Results and Rankings.

[rocky]

Also interesting to note that Dave Rollins has leapt into the top 20 with not a single forest-based event in his scoring events.

Dave Rollins scored the highest points of anyone at the UK Cup final - 1385. Another 5 scores like that and he'd be ranked 2nd or 3rd! Looks like quite a big anomaly to me, as I scored 24 points less for winning the Open class. If the point in the single ranking list is to compare across classes then this looks to be failing slightly... Dave is a top runner but I don't think he would've won the UK Cup race that day - extrapolating his min/km would place him just outside the top 10!

Hopefully Dave can get another five scores like that and prompt a re-jigging of the system!

[RCB]

Dave Rollins scored the highest points of anyone at the UK Cup final - 1385. Another 5 scores like that and he'd be ranked 2nd or 3rd! Looks like quite a big anomaly to me, as I scored 24 points less for winning the Open class.

Dave regularily beats his wife Sarah convincingly at sprint distance and she is ranked highly (as a result of some excellent results). On his course he was much faster than the likes of Martin Ward which would help to explain the high points allocation. I'm not sure of the technical reasons behind this however, you would need to compare routes/courses on the map to see if the mins per km is comparible as Dave may have run further, therefore faster. It was a shame that the event did not attract more elite/top M21 runners for the Open course.

[Timsands]

Why should there be such a large variation in the number of ranking points scored by the top competitors on course C at the recent Lincoln city race compared with the course 5 at City of London?

[The Loofa]

Tim
The discrepancy arises from Lincoln
I had been intending posting the following.

At Lincoln the M40+ course was longer than the M55+ course (as one would expect)
The M40+ winner took a few seconds less than the M55+ winner (nothing unusual there)
The M55+ winner scored more points than the M40+ winner (!!!! excuse me!!!)
Furthermore it enabled him to leap from 6th to 1st among M55s in the week Lincoln was added to the rankings. However the next week his equally extraordinary score from London last year dropped out and he fell back to 5th.

I think its because at Lincoln M55+ were grouped with W40+, but separate at London. And W40+ have been flattered by their historic scores, and hence make scoring for M55s easier
(err.. have I worded that unambiguously?)

[Big Jon]

"At Lincoln the M40+ course was longer than the M55+ course (as one would expect)
The M40+ winner took a few seconds less than the M55+ winner (nothing unusual there)
The M55+ winner scored more points than the M40+ winner"

Go on then, defenders of the ranking list, produce a sensible argument as to why this is still happening in the revised system.

[The Loofa]

I don't think there is a defence

[DJM]

I don't think there is a defence

I refer you to my earlier posting viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10473&start=195#p118486 of June 21st.

A new content management system is on its way for the BOF website and coding for the rankings system will be updated to include important anomaly corrections at the same time. This is scheduled for later this Autumn and, when completed, the subsequent recalculation of rankings points should answer recent criticisms ...

[The Loofa]

DJM. That earlier posting of yours referred to anomolies arising from courses with few runners. Ok, there may have been a bit of a hint of other anomalies - but with 57 on one of the courses at Lincoln and 61 on the other, I can't really see the system getting out of this one.

[DJM]

A couple of things here: firstly, some anomalies are not to do with small courses. Secondly, and I suspect more importantly, if a group of those runners with anomalously high points from previous small courses then compete on a bigger course, they will "give" anomalously higher points to those at the top end of the bigger course.

[superstartradesman]

A new content management system is on its way for the BOF website and coding for the rankings system will be updated to include important anomaly corrections at the same time. This is scheduled for later this Autumn and, when completed, the subsequent recalculation of rankings points should answer recent criticisms ...

I'm looking forward to seeing these anomalies ironed out!

Here's another one. I've just looked at the results and ranking points for the excellent SOL6 at Tentsmuir yesterday (thankyou by the way ESOC for publishing them so quickly!). Winning Green (35:37 for 4.5k, 58 runners) earned Andy Dalgleish 1279 points. Winning Blue (44:01 for 6.7k, 66 runners) earned Ben Hartman 1245 points.

