Does someone running down affect others points?

[Paul Frost]

I already think I know the answer but want to check I'm not missing something.

At the CompassPoint SOL 7 Inshriach two M21's ran the Short Green course and came 1st (1144 points) and 3rd. Joan Noble (W65) was 2nd (1010 points).

If I remove the M21 who was first Joan's points go up to 1025, so she lost 15 points because someone else ran down to her "official" course.

Now I know anyone can run any course they like, but is it correct for their choice to cost other people points?

I looked at some others on the same course and they all loose points until you get to about 24th, when those below got more points with the M21 in.

[AndyC]

I suspect that had the M21 run badly they'd have increased everyone's points disproportionately.
I suspect also that the effect they had isn't that they decreased the others points but that they accurately reflected the alleged over rating of older competitors in the points scheme.
Paul -you seem to be suggesting that people be discouraged from "running down" or excuded from the rankings in that case - I however (and I will probably lose more than most) suggest that we need more of it to make the rankings more representative across the different groups.
but I'm I'm keen to hear what others say....

[Paul Frost]

No, I'm not suggesting anything.
I personally take no notice or interest in the ranking/points scheme as it seems irrelevant to me and my measurement of how well I performed at an event.

I'm only highlighting the issue as it was at an event where I was in charge of results and I'm not sure what is or should be right.

[greywolf]

"Running down" is pretty meaningless - you can run any course and be competitive (you only have to run a specific course if you want SOL points).

Do you mean that you have tried uploading the results to the BOF site but leaving out the winner? And if so have you tried all the other permutations? What happens if you remove the M21 who finished 3rd. Or the W21 who finished 19th?

Yes of course it matters who else is running on the course, and of course (after the fact) you can always change the points scored by subtracting individuals from the results (if Andy Dale hadn't "run up", Hector would've got 1354 points less ). This is particularly the case on a course like this where some competitors have made huge errors.

Also, as AndyC says, if older competitors are relatively overranked then mixing them with M21s will gradually correct this bias.

But it's surprising that the effect is as large (and wide) as you suggest - the winner appears to have higher "mean of previous scores" than the field, so this increases the overall pot of points available for distribution, which should largely negate them scoring considerably higher than their previous average.

Just out of interest, are you sure that 1st & 3rd are the right way round? If you're removing the wrong "mean previous score" from the calculation that wouldn't help..

[pete.owens]

I looked at some others on the same course and they all loose points until you get to about 24th, when those below got more points with the M21 in.

That looks as though it is more an effect on the spread of results rather than the mean. The winner has had a particularly good result by their standards so it will make the standard deviation larger thus the number of seconds faster to gain a ranking point will be correspondingly larger. You could probably achieve a similar effect by selectively removing any runner from the results who scored the best result of the year for them by 50 points - or indeed someone who had their worst result of the year by a big margin.

[Sunlit Forres]

Hate to spoil it for you Jon, but you are in the top 3,000 now (252nd in fact, and set to move up another 20-or-so).

[graeme]

This wicked M21 is Andrew McHarg. Andrew has been orienteering for about a year. This is by far his best run ever: a novice going clean round Inshriach is remarkable and praiseworthy - a can't believe anyone would criticise that!

If someone has a fantastic run, it will deflate everyone else's points: running "down" or "up" doesn't enter into it.

try taking out the other M21 and see what happens to Joan's points...

...all this assuming the twins didnt swap dιbbers...

P.S. BOF course length ratios: W65L 0.32; M21V 0.32 ...

[mharky]

Are you talking SOL points or BOF ranking points?

Either way, you have no right whatsoever to question whether it is the correct choice.

[SeanC]

If the hypothesis is proved, I am available to stagger round a black course for 2 and a half hours and inflate the M21's ranking points, all for a reasonable fee.

[Paul Frost]

Are you talking SOL points or BOF ranking points?

Either way, you have no right whatsoever to question whether it is the correct choice.

I was talking about BOF ranking points, as I think people are excluded from SOL points if they run down from the suggested course for their age, but am waiting for clarification on that. It's that distinction though that raised the question in my mind about BOF points.

I'm not questioning his right to choose, I'm just asking if this is a normal and expected result from the ranking calculations.
As I said earlier, I don't put any value in them for my own personal measurement of performance, so never look at them. But as the person responsible for the results I was interested to know if this is normal/correct.

I've seen enough discussion here to know that the calculations are constantly being questioned by people more knowledgable than me about such stuff.

I personally don't think there should even be any suggested age classes for colours, it should just be, here is a list of course lengths at TD5 pick which one you fancy, or think you have the stamina to manage.

I often compare/refer to triathlon, and there you have a range of course lengths, and there is no expectation that any age should do any particular course. It's all about what you personally want to do. So there are many fit older people doing Ironman and a lot of young fit people doing Sprint distance without any stigma attached.
If orienteering followed a similar line it might make it more attractive to those younger people that can't face the distance we expect of M/W21's.
Similarly, people like Mharky, who are returning from injury, should be able to choose a course of a length suitable for their current level fitness.

[AndyC]

Yes but perhaps MHarky - a true elite- running a long way down might want to run non-comp to avoid discouraging less good runners or because his injury slowed him a lot giving others a distorted points score. That would be his choice however

[mharky]

If anything, me running down on Sunday would have encouraged Scotland's talented group of M16s who finished very close behind me.

And it seems anyone who ran blue both days got more points on Sunday than they did on Saturday when it was the longest course.

[graeme]

she lost 15 points because someone else ran down to her "official" course.

This is where you are wrong. She "lost" points because someone else ran very well, not because the person who ran well happened to be under 35 years old.

For comparison, if mharky had run short green at the speed he ran blue (i.e. in 20min), her points would have been very slightly higher. I'd have had to haul my sorry M50 a*se round 13mins clear (in 27mins) to lower her score. It's astonishing how well these comparisons across running speeds come out.

M16 who finished very close behind me

and was catching you over the second half ... maybe you'd better stick to W65

[Paul Frost]

Please forgive my ignorance of these things but...
Does this mean that if you are fast and run a shorter course than "normal" you are very likely to get more points than if you ran your "normal" course?

[EddieH]

It is precisely because a few people run courses not designated for their age that the overall points are slowly getting rid of the massive bias towards shorter course competitors that the original seed data created.

At the current rate in abnother couple of years the whole lot might be in reasonable balance.