Well there are two other factors to take into account.
First: Endurance. If you have run a 6km course as cleanly and as fast as you would have expected to run a 9km course then you are probably not pushing hard enough. I would guess that both you and King Penguin could have carried on for another 3km at more or less the same pace - but much of the rest of the field would have started to fade.
Second: Relative Strength. Older competitors tend to slow down more dramatically with age in rough terrain compared to good surfaces. They will thus tend to do relatively well at urban events so it is harder to beat them by a large enough margin to score good points.
Finally a bit of maths.
Assuming we are talking about this course:
https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/index.php?pg=results&eday=81302&results=81302&course=4&
If it takes 35:31 to run 6.1km and score 1123 points then if you could maintain that speed then it would take 51:49 to cover 8.9km:
https://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/index.php?pg=results&eday=81302&results=81302&course=3&
which would score 1123 points!
Ranking Scheme bias?
Moderators: [nope] cartel, team nopesport
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Last edited by pete.owens on Tue Jan 10, 2023 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
awk wrote:It happens at both: at age-class events, the scores tend to be lower relatively for older classes
It can't happen on average: across the whole event, the points available are the average of everyone's current scores.
So why would it happen to you? One thing the ranking list assumes is that the spread of times *behind* the average is the same as *ahead* of average. This isn't true: the fast people are a bit faster than average, but the slow people are a lot slower. As a consequence its harder for the winner to get a high score than for a mid-packer.
Not to mention the chance of getting a tow when there are faster folk about...
And now I notice srocmapper said all this alread. Not sure what their scheme is, but we did work all this out when we introduced the all-age rankings (lognormal worked quite well IIRC). It got nixed because "the maths was too complicated". And to be fair, the problem of crazy scores from including outliers was more serious.
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?
pete.owens wrote:First: Endurance....
Second: Relative Strength.....
I never thought about it in those terms - that we might be the 'youngsters'! I'm usually one of the older ones!
Finally a bit of maths.....
Yes, I spotted that - it is a rare occurrence though (in my experience) - which is one reason why I didn't initially refer to it. I was still intrigued why we scored so low though - and I think you've offered me some explanation.
graeme wrote:So why would it happen to you? One thing the ranking list assumes is that the spread of times *behind* the average is the same as *ahead* of average. This isn't true: the fast people are a bit faster than average, but the slow people are a lot slower. As a consequence its harder for the winner to get a high score than for a mid-packer.
Aah! I see what srocmapper was getting at. So, when I'm running Brown (and finishing about half way down at present), then I'm likely to score better relatively than when I'm one of the leading pack, running Blue etc? Which would suggest that we all need the faster people there, at least relative to ourselves, which is why I was surmising?
If I've understood that right (a big if!), then that could well be the explanation I was looking for. Thank you all!.
I wish! I can't keep up even for a short distance usually!Not to mention the chance of getting a tow when there are faster folk about...
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
On Sunday at Hebers Ghyll both myself and awk ran up on Brown. Both scored 20-25pts more than we would have on Blue/Green at same min/k.
Also,I picked up the wrong map at JK. As an M65 unknowingly ran M45 course and got my second best ranking of the year. Was shattered at the end!
Also,I picked up the wrong map at JK. As an M65 unknowingly ran M45 course and got my second best ranking of the year. Was shattered at the end!
- MAPS
- off string
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 8:55 pm
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Which is exactly what you should expect.
If you had run green you should have been capable of running harder than you maintained over a brown course of twice the distance. So, the same m/km ought to score more ranking points over a longer course.
If you had run green you should have been capable of running harder than you maintained over a brown course of twice the distance. So, the same m/km ought to score more ranking points over a longer course.
- pete.owens
- diehard
- Posts: 752
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:25 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Just being pedantic (sorry, I am, I know!): the Brown wasn't anything like twice as far as the Green, and definitely not the Blue (Brown 5.5k, Blue 4.5k, Green 3.7k). Certainly not enough to make a speed difference. However, when you take the adjusted distances, I would have pretty much scored exactly the same on the Blue at my Brown speed, and 30 pts less on the Green....which is what would be pretty much as expected as you say Pete.