Putting it another way - had I run at the same mins per k on Green as I did on Blue, I reckon I'd have earned an extra c.100 ranking points (and, Andy - this is not in any way a dig at people who run shorter courses when recovering form/fitness )

It just doesn't seem right, but then maybe I fundamentally misunderstand the operation of the ranking system? If so, I'll look forward to learning why the above allocation is appropriate and fair...thanks in advance.

Btw - the great success of St Andrews urban race makes it even harder to understand why it was not also a Regional event. Can anyone shed any light? Can its status be upgraded retrospectively?

[andypat]

It just doesn't seem right, but then maybe I fundamentally misunderstand the operation of the ranking system? If so, I'll look forward to learning why the above allocation is appropriate and fair...thanks in advance.

Btw - the great success of St Andrews urban race makes it even harder to understand why it was not also a Regional event. Can anyone shed any light? Can its status be upgraded retrospectively?

As somebody mentioned in a separate post - its not about speed its about who you beat and by how much. You'd assume that Andy beat higher quality orienteers for his points (if you didnt know that not to be the case - sorry Greens)

As for St Andrews - I do think its one of the failings of the current 3 tier system that its not always obvious prior to the event what level its registered at. It always used to be for the old badge event/colour coded system. I have to say I'd assumed that it would be level 2 as well - but cant recall seeing this on the publicity. Then again if I'd known it was level 3 I might not have travelled (OK I probably would have but I'd to travel up and down for both days due to a late change of plan) but would then have missed what has arguably been the best urban event of the season.

[peawet08]

I'm sure this question will already have been asked, debated and decided upon many times but in this my first year in the O scene I am just getting a place on the ranking system (not particularly high but a starting point).

Why is there not two versions of the ranking system/ scoring mechanism which reflects actual to age adjusted?

At the recent Lakes 5, other older member of my club ran in the M60/W60 classes and took as long as me to do 1/2 the distance I covered. Now I have no problems with the courses and lengths for different age groups however when the scoring was done, they earned more points in the BOF rankings that I earned for mine.

Comparably they would have taken twice as long to complete my course and so a scoring system should reflect this.

I understand that the current models design but you currently have a 61 year old in 172nd place in the rankings when I'm sure there are a large number of 20 something year olds that are faster.

Shouldn't there be two ranking systems, Actual and Age adjusted?

[andy]

(and, Andy - this is not in any way a dig at people who run shorter courses when recovering form/fitness )

I'd have kicked Ben's ass! *cough*

Btw - the great success of St Andrews urban race makes it even harder to understand why it was not also a Regional event. Can anyone shed any light? Can its status be upgraded retrospectively?

I seriously doubt it, though I'd love to see urban races become a bit more respected when it comes to the ranking system.

[andypat]

I understand that the current models design but you currently have a 61 year old in 172nd place in the rankings when I'm sure there are a large number of 20 something year olds that are faster.

Faster? The chap in question gained 1221 points at the British Elite Sprint Champs coming 2nd in the C final running against all age groups. That would surely suggest he deserves some credit for his current ranking?

(edited to add - taking the noteworthy scalp of a certain Mr Ackland in the proces!)

There are anomalies as previously discussed but I think age is a more of a side effect - the main issue is the historical "weighting" towards different courses which hasnt equalised as expected.

[AlanB]

I can understand the frustration at some of the anomalies of the ranking system, both real and perceived, but I find them an invaluable guide to my progress - and there has some steady improvement this year, albeit fairly slow.

There again, I usually stick to the same level (M50S - Short Blue) at SOLs, the Lakes 5 and other regional events like the SOA championships, although I do occasionally do a Green at SoSOLs, CompassSport Trophy, etc. You would perhaps expect my scores to be consistent.

Having a score that is calculated on the basis of comparing me to the standard and performance of my fellow competitors, allows me to judge my place in the scheme of things a lot more accurately than using my position within the race.

So, best of luck in refining the system but I think you are on the right lines.

One question: when any amendments are made to the calculation method, is the new way of calculating applied to historic results?