UK 'Proper' Orienteering League 2020

[Homer]

Please can we have one?

The UKOL includes too many urbans for my liking....

[babs f]

Please can we have one?

The UKOL includes too many urbans for my liking....

[King Penguin]

I think there should also be filters on the ranking list to produce 2 variants - terrain and urban/campus - as well as the 2all events" one we currently have.
Sprints could fall into either. Most would be urban/campus but JOK Chasing Sprint would be terrain.
It should not take too much effort to apply an "event type" filter to the existing results, though I accept it would rely on events being correctly categorised.

[pete.owens]

The UKOL includes too many urbans for my liking....

That is all of 5 out of 23 this year - and one of those was originially intended to be a long distance event in the Peak District until permission was refused. Only 12 events count towards your score so you need to enter a precise total of ZERO urban events to be competitive in the league.

[Big Jon]

The UKOL includes too many urbans for my liking....

That is all of 5 out of 23 this year - and one of those was originially intended to be a long distance event in the Peak District until permission was refused. Only 12 events count towards your score so you need to enter a precise total of ZERO urban events to be competitive in the league.

thin end of the wedge...

[buzz]

Only 12 events count towards your score so you need to enter a precise total of ZERO urban events to be competitive in the league.

One too many for me

[Homer]

That is all of 5 out of 23 this year - and one of those was originially intended to be a long distance event in the Peak District until permission was refused. Only 12 events count towards your score so you need to enter a precise total of ZERO urban events to be competitive in the league.

True, but my point was that we seem to have a number of dedicated urban-only leagues. Where is the equivalent forest-only league?

[Homer]

I think there should also be filters on the ranking list to produce 2 variants - terrain and urban/campus - as well as the 2all events" one we currently have.
Sprints could fall into either. Most would be urban/campus but JOK Chasing Sprint would be terrain.
It should not take too much effort to apply an "event type" filter to the existing results, though I accept it would rely on events being correctly categorised.

I strongly agree with this suggestion as well.

Comparing my (alleged) 6 best forest races with others' 6 best urban races is meaningless.

[pete.owens]

That is all of 5 out of 23 this year - and one of those was originially intended to be a long distance event in the Peak District until permission was refused. Only 12 events count towards your score so you need to enter a precise total of ZERO urban events to be competitive in the league.

True, but my point was that we seem to have a number of dedicated urban-only leagues. Where is the equivalent forest-only league?

If you enter the precise total of ZERO urban events required for a complete set of counting runs then for you the UKOL IS a forest only league. With so few urban events it cannot be an urban only league for those with a diminishing enthusiasm for thrashing through brambles.

[greywolf]

I think there should also be filters on the ranking list to produce 2 variants - terrain and urban/campus - as well as the 2all events" one we currently have.
Sprints could fall into either. Most would be urban/campus but JOK Chasing Sprint would be terrain.
It should not take too much effort to apply an "event type" filter to the existing results, though I accept it would rely on events being correctly categorised.

I strongly agree with this suggestion as well.

Comparing my (alleged) 6 best forest races with others' 6 best urban races is meaningless.

You're currently ranked 2nd in M55. Filtering out urban/sprint races and only counting the best 6 forest races would leave you ranked 2nd in M55... Of course it would be a much shorter and less accurate list as far fewer competitors would have 6 ranking scores.
To do it properly though you'd need to not include ranking points from sprint events in the calculations for forest events, and vice-versa, which means two separate (and even shorter) lists.
The big problem with the ranking list, IMHO, is that it is dominated by people scoring big points on (geographically) local areas that they've been running round every year for decades - maybe you should only score points on areas that you've never run on before?

[graeme]

Please can we have one?

No.

You can't have a "Proper" league without "proper events". In forests. With expected age-class winning times over an hour.

...and they don't exist any more.

[buzz]

You're currently ranked 2nd in M55. Filtering out urban/sprint races and only counting the best 6 forest races would leave you ranked 2nd in M55..

That may be true for Homer, but not further down the list where its clear who the urban and forests specialists are.

The big problem with the ranking list, IMHO, is that it is dominated by people scoring big points on (geographically) local areas that they've been running round every year for decades

True - in a quick scan of the top 10 in M55 (that's 60 races) I counted 3 British or JK forest races, about 5 Sprints and 3 other championship races. The rest (85% ish) were level B or C events. There are also quite a few Scottish 6 Days where late starts can be an advantage on particular days.

To be fair I suspect the ranking order in most cases would be fairly similar but at least it would give some credibility to have an option to rank on major events which are more likely to offer a fair comparison.

To do it properly though you'd need to not include ranking points from sprint events in the calculations for forest events, and vice-versa, which means two separate (and even shorter) lists.

It could be done 'properly' like the IOF, or 'simply' by adding filters.

Given its largely just for fun adding filters to see roughly where you rank in sprint, forest, major or all events would be a nice addition.

[greywolf]

greywolf wrote:
The big problem with the ranking list, IMHO, is that it is dominated by people scoring big points on (geographically) local areas that they've been running round every year for decades

True - in a quick scan of the top 10 in M55 (that's 60 races) I counted 3 British or JK forest races, about 5 Sprints and 3 other championship races. The rest (85% ish) were level B or C events. There are also quite a few Scottish 6 Days where late starts can be an advantage on particular days.

But the point was about local knowledge rather local events per se, and this affects major events too: the (excellent) 2018 British middle champs were at Stockhill, which had been used in 2011, 2012 (twice), 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (three times)...

[buzz]

greywolf wrote:
The big problem with the ranking list, IMHO, is that it is dominated by people scoring big points on (geographically) local areas that they've been running round every year for decades

True - in a quick scan of the top 10 in M55 (that's 60 races) I counted 3 British or JK forest races, about 5 Sprints and 3 other championship races. The rest (85% ish) were level B or C events. There are also quite a few Scottish 6 Days where late starts can be an advantage on particular days.

But the point was about local knowledge rather local events per se, and this affects major events too: the (excellent) 2018 British middle champs were at Stockhill, which had been used in 2011, 2012 (twice), 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 (three times)...

True, but if you use a major event filter anyone who was advantaged at Stockhill only has one distorted result not six, assuming major events are more evenly distributed around the country.

[King Penguin]

I have also thought it might be more realistic to rank people based on their 2nd to 7th best results i.e. ignoring the best. Quite a few people have one unusually good score; far fewer have two.
Several soprts (diving, figure skating come to mind) drop the highest and lowest scores given by the judges.