I had similar experience to above - a relatively decent (by my standards) run with just 7 mins of errors per RG (again pretty good by my standards!) but got nowhere close to getting a Top 6 score, and a quick scan through results also showed the top guys on my course didnt get a Top 6 either
I wonder if this is a result of scores being based off all competitors' scores over last 12 months and not just their last 6. So in a relatively straightforward area such as Cold Ash, everyone has a pretty average run, and everyone gets points close to their average for the year, which, by definition, is significantly less than their Top 6 range?
Is it the case that points are more easily achieved by a clean run on a super technical area where some will make big errors, or on a badly planned course with bingo controls that half will mess up (and not score) and half will hit spot on and gather the points?
BTW, above is not meant to be in anyway a criticism of the scheme I think it is absolutely brilliant and way above what similar sports provide
Ranking Scheme bias?
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
ianandmonika wrote:Just don’t understand the Ranking System. Just finished the Cold Ash British Long Distance M75L within 1 minute of the winner, but ranking points only my 6th best. Would still have been the same if I had won the course. Got higher points for doing a local event without the same competition.
Even at the same level...I finished 5th in M60 at the British Sprints in June scoring 1216. John Tullie scored 1219 in winning my new class, M65, on Saturday. However chuffed I was at the former, I know which was the (much) better performance, and it wasn't mine. I'm steadily relearning the fact that it's what happens in the forest that matters, not what some (IMO broken) mathematical model says, which is why I replied to Atomic last week the way I did. My score on Saturday suggest that it was my 16th best performance this year. As it was my first ever top 10 result at the British Longs, I rate it rather more highly than that!
So, congratulations on your performance on Saturday - I suspect you won't regard it as your 6th best performance this year - I certainly wouldn't!- and that, in the greater scheme of things, is what matters more.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
awk, I also ran M65 and had a cleanish run, and wasn't far behind you- yet coming from the South, it was an exceptional run ranking wise for me! Even if I'd been 15 minutes slower, it would still have been on a par with recent events in the south. Call it a southern chip, but I suspect this is partly due to a geographical bias in the rankings. I might think otherwise after the JK...
- maprun
- diehard
- Posts: 685
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 10:37 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
ianandmonika wrote:Just don’t understand the Ranking System. Just finished the Cold Ash British Long Distance M75L within 1 minute of the winner, but ranking points only my 6th best. Would still have been the same if I had won the course. Got higher points for doing a local event without the same competition.
Ian, not sure if this helps or adds to the confusion - but the ranking points are allocated against everyone on the same course not just the same class. So in your case everyone on UKOL18 course so W65 + M75. So whilst you were within 1 min of a very tight men's field you were nearly 11 mins behind the course leader. There's potentially some anomalies caused by a very long tail of "slow" runners on that course too - that must broaden the standard deviation and therefore dilutes the benefit of running faster than the mean course time.
However, your ranking points actually all look fairly consistent.
- Atomic
- orange
- Posts: 140
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 11:56 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
maprun wrote:awk, I also ran M65 and had a cleanish run, and wasn't far behind you- yet coming from the South, it was an exceptional run ranking wise for me! Even if I'd been 15 minutes slower, it would still have been on a par with recent events in the south. Call it a southern chip, but I suspect this is partly due to a geographical bias in the rankings. I might think otherwise after the JK...
I'm guessing that's because southern terrain tends to be faster and technically 'easier', so times aren't as spread? I find it a lot easier to score points on complex terrain like the Lakes or in high intensity races like sprints, than I do at urbans or in easier forests, northern or southern.
Having said that, Cold Ash seemed to induce a fair number of mistakes from even some normally good people.
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
FWIW my run on M21E scored me 1302 points which is my 7th best. This would equate to 2nd in my actual age class and seems in about the right ball park. All my top 6 scores are in more technical terrain (5 in the Lakes) so I'm expecting bigger scores at the JK. We will see...
-
Homer - diehard
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:10 pm
- Location: Springfield
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
...and, sure enough, scores of 1339 and 1323 at the JK (2nd and 6th best in the last 12 months). Both significantly more than I could possibly have got running my actual age class.
Very few of my rivals in M55 made a top 6 counting score at the JK. This seems to be the case across the board (outside of M21). Even Megan's amazing run at Bigland hasn't made her top 6.
So, if you want to maximise your ranking, run against the M21's. Preferably in the Lakes.
