Results - Scottish 6 Day

[mike g]

Scoring systems are a peculiarly British obsession; I can't remember there having been one at any foreign multi-day event I've been to. Everyone else calculates overall results on the basis of cumulative times, which seems to me far better than a points system.

If we must have a points system, then it should be as simple as possible and not require a maths degree to understand how it works. This year's system was much better than previous ones for that reason, apart from the way it scored people who didn't run.

Yes it matters too that the system is one that seems reasonably fair to most competitors, which I believe this year's system was, but not whether mathematicians rate it as the fairest possible system or tell us that it produces anomalies.

[andy]

a) A runner’s counting runs should be the ones where he/she ran best. Another way of stating this is that a runner’s points for a day should depend entirely on the quality of their run that day.

I like graeme's comment about in accordance with prejudice, and it's sad that there isn't a 'perfect system'. It's probably true that as people come and go the overall prejudice changes so you will likely get changes in the system used, but given there isn't a perfect solution it probably isn't a bad thing as it will prevent stagnation and encourage new ideas. (hopefully?!)

Andy, could you let us know when the next Scottish 6-Days meeting is so that we can send any comments to you in time?

I don't think it's in the diary yet, but probably sometime in late september/early october. It'll be interesting to read your analysis of the system used this year.

It would be interesting to know how different the results would be under the old system.

I'm sure this will be on the cards, although given the software changes might be a little harder to work out, we'll see.

Is another requirement to be able to hold a prize giving within an hour of the last possible prize-winner finishing?

ha, not really a requirement but it did work out that way. I do remember sitting in the tent at Anagach in 2007 with the rain coming down checking for small differences in points where smalll changes in the standard deviation could change the rankings, thankfully we don't need to do that now!

Scoring systems are a peculiarly British obsession; I can't remember there having been one at any foreign multi-day event I've been to. Everyone else calculates overall results on the basis of cumulative times, which seems to me far better than a points system.

But in Britain we have disgruntled organisers (hi Graeme! ) who like to count in the overall standings. As someone said above with regard to elite, if you want to be competitive AND volunteer you find a role that suits this and run every day.
It would be interesting to get a foreign perspective from avid organiers who don't get to compete on certain days and therefore can't count overall, if anyone knows someone in this situation can you put them in touch please?

[graeme]

It would be interesting to get a foreign perspective from avid organiers who don't get to compete on certain days and therefore can't count overall, if anyone knows someone in this situation can you put them in touch please?

In the US ranking lists (when I lived out there), if you are a "major official" and can't run in some race, you got a score which was the average of the runs you actually did. i.e. count 4/5 instead of 5/6.

Incidently, at my first six-day (on one of the two full M21A courses ), I got my best score from my lowest finish, while my highest position got discarded! Now that WAS silly.

But let's not miss the most important thing, the quality of the individual races. The results might show Matt Speake last on elite, but nobody believes he was the worst runner there!

[Neil M40]

At least one foreign race uses a points system - Sorlandsgaloppen in Norway.

"POINTS 1000 points to all winners in A- and AL- classes. In AK-, C and N-classes the winners get 750 points. Every started 3 second interval behind the winner gives 1 point less. 4 out of 6 races counts in the overall result."

Looking at this years H40 results, 2 days had 17 minute winning time, 2 days 30-odd minutes and 2 days around an hour. Apart from the handful of people capable of winning the longer races, almost everybody's best scores were on the short days. I don't think that is a very good system. I have no idea whether anybody in Norway is having a debate about it.

[david_rosen]

At least one foreign race uses a points system - Sorlandsgaloppen in Norway.

"POINTS 1000 points to all winners in A- and AL- classes. In AK-, C and N-classes the winners get 750 points. Every started 3 second interval behind the winner gives 1 point less. 4 out of 6 races counts in the overall result."

Looking at this years H40 results, 2 days had 17 minute winning time, 2 days 30-odd minutes and 2 days around an hour. Apart from the handful of people capable of winning the longer races, almost everybody's best scores were on the short days. I don't think that is a very good system. I have no idea whether anybody in Norway is having a debate about it.

We went to Sorlandsgaloppen a few years ago and that was indeed the scoring system. It seemed to be a very low-key family-focussed event where the competitive aspects were very much secondary to other considerations. The courses were short and uninspired.

Consequently we haven't been back.

One of the strengths of the Scottish 6-Days was that it provided good competition for people at the top and in the middle of the field.

David

[mharky]

I'm surprised by the number of people who have said that they like the system (except getting points for non-complete runs). Generally it would just be the people who don't like the system saying that they don't like it and why it should be changed. It gives the impression that there is a problem.

Out of the 3000 people who ran, how many have specifically said they don't like the new system??? I guess we'll have to wait for the surveys to come back to answer that one.

At the end of the day, it's a private event run by the 6-days company. they set the rules and we run by them. If we don't like their scoring system we can go and make our own multi-day event with our own system.

[Patrick]

I don't like the new system, for most of the reasons already outlined by David. I'm interested that so many of its supporters come out with "the winner/top 3 would be the same anyway" as if that were proof of fairness, when 90%+ of competitors aren't in that bracket. If you're battling it out at the bottom of the results your position under the new system is largely going to be decided by how you did on the [rough/wet/grotty] days when more people retire (or any where a significant number mispunch).

