I am sure the odd looking high score for 8th place on light green would not have happened if under 16s (M/W16-) were allowed ranking points.
Why are you sure?
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
I am sure the odd looking high score for 8th place on light green would not have happened if under 16s (M/W16-) were allowed ranking points.
charles2 wrote:I am sure the odd looking high score for 8th place on light green would not have happened if under 16s (M/W16-) were allowed ranking points.
drobin wrote:I raise you.
1 (789 -1) Roger Scrutton ESOC 1947 M 6991 1087, 1099, 1505, 1078, 1091, 1131
drobin wrote:I raise you.
1 (789 -1) Roger Scrutton ESOC 1947 M 6991 1087, 1099, 1505, 1078, 1091, 1131
Big Jon wrote:drobin wrote:I raise you.
1 (789 -1) Roger Scrutton ESOC 1947 M 6991 1087, 1099, 1505, 1078, 1091, 1131
Shows what a load of sh1t the whole ranking system has become.
Mr D wrote:1505 is now 1464.
He won by 11mins and awarded points of 1464. Well deserved..!
Result - https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... &course=4&
Big Jon wrote:Mr D wrote:1505 is now 1464.
He won by 11mins and awarded points of 1464. Well deserved..!
Result - https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/ ... &course=4&
Thats perfectly fair then, he must have had a good run... significantly better than any of GGs scoring runs. I look forward to seeing Roger in the GB team next year as he's obviously blossoming late.
Mr D wrote:
Cant compare to GG. The individual has had a good run & far far clear of everyone else, therefore rewarded accordingly.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests