakes. Haven't scored above 1000 pts this year and expect to plummet as last year's points disappear.

AP

[DeerTick]

I'm a fan of the rankings.

However:

SOL2: Brown v Short Brown.

Brown (length: 7.75km, climb: 335m, 24 controls): to score 1000pts you'd need about 1:36.

Short Brown (length: 6.175km, climb: 305m, 19 controls) : to score 1000pts you'd need about 1:32.

Roger Bannister might manage the extra distance on the flat, but not many orienteers.

Mmm?

AP.

[awk]

Yes Deer Tick, that anomaly has been picked up before on this thread, not just be me. That anomaly of it being sometimes easier to pick up points on shorter courses seems prevalent. I can't agree with DJM's suggestion that it's simply because you can't compare mins/km between courses - there seems to be something more fundamental going on, and I think if you trawl through, I think I recollect an explanation being provided by somebody more statistically knowledgeable than me.

[DeerTick]

Yes Deer Tick, that anomaly has been picked up before on this thread, not just be me.

I know (I may even have contributed). I was just trying to keep it going as it's gone a bit quiet.

AP

[ricardito]

It seems clear to me this year that at every event that I have attended, (or might have done,) the points I have received, (or would have been likely to) are not able to threaten my previous counting scores.
(snip)
Is it a regional variation?
(snip)
Who else is finding this?

Me too... OK I've made the odd mistake , but even the times I think I should have made would have attracted a lower score than I'd have expected a year ago. And I know I'm fitter...

It's a shame because the scores "should" give a reasonably consistent and objective measure of performance - at the moment it feels impossible to keep up to the same level.

I too wonder if there's a regional variation - just from a completely unscientific tiny sample of what proportion of runners are scoring 1000+ points. It will be interesting to see what happens at some "big" events where runners from all over compete (JK, British, etc).