New Event Structure

[HOCOLITE]

Well Mrs H and Lumpy I'd like to join the competition on a short green or light green.

Or perhaps Mrs H we could just have a ranking for the run in

[Mrs H]

For anyone feeling patronised by the lack of maths

Yes that's exactly how I was feeling I am so looking forward to this single ranking list - I think watching the list will be a better spectator sport than the sport it self

Hoco - when it comes to the run in - my money's on Young Neville

[EddieH]

Scott I am gobsmacked

Whilst I REALLY do appreciate the work that the likes of you put into your voluntary contributions, you are telling me that we can't sort the ranking list because it will take time, but we are happy to go ahead with a total botched interim changeover of the whole system which forces our major event of the decade to suddenly become "local", leaves no-one knowing what the non member surcharge will do (the hasty reterospectively thought out recommendation is unworkable) .........

Are you aware that when the ranking list was first created the initial tables were, and were always expected to be, wildly inaccurate. Quite why the proposed change should need all the time you take to mae it perfect I can't imagine. Perhaps we'd better scrap it altogether because someone might believe that the end result is the definitive merit list

[Brian Hughes]

Agree that a new unified rankings system has enormous potential and is the most exciting part of the new structure. Obviously a pity that this has not appeared before we got into this mess, with two people rarely agreeing about what will emerge from all the major changes.

Personally, I hope the new rankings system will allow individuals to filter the data to suit their own needs (e.g by age-class or club).

Even more exciting for me would be a separate handicap-adjusted list that would allow me to compare my form with (say) the good youngsters in my club. I realise a) that no handicapping system can be perfect and b) that this is hardy a priority given the more pressing problems that the sport faces, but it would be good to see in the long term.

Brian Hughes (M60 HOC)

[distracted]

We, the members, are supposed to be "British Orienteering." Is there any provision for us, as members, to voice our collective opinion at something like the AGM in the form of a submitted motion, say, from us rather than from the board?

If not, why not?

I understand that it would be impractical for every decision the board, or a group, makes to be voted upon - especially as there are meetings year-round. But surely a change like this, with such far-ranging consequences for the setup of orienteering within the UK, should have been handled more "democratically"?

I also think it once again highlights that, in certain situations, no-one is quite sure who is in charge - and when this is the case things descend into farce. Clearly in the future, a schedule and responsibilities should be agreed on beforehand in such a major project. It's not just this - the new web-based entries/results system has also horribly overrun and no-one is quite sure of its status... has the "new events structure" been a good excuse, and led to even further delays?

And unfortunately, the promise from the board of improved clarity and communications seems to have come to nothing.

[Scott]

you are telling me that we can't sort the ranking list because it will take time, but we are happy to go ahead with a total botched interim changeover of the whole system which forces our major event of the decade to suddenly become "local", leaves no-one knowing what the non member surcharge will do (the hasty reterospectively thought out recommendation is unworkable) .........

Well, yes. Just because an unholy mess has been made of most of the implementation of the new structure, doesn't mean that we can't try to prevent the rankings suffering the same fate - though it's a bit of a moot point whether a new ranking system introduced before it was ready would be better than the current fudge

Quite why the proposed change should need all the time you take to mae it perfect I can't imagine.

It's the implementation that is going to take the time, which I think is the inevitable consequence of the decision (presumably taken at Board level? I don't know the full story) to have the rankings system integrated with the new online fixtures/results database, which itself is already overdue. Grand software projects rarely arrive on time and in a functional state. Of course, waiting for the review group to report is only going to create a further hold up, and there really is no defensible reason why the review couldn't have taken place six months ago - if it was even necessary in the first place...

[Scott]

Is there any provision for us, as members, to voice our collective opinion at something like the AGM in the form of a submitted motion, say, from us rather than from the board?

19. (b) All resolutions to be submitted to a General Meeting of the Federation shall in order to be valid be received in writing by the Secretary at least 50 clear days before the date of the General Meeting and shall be signed by two voting members of the Federation as proposer and seconder of the resolution. A supporting statement from the proposer may accompany the proposal as may a statement from the current Officers of the Federation

Get scribbling

[roadrunner]

Do people care that much about ranking lists anyway?

