Rankings Consultation

[gg]

1 - Here is the Swedish ranking system http://www.obasen.nu/ranking

2 - Why is the ranking page on the BOF website under Event Information tab? Doesn't seem obvious to me

3- Most importantly, Mharky,

"It all looks very good, except for one thing; having everyone on the same ranking list. The comparison between different M21L races is dodgy enough, I have the 2nd highest individual score, 1330, GG has the highest at 1331. What for? a SOL and the SN Trophy"

Well then - shouldn't have let me beat you by so much on Long Valley

[gg]

Why are the UK Cup races at BOC in the New Forest in February not in the rankings?

[EddieH]

Having made the odd comment here I thought I would actually look at the ranking list for the first time.

I was very amused by the vital comment "People with less than one event to their name in any one class are omitted from the list."

I am unable to see which events are used for the scoring as the numbers in brackets don't seem to match any numbers on the events list

However whilst I should not be at the top of the M55 list I am certainly better than it looks here. As I have run no M55 ranking events other than Championships this rather tends to confirm my point that it is impossible to score so highly in these events as it is if you put the effort in at a lesser event. I'd be interested to see at which events others had scored their points if I could fathom the event numbers.

Similarly in M35 having only done 5 events, if I add a 6th at my worst score I'd be just about as high up the ranking list, although that maybe partly reflects the paucity of M35s. My M45 position is far above my real ability in the class compared with M55 - a class in which I only ran at non championship events - I think that my figures certainly back my theory that events should be weighted, (and if you want to start including a third tier of ranking events) - at 3 different levels.

[Scott]

But at the other end of the scale, I've scored proportionally far too many points for a rather embarrassing effort at puntering my way around M21E at the JK long day, which I can only assume is due to the average points score of runners on that course being significantly higher than it has been on M21L courses where I've actually had a half-decent run but have scored fewer points. My JK effort certainly doesn't deserve to earn me even more points by virtue of being weighted...

[Homer]

From Nov 2007 Rules Group minutes:

Recommendation 6:
The quality of competition at the new Level 1 Area Championships should be improved by
encouraging greater participation through use of these events for UK Cup and FCC and a
higher weighting in the ranking system (see also Recommendation 5).
UK Cup and FCC elements to be addressed by Elite Competitions and Fixtures Groups.
Rules Group believe that the increased weighting for ranking points at the major events
should be reintroduced as follows:
· British Championships (Sprint, Middle, Long) and JK (three days) - event weighting: 1.10
· Area Championships - event weighting: 1.05
· National (roughly equivalent to current Regional) - event weighting: 1.00

Obviously this is just a recommendation, but I would hope that RWG take this into account in their deliberations.

[Scott]

I am unable to see which events are used for the scoring as the numbers in brackets don't seem to match any numbers on the events list

It's not entirely obvious, but the numbers in brackets match the numbers on the events list with the first digit lopped off.

[seabird]

There has been some questioning here of RWG's suggestion that some Local events should be included in the rankings list.

Perhaps an illustration from the (English) North this Sunday shows that some Local events justify inclusion - based on the numbers of runners per course. Yhere was no signidicant difference between the events.

No question marks about quality of opposition either. Steve Birkinshaw wong the Black course at Muncaster, and Matt crane won the Black course at Flasby.

Muncaster Regional Flasby Fell Local
Black 4 13
Brown 10 19
Short Brown 19 not available
Blue 45 59
Short Blue 33 not available
Green 40 58
Short Green 18 not available
Light Green 29 37
Long Orange not available 11
Orange 19 20
Yellow 16 16
White 5 7
Total 238 240

My only reservation is that in future years i am quite sure that an event like Flasby would be called Regional - as it was at one time in the lead up to the event, but that in itself caused some controversy locally so it was redesignated back to being Local.

[Homer]

It just seems obvious to me that Flasby should have been a L2 (regional) event.
Why wasn't it? Was it the lack of G2 controllers?

Once all such quality events are L2, then it seems logical that all L2 should be used for rankings (with weighting of 1.0) and L3 shouldn't ever be used. That seems to me one of the fundamental differences between L2 and L3.