As others have noted, that we have a scoring system at all - as opposed to using total time - is to allow officials to have a counting set of scores. Historically, most Scottish clubs didn't enter "their" day at all, or only let juniors run, so using total time was a non-starter. Nowadays, for most clubs at least, everyone bar the main officials gets a run. Maybe we should be looking at: (a) how many people are genuinely prevented from running through day organisational duties; and (b) how many of those people agree with Graeme that they wouldn't take on these roles if it were to deprive them of an overall result. For my part, experience of event organisation suggests that officiating on any day (except perhaps Day 1) would successfully destroy any competitive focus for the remainder of the event. Maybe that's just me.

Cheers,

Patrick

[PG]

Scoring systems are a peculiarly British obsession; I can't remember there having been one at any foreign multi-day event I've been to.

Portugal O-meeting uses a points system http://www.cpoc.pt/ev/pom2009/pom2009_res_global.htm, despite every day counting. 1000 points for the winner and other competitors get points in inverse proportion to their time. They have a mixture of middle and long distance events, so I guess the reason for using a points system is to emphasise the fact that a 1 minute win in a 30-minute middle race is worth more than a 1 minute win in a 70 minute long race.

[EddieH]

PG I agree with you that the Standard Deviation system so beloved by David can be biased towards easy events where runners pack in, although at the majority of events this doesn't seem to be the case.

However in Lochaber 2001 I missed the easiest day. Pete Nicholls was about 7 minutes behind a Swede yet still got more points than I ever got despite winning I think 3 days You can just imagine how many points the Swede got and made it absoloutely impossible for me to win overall. When I met him at prizegiving he thanked me for not running on day 2

It may have been a bit of a freak but I cannot see the new system ever throwing up anything as anomolous as that. It is simple to undestand and seems eminently fair to me - after all each day is a race in itself as far as I am concerned.

[david_rosen]

Just watching Jessica Ennis in the Heptathlon. Similar idea in that the scores from multiple races/throws/jumps are combined to give the final result. Obviously they have to use some sort of scoring system as you can't sensibly add together times and distances.

Those who think that just adding positions is acceptable might like to ponder why that system is not used in the Heptathlon and Decathlon.

David

[DaveR]

I can't get too worked up about the scoring system, but do believe it is vital at the 6-day to be able to drop one or two days.

As others have noted, that we have a scoring system at all - as opposed to using total time - is to allow officials to have a counting set of scores. Historically, most Scottish clubs didn't enter "their" day at all, or only let juniors run, so using total time was a non-starter. Nowadays, for most clubs at least, everyone bar the main officials gets a run. Maybe we should be looking at: (a) how many people are genuinely prevented from running through day organisational duties; and (b) how many of those people agree with Graeme that they wouldn't take on these roles if it were to deprive them of an overall result. For my part, experience of event organisation suggests that officiating on any day (except perhaps Day 1) would successfully destroy any competitive focus for the remainder of the event. Maybe that's just me.

The answers are a) there are typically 2 planners and 2 controllers per day, so an absolute minimum of 24 people in total. In practice we should probably add in another 12 people for the day organisers too. In addition a full day's helping renders most folk incapable of a sensible competitive run so many more than my initial 36 would be disenfranchised by an "every day must count" scoring system.

The answer to b) is clearly personal. I certainly would be much less likely to take on a main role if it rendered me ineligible for an overall result.

[mharky]

Is it so people can see how bad they are at each of the individual events?

Some sports have performance related points, some don't. If you win a football match 6-1 or if you win 1-0 with a lucky deflection, you still get 3 points.

In tennis, if you win a set 6-0 dominating every single point it still counts the same as winning 7-6 getting lucky off unforced errors on the tie-break.

Those sports have as much to do with orienteering as heptathlon does, and that would be nothing.

[Big Jon]

I remember a case in Deeside 2005, a guy won 4 days but didn't win his class overall. He was fuming and rightly so in my opinion. He had beaten the eventual winner on 2 4 days (I am assuming they both ran all 6), yet didn't win overall in a best 4 from 6 format. There are obviously mathematical reasons as to why he didn't win overall, but they are irrelevant to the fairness of the system.

[david_rosen]

Those sports have as much to do with orienteering as heptathlon does, and that would be nothing.

I remember a case in Deeside 2005, a guy won 4 days but didn't win his class overall. He was fuming and rightly so in my opinion.

I think the heptathlon is very relevant. If Jessica Ennis posts the fastest time/distance in 4 of her events yet fails to win the gold, perhaps because the gold medallist beat her by such a big margin in the other 3 events, should Jessica be "fuming"?

David

[david_rosen]

I've just rescored my class M55L using the previous scoring system.

Top 5 places are

1. Peter Haines 5393 (2nd on positions system with 8 pts)
2. Jean Dermine 5382 (1st on positions system with 8 pts)
3. Axel Blomquist 5365 (5th on positions system with 16 pts)
4. Henry Nyberg 5294 (4th on positions system with 14 pts)
5. Ted Van Geldermalsen 5271 (3rd on positions system with 14 pts)

The most obvious miscarriage of justice can be seen comparing Axel and Ted.

They both ran relatively badly on Days 1 and 6 and discard those days on both systems.
So it is easy to compare them and analyse what went wrong.

Axel's results on Days 2-5 were
Day 2 51:56 2nd
Day 3 49:28 2nd
Day 4 65:28 10th
Day 5 51:09 2nd

Ted's results on Days 2-5 were
Day 2 56:16 6th
Day 3 56:08 3rd
Day 4 62:32 4th
Day 5 50:14 1st

Their total times for those days are Axel 218:01, Ted 225:10

The main problem is that Axel only got a 1 point advantage over Ted for his 6:40 minute lead on Day 3, but Ted got a 6 point advantage over Axel with his 2:56 lead on Day 4.

In my view, such anomalies are more than mere mathematical niceties and sooner or later people will get fed up with them.

David