Personally, I'm more intrigued by the fact that what I perceive as 2 very similar runs (solid, but neither exceptional) as Dronfield and Heber's Ghyll could result, for me, in 2 such contrasting scores - virtually my lowest in 18 months (1123), then one high enough to count in my scoring 6 (1193). That's again more down to my not getting my head fully round the maths involved than any query on the efficacy of the system, although I appreciate that it's how I performed against the average (and where, I suspect, the comments above about the average being skewed starts to kick in).
Personally, I'm more intrigued by the fact that what I perceive as 2 very similar runs (solid, but neither exceptional) as Dronfield and Heber's Ghyll could result, for me, in 2 such contrasting scores - virtually my lowest in 18 months (1123), then one high enough to count in my scoring 6 (1193). That's again more down to my not getting my head fully round the maths involved than any query on the efficacy of the system, although I appreciate that it's how I performed against the average (and where, I suspect, the comments above about the average being skewed starts to kick in).
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
If you want to get a good score, have a clean run (most people don't) in a Night Championships - historically for me by far my best scores relative to my concurrent ones
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Gnitworp wrote:If you want to get a good score, have a clean run (most people don't) in a Night Championships - historically for me by far my best scores relative to my concurrent ones
....or better still, spike the bingo control that no one else can find
- Gnitworp
- addict
- Posts: 1093
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:20 am
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Shall we split the ranking list into 2 - urban and forest? They are very different with the skills required very different as well.
Nearly all my sprint points are above 1000 but I can seldom get 1000 from any forest events.
Nearly all my sprint points are above 1000 but I can seldom get 1000 from any forest events.
- miklcct
- off string
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:29 pm
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
miklcct wrote:Shall we split the ranking list into 2 - urban and forest? They are very different with the skills required very different as well.
Nearly all my sprint points are above 1000 but I can seldom get 1000 from any forest events.
Gets my vote.
-
Homer - diehard
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:10 pm
- Location: Springfield
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
Homer wrote:miklcct wrote:Shall we split the ranking list into 2 - urban and forest?
Gets my vote.
It should be easy to do, provided all submitted events are labelled as urban or forest. Actually, when we set up the ranking list this was a recommendation, but it was turned down (because, effort). So if you want this, I highlight the key words above: "we" has to mean britishorienteering, not "the ranking list people", and probably the only way to do it is an AGM vote.
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?
graeme wrote:Homer wrote:miklcct wrote:Shall we split the ranking list into 2 - urban and forest?
Gets my vote.
It should be easy to do, provided all submitted events are labelled as urban or forest. Actually, when we set up the ranking list this was a recommendation, but it was turned down (because, effort). So if you want this, I highlight the key words above: "we" has to mean britishorienteering, not "the ranking list people", and probably the only way to do it is an AGM vote.
Thank you when's the next AGM? Maybe we can submit a motion for that.
- miklcct
- off string
- Posts: 23
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2021 6:29 pm
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
I'm neither for nor against splitting urban/terrain, and enjoy both equally. My only hesitation is on that 'requires different skills' bit. We all have different strengths for different disciplines. I actually find it harder to score points at urban - tend to be consistent in the upper half of my scores, but rarely get in my top 6, except for sprint. In fact my top 6 scores tend to be dominated by sprint races, and middle distance against younger competition. Jim scores better at night events, and it's noticeable that locally, those that run in night events do tend to include a lot in their top 6.
So, why draw a line between urban and terrain? I find bigger just as big lines between night and day, and short and long (and races run against younger competition and not!).
So, why draw a line between urban and terrain? I find bigger just as big lines between night and day, and short and long (and races run against younger competition and not!).
-
awk - god
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:29 pm
- Location: Bradford
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
I would vote against splitting. If 6 event scores are still required in each category (forest and urban), then fewer people will have them so fewer people will be ranked properly, and if the required number of events is reduced to 3 or 4, the ranking scores will be more random. I also agree with awk about everybody having different strengths and weaknesses. There are also occasional events that have both urban and forest parts and would be hard to classify (the one at Wrockwardine Wood in Telford at the end of this month is likely to be an example).
- MChub
- off string
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2018 7:43 pm
Re: Ranking Scheme bias?
You have to be able to run faster for longer to score well in Urbans.
Which is as much a skill and ability as ploughing through whatever grot the planner has decided to find in a bit of woodland.
Which is as much a skill and ability as ploughing through whatever grot the planner has decided to find in a bit of woodland.
- rf_fozzy
- light green
- Posts: 238
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:13 am
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 196 guests