[Scott]

One of the main remaining differences between L2 and the top of L3 is one of fixturing. Clubs were supposed to have bid at the Fixtures Group meeting back in March this year for any L2 events that they want to host up to the end of 2010, and bids for dates in 2011 were also taken. In contrast, it's perfectly possible to but on an L3 event that is suitable for rankings purposes in the space of a couple of months, coordinating at (sub-)association level to avoid clashes.

It's not the structure that the ESRG intended, but in practice L2 appears to be becoming reserved for those events that need fixtures coordination at a national level, and in that case there's a very strong argument for giving ranking status to at least some L3 events.

[The Loofa]

But at the other end of the scale, I've scored proportionally far too many points for a rather embarrassing effort at puntering my way around M21E at the JK long day, which I can only assume is due to the average points score of runners on that course being significantly higher than it has been on M21L courses where I've actually had a half-decent run but have scored fewer points. My JK effort certainly doesn't deserve to earn me even more points by virtue of being weighted...

Scott (assuming you're the Scott I think you are)
You scored 900 points there - slightly better than your ongoing average, and that's your 4th= best score at present. All sounds pretty unremarkable to me - so why your embarrassment? Perhaps you don't appreciate that most of the other punters struggle on a proper elite course too.

[Scott]

I think it's because I felt that that run was significantly below what I would (like to) consider my personal average - several major errors, and I mostly walked the last third of the course. It's obviously difficult (impossible?) to judge these things objectively, but I would definitely have put that down as a much worse run than (for example) the JK Sprint, which earned me fewer points. But JK Sprint had a much higher proportion of punters on the course: mean/SD points of runners - JK Sprint 1015.2/167.9, JK Classic 1113.3/97.1.

I'm sure someone is now going to tell me that I'm statistically wrong, but it has always felt as if it's far too easy to pick up points by being one of a small number of punters on a course which is otherwise full of very good people - which generally means elite courses at national events.

Edit: Maybe choosing a sprint course was a bad example. Another would be Greythwaite, where I had a run of comparable rubbishness to the JK Classic but which only got me 785 points, because although the mean points score was about the same (1117.0), the standard deviation was much larger (140.2) - ie. there was a more even spread of very good, average and punterish runners than at the JK.

[seabird]

It just seems obvious to me that Flasby should have been a L2 (regional) event.
Why wasn't it? Was it the lack of G2 controllers?

It was the Level 1 controller who insisted we return the event to level 3 - primarily as the planner was inexperienced.

[seabird]

It just seems obvious to me that Flasby should have been a L2 (regional) event.
Why wasn't it? Was it the lack of G2 controllers?

It was the Level 1 controller who insisted we return the event to level 3 - primarily as the planner was inexperienced. Everyone seemed happy with the courses.

[awk]

It's not the structure that the ESRG intended, but in practice L2 appears to be becoming reserved for those events that need fixtures coordination at a national level, and in that case there's a very strong argument for giving ranking status to at least some L3 events.

Co-ordinating events isn't quite so clear cut. As far as I can recall, we envisaged something along the lines of:
L1 - co-ordination primarily at national level.
L2 - co-ordination at regional level, with regional secs liaising with neighbouring associations.
L3 - co-ordination at club level, with club secs liaising with neighbouring clubs.

Thus it would perfectly possible to hold two (or more) L2s in an association, if agreed. Equally, a weekend reserved for just one L2 if deemed necessary. Depends on what those co-ordinating think.

To my mind, if the system is run properly, there should be absolutely no requirement or expectation that any L3s should be ranking events. There is currently far too high an expectation that L2s equate closely to the old regional events - some will, some won't. Indeed, we envisaged that some L2s might NOT be ranking if organisers wanted to opt out, not that some L3s might be included!!

Once that is recognised, and we get past the inhibitions of thinking in terms of the old system, then situations where, for instance, Flasby is ranked as L3, will no longer happen (in all but name it was L2, and that is what the club originally intended). Brit-O is gradually moving that way; I am ever hopeful they'll eventually get round to the system we envisaged, even if it takes several years to see it.

[Scott]

I think the RWG's interpretation of what should be a ranking event is much the same as the ESRG's. The problem is that the RWG have had to work with the event structure as it is currently being implemented - which is with bids for L2 events having to be approved by national Fixtures Group meetings .