ranking list

[madmike]

what's wrong with us woodcutters anyway

nothing; however, those classicists - come the revolution...............

[madmike]

Seriously though, how do you use rankings?

RAFO uses rankings for:

Selecting just under half of the runners to run for the Service to race BAOC and RN/RMOC in the Inter-Service Match each Autumn (remainder qualifying at RAF champs with a couple of wild cards for the Committee).

Awarding ranking awards (you have to get 4 scores equivalent to 4/5ths the average speed of top 3 on the longest course; alternatively you can get a cumulative award roughly equivalent to getting 10 scores at 1/2 the average speed or even 20 scores at 1/4 the avrage speed.

A Club Trophy for who gets the most poins in the year from unlimited runsi.e. someone getting 32 scores circa 500 points will finish in front of the 21E who got 14 scores of 1100 - 2004 was the last time the club champion won this trophy! Theory being anyone in the club can win this one if they go to enough Level 1/2 events.


All 3 of the above schemes are incentives aimed at getting more people to more places!

Do other Clubs use rankings in similar ways? Or is it just an individual thing?

What do S runners think about being ranked with L runners?

[Zokko!]

What do S runners think about being ranked with L runners?

Is there such a thing as S and L runners? Many people, like me, run a mixture of courses depending on current fitness level, or need for splits starts at some events, or whatever. Over the years I have tended towards being a S runner. At the new colour coded Regionals I prefer to run Blue which is between my recommended L (Short Brown) and S (Short Blue) courses (I am M50). In last year's ranking scheme this gave me M40S ranking points. The unified list is far superior, since all my points are now counted towards my overall position.

[madmike]

Is there such a thing as S and L runners?

In my experience there are people who would rather die than run a short course (Sunlit Forres may take a view here ) and others who prefer short - exam question is do the guys and girls who used to be top of the S ranking object to being bottom third/bottom half of the conjoined rankings in their age groups and will it spoil their enjoyment?

Zokko,there are also plenty of people like you but the answer to your question is yes. For example I completed a variety of courses last Year. At various stages: 21E, 21L/Black, 40L, 40S, Green, Light Green and even an orange but I'm still really an S in my mind.

EddieH please note I typed completed not run having been corrected on another thread

[Mrs H]

Having been top of a S ranking list before now (more by virtue of what other people hd been doing than anything else) I went to the new one to see how I was faring. Interestingly (and obviously if you think about it) having gone up an age group this year I've already moved from the filtered W50 list to the W55 list (43 out of 187) which is a good thing - it doesn't take you months and months to get there.

Like Zokko I have run a mix some long, some short and green by preference - which was between the two but has just become my designated long course. i always felt a bit of an intruder running L - as if i was getting a bit beyond myself in the eyes of the hard faced big nosed long course runners - but i am entirely comfortable running green by rights - I feel liberated. It'll be interesting to see whether I can improve my standing ranked along the W55s rather than the W50s this year - it's a real incentive rather than a question of luck as it used to be.

[awk]

What do S runners think about being ranked with L runners?

As someone who runs a mix of S and L courses at age class events, and tends to run slightly shorter than the recommended M50 distance at the moment, I love the idea of a unified ranking list. At one stage a year or so ago, I was ranked in 4 different places, none of which remotely reflected my orienteering.

With regard to Hocolite's comments about the ranking list: I have been completely uninterested in the rankings to date; they have been far too limited in scope to be of any real relevance. I find this new list far more interesting and relevant, and yes, I can already see it providing real motivation in the future. I am sure there are some settling in issues, but that's inevitable.

[Sunlit Forres]

[/quote]

In my experience there are people who would rather die than run a short course (Sunlit Forres may take a view here )

Staying off the subject, I wouldn't put it quite that strongly Mike but I do remember coming very near the top of the list on an S course once and spending days racked by guilt and self-loathing. I'm actually not against short courses at all; it's the sense of a 'hollow victory' that I couldn't quite get to grips with. In my capacity as our club's press publicist, I always found it a battle to eulogise about somebody coming 3rd out of 8 on M45S when I knew there had been far better performances in the (larger) L classes. The subjects of such reports have even come back to me expressing their mild embarrassment!

The new system has solved all that. By competing in colour coded classes, you get realistic competition against everybody who runs at your level. "Competing against your cohorts" as Grey Wolf once succinctly put it. Much more meaningful to me as a competitor.

I'm with you in being liberated Mrs H, and agree with you Awk about the incentives the new ranking list gives..

[ba-ba]

I know a certain S course runner who has no qualms in eulogising over his (many) victories...

[andypat]

I'm off to search the recent results to see which poor Moravian M45 came third on M45s - I think he should be suitably lauded on here!

[EddieH]

[quote]I'm off to search the recent results to see which poor Moravian M45 came third on M45s - I think he should be suitably lauded on here![/quote]

I wouldn't bother - I think this was a generic example.

[Sunlit Forres]

As you ask andypat, the example I was thinking of was one of our newer members (Ian Howells) who came 3rd on M45S at the 2009 Scottish Champs (out of 14 starters actually, not eight). Much to Ian's great embarrassment, I managed to get his name up in lights with some suitable weasel words in the Northern Scot, mainly because this was such early days for Ian. The same minutes per K would have put Ian 13th on the long course (which went into more difficult terrain) - look out for him on the long course this year!!. You underestimate me Eddie - would I lie to you?

[ricardito]

In my capacity as our club's press publicist, I always found it a battle to eulogise about somebody coming 3rd out of 8 on M45S when I knew there had been far better performances in the (larger) L classes. The subjects of such reports have even come back to me expressing their mild embarrassment!

Damn, to think that the "stunning victory" I had reported in our local press might have been anything other! Actually, come to think of it, "stunning" might be exactly the right word...

I'm with you in being liberated Mrs H, and agree with you Awk about the incentives the new ranking list gives..

Ditto.

[mharky]

i think a lot of people are gonna have fun claiming bragging rights with the new ranking list, we all know that there is no equation that can give us the perfect ranking list, but having a big single one gives us a lot of scope for comparison and friendly competition.

personally, my goal for 2010 is to try and overtake my mum...

[Scott]

nothing; however, those classicists - come the revolution...............

Come the revolution, you will still need someone to provide you with a suitably pithy revolutionary motto in Latin.

[graeme]

what's wrong with us woodcutters anyway

Apologies.
Mr Woodcutter explained to me today the problems caused by using winner's times to determine the tail. Clearly he's just the man to determine where the axe should fall!

Alan Cherry seems to have produced the best run of the year. Strangely, Matt Speake has second best score, despite finishing 5% down on the winner (all that really matters is that they're Interlopers ).