I think the answer is than a lot of them do (otherwise we wouldn't have so much discussion about them). People often like some way to measure their performance - I know I did when I started in the sport. At that time there were colour-coded standards (just White, Yellow, Orange, Red, Green, Blue, Brown) and badge standards (Bronze, Silver, Gold only on the "A" course), and then the ranking list. So I could progress from Green to Blue on colour-coded, then through Bronze to Silver on M35/M40 B, then on to Gold on M45L. But I never could get Gold consistently (and never had a hope of a Brown colour-coded standard), so the ranking list (however imperfect) was a way of seeing how I was progressing. I'm sure there must be others in the "average performance" area who also found this a useful source of motivation. Now it seems we've lost badge standards, colour coded standards are a bit unclear with all the new courses, and to cap it all the ranking list is also in limbo.

[RJ]

Personally I find ranking points fairly meaningless. How do you compare, easily, 3884 in one race, against 3760 in another; or against a competitor with 3906 in the same race. Just numbers. They don't do it for me!

Whereas SplitsBrowser for a particular race is extremely informative. You can compare your 'progress line/graph' against 'your' competitor and see where you have had a better leg, run faster etc. Your mistakes stand out like sore thumbs. The slope of your graph will give an immediate indication of your fitness against your rival. You can compare any number of other people who took part in the race, excluding those you don't want to be compared with. Flexibility! And then there is RouteGadget......

For me, each race can stand on its own. There are so many factors, personal and external, that control my performance that I'm not really bothered about a 'rolling' ranking position. The quality of the event and the 'run' are far, far more important. I will certainly remember a flawless run (when I have one.... nearly is as close as it has come so far!).... and weather, scenery, conditions, runnability, a chase, feeling good, concentrating well, navigational challenge are the important factors.

[Clive Coles]

I am inclined to go with RJ ~ I certainly agree with his comment

Whereas SplitsBrowser for a particular race is extremely informative

.

Our sport thrives on the interpretation of contours ~ but we seem to look for more and ways to create an even playing field.

We will never agree on how a run time in an East Anglian Forest can be fairly compared with a run on the fells of Cumbria. Any set of ranking rules are likely to throw up dissentors ~ the debate will be on-going.

The only true comparitor is the relative positioning of participants on the course on the day.

Perhaps we should limit ranking assessments to fewer events each year. i.e those which attract high turnouts ( level 1's and possibly some pre-nominated regionals ).

I know this would disadvantage folk who prefer to accumulate ranking points from a variety of events in their region. But can orienteers who don't race against the best in their class really claim to have earned their ranking position ?

[awk]

I know this would disadvantage folk who prefer to accumulate ranking points from a variety of events in their region. But can orienteers who don't race against the best in their class really claim to have earned their ranking position ?

More to the point, it would disadvantage those who don't want to go chasing all over the country for the limited number of races available.
As you your question, my reaction would be that of course they can. There's very little racing goes on in orienteering, and it's quite common for me to run an event where the best in class isn't even on the course at the same time as me. Whether I run well or not bears no relation to whether the best in class is there or not.

I'm not a great fan of ranking, but if it's going to be run, it needs to be accessible to a much wider range than just the few who get to enough big, long-distance, events. This more local focus will become increasingly important if orienteering is to develop, indeed survive.

[Tatty]

After 21 pages hasn't enough been said! do people really care that much? Personally I go orienteering because I enjoy it, not to get ranking points

[DaveK]

Yes and no!

[Mrs H]

No Tatty - you're not allowed to do that - I agree that the existing ranking system is as dull as ditch water - the same old names - nothing much happening, but the new one will be all singing and dancing.

I envisage that at a certain time each week we will all switch on to see the up dated list - a bit like the National Lottery Draw - to see who are the winners and who are the losers. I think it should be colour coded - green if you've gone up, red if you've gone down and blue for neutral - everyone agree with those colours? Can you put that in your algorithms Graeme?

I might even open a small on-line betting agency for you to bet on your position post race and pre list up-date.

I agree it won't have much to do with orienteering but think of it as a separate sport - a bit like a National Fantasy Orienteering League.

Oh! And if you think 21 pages is a lot - just wait 'til it gets started - the best bit will be the on-line taunting of your opponents

[geomorph]

And to keep me happy, the definitive version lists athletes in alphabetical order.
Graeme (who doesn't like ranking lists, but does like statistics)

Perfect - I'm near the top then