Very few of my rivals in M55 made a top 6 counting score at the JK. This seems to be the case across the board (outside of M21). Even Megan's amazing run at Bigland hasn't made her top 6.
So, if you want to maximise your ranking, run against the M21's. Preferably in the Lakes.
-
Homer - diehard
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:10 pm
- Location: Springfield
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Its not running against the 21s that helps. e.g. Sasha won the M21E middle, but its still not among his top 50% of scores.
Its running well in terrain that suits you, against your peers, rather than winning than helps.
Whats impressive is how your peers are the M21s!
Its running well in terrain that suits you, against your peers, rather than winning than helps.
Whats impressive is how your peers are the M21s!
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Homer wrote:So, if you want to maximise your ranking, run against the M21's. Preferably in the Lakes.
It is running a race that suits your skills compared to the skills of other competitors on that course. The system cannot be biased towards a particular course or age class since the total number of points available are those brought to the course by those competitors. If you score above your average score on a particular course then others running the same course must have below average scores.
My skill set (walking accurately) is suited to complex Lakeland or Scottish terrain. So I tend to score most points at middle distance races in the Lakes or Scotland. It also helps if the other competitors on the course are unfamiliar with that sort of terrain and are likely to perform relatively poorly. This means that big events are more likely to result in high scores. So in the past few years my best scores have come from the JK middle race at High Dam and the Lakes 5 middle race at Dale Park.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
I also got much higher points from the JK 'forest' races compared to what I expected (but I'm not complaining except about my terrible mistakes on Day 2).
The one thing I can't figure out though, how does the ranking system determine the absolute points available? I can see how it figures out the relative points (eg if I beat person X who is ranked higher than me, I should get more points), but how does it know where to start?
So let's say you have 10 competitors on a course and they take 31,32,33...40 minutes. What if those same competitors all took 10 minutes longer so 41,42...50 minutes because they all made big mistakes. In theory they should all get lower points but I assume the system can't tell the difference, so the competitors in question are lucky to all get higher scores than they deserve?
The one thing I can't figure out though, how does the ranking system determine the absolute points available? I can see how it figures out the relative points (eg if I beat person X who is ranked higher than me, I should get more points), but how does it know where to start?
So let's say you have 10 competitors on a course and they take 31,32,33...40 minutes. What if those same competitors all took 10 minutes longer so 41,42...50 minutes because they all made big mistakes. In theory they should all get lower points but I assume the system can't tell the difference, so the competitors in question are lucky to all get higher scores than they deserve?
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
pete.owens wrote:The system cannot be biased towards a particular course or age class since the total number of points available are those brought to the course by those competitors.
But it is expected to work better if you are not an "outlier" with a result much better or much worse than those of most other competitors on the same course. Which explains why Homer's scores make more sense when he runs a course where his result is average.
- MChub
- off string
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:43 pm
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Arnold wrote:What if those same competitors all took 10 minutes longer so 41,42...50 minutes because they all made big mistakes.
If all competitors made mistakes, perhaps it's because the course is difficult, then why shouldn't they all get higher scores, compared to the same time on an easier course of the same length?
- MChub
- off string
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:43 pm
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
I suppose so. I guess my question partly came from getting quite a lot of points from an average run on M40, and it feels like partly the cause is that nobody did very well on the day vs what they could have maybe done (and what Megan did).
But it was a brutally hard course too...
But it was a brutally hard course too...
- Arnold
- diehard
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Interesting to see that a time at the sharp end of M21E2 scored more BOF ranking points than the same time on M21E1. Courses look fairly similar.
curro ergo sum
-
King Penguin - addict
- Posts: 1453
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:56 pm
- Location: Kendal
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Arnold wrote:The one thing I can't figure out though, how does the ranking system determine the absolute points available?
The total points available are equal to the total of the average scores of all the competitors**. Those points are then distributed among competitors*** according to their times.
** In fact, it means competitors who already have ranking points, and who run a time that's not way out of line with those points. This deals with missed starts, injured folk going for a walk etc.
*** first timers get points according to their time - these are extra, they don't come from the total of the averages.
WOC2024 Edinburgh
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
Test races at SprintScotland (Alloa/Falkirk) and Euromeeting (near Stirling).
-
graeme - god
- Posts: 4726
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 6:04 pm
- Location: struggling with an pɹɐɔ ʇıɯǝ
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 177 guests