pete.owens wrote:What you are demanding mathematically impossible. Any empirical scientific calculation can only work with the data input and there is always a risk of extrapolating any conclusions beyond the range of observed data; conclusions will be increasingly less reliable the further away you are from the main body of data.
What I'm calling for is a ranking scheme that fits the sport, not a sport required to fit the ranking scheme. That should not be mathematically impossible. If it is, then we shouldn't have one. However.....
But I totally agree with you on reducing the number of courses!One thing that could improve matters is to reduce the number of courses. As you pointed out, blue and short blue were very similar with a total entry of 93. With any statistical method you get more reliable results from a bigger data set.
Some interesting ideas.Snail wrote:Either....Or......
Which all may suggest there are ways to make the rankings scheme and the sport at least fit together better!