Results and Rankings.

[Big Jon]

"SOL2: Brown v Short Brown."

Apparently Blue offered even easier to get points than Short Brown......

[The Loofa]

So I see I'm not the only one who suspects there's is some systematic deflation in ranking scores. I was sufficiently concerned that I looked for a way of measuring it. Adding up the points of the top 50 M55s seemed simplest although not entirely scientific (everyone gets older). The results are
10/02/2011 353093
17/02/2011 352883
24/02/2011 352733
03/03/2011 352691
10/03/2011 352585
17/03/2011 352550
24/03/2011 352203
31/03/2011 351642
07/04/2011 350727
A decrease every week is eye-catching. The big decrease in the last week is due to the JK dropping out. Whether it counts as statistically significant I haven't a clue, but will keep it up until at least this year's BOC goes in, which should give us a better idea.
Deciding there is systematic deflation is one thing. Working out how it's caused and what to do about it are something else

[graeme]

So I see I'm not the only one who suspects there's is some systematic deflation in ranking scores.

The scores are continually renormalised: so there can only be systematic deflation if the system isn't coded properly.
On the other hand, points may be getting redistributed elsewhere.

[begin speculation]
Since there are more ranking events this year, then more people will get ranked. And the new people are likely to be less dedicated (read, lower ranked). Now you might think that this would give better people a boost (200/2000 is better than 200/1800).
But because the distribution is so skewed, people coming in with scores way below average (6000) mean that the spread* of scores come almost entirely from the tail, and people above average will get squeezed back towards 6000.
[end speculation]

So, I speculate that there is no systematic inflation but new people are being added towards the bottom and everyone else is getting squeezed closer to scoring 1000 per event. Anyone with a mean score around 800 want to comment?


* i.e. square root of the sum of the squares of the variation from 6000 per person, or maybe 1000 per event, it's unclear what's intended or coded.

[ifor]

I thought there was some general agreament that the older ages / shorter courses were generaly getting over ranked originaly. I think all we are seeing is the system getting more into sync hence the M55s not looking to be scoring as well as they were originaly... I would suspect that the M21's are seeing the opposit effect anyone want to check the numbers.

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

It's lucky that I view the ranking list as a laugh ..... because I got more points winning a short green at a local colour coded than for winning my class on Sunday at a British Championship! In fact even the winner of W55 who was some 5 minutes faster than me got fewer points than my short green win.

But then I am not motivated by mathematical formulae but by trying to do well at major events!

[SJC]

because I got more points winning a short green at a local colour coded than for winning my class on Sunday at a British Championship!

Given your experience and knowledge of a local area, it is quite likely that your performance there in comparison to the other competitors would have been better than your performance at the British Championships.
The ranking system only takes into account your performance, not the importance of the event (and many would see this as a weakness of the system, but that is a different debate).

[graeme]

One might even think that winning a course open to allcomers would require a better run than coming 5 mins down on a course restricted to old ladies.

[Scott]

Or one might even think that the points scored on a short green course at a local colour-coded event where the scoring was messed up by somebody entering an incorrect BOF number are not a good basis for comparison.

Although it is a shame that there is no validation of names against BOF numbers built in to the system (or one of the various other validation methods discussed on here a while ago - I rather liked the one about flagging up people who appeared to have performed much better or worse than would be expected from their previous scores).

[mappingmum]

Nottinghamshire Outlaw - I applaud your attitude!

[King Penguin]

Further evidence - a near-perfect run (for me) at the Middle Champs on Sunday - no more than 1.5 mins lost in total - and still 15 points short of making it into my top 6. Most recent counting score for me is last October, and I have not got worse over the winter.

[ricardito]

So, I speculate that there is no systematic inflation but new people are being added towards the bottom and everyone else is getting squeezed closer to scoring 1000 per event. Anyone with a mean score around 800 want to comment?

OK, I'll bite... ... my perception is that for a "similar" run (in terms of relative position and "feel" for performance) is attracting significantly lower points now than maybe this time last year - maybe about 850 where I might have expected more like 900. I don't have the figures handy right now and I certainly don't have a statistically significant sample (only three ranking events so far this year); that's just how it seems...

[King Penguin]

I would concur with "about 50 less than an equivalent run a year ago".

[Urban]

I agree a definite suppression by 40-50 points, and performing better now than last year. Av 1152 last year struggling to break 1110 now. Demoralising.
But yes accept its all relative.

[awk]

Further evidence - a near-perfect run (for me) at the Middle Champs on Sunday - no more than 1.5 mins lost in total - and still 15 points short of making it into my top 6. Most recent counting score for me is last October, and I have not got worse over the winter.

I scored 1103 in last year's BMC, and scored exactly the same on Sunday. I know which was the better run against the competition (which is what the rankings are about), and it all confirms my agreement that there is definitely some sort of points deflation going on.

[LostAgain]

Likewise, I was pleased with a reasonably clean run. Just checked the ranking points and they do not challenge my top 6. A little surprising as there are definately poorer performances with higher points.

Maybe the technical challenge was not suffient to spread the field out. The easier the technical and physical challenge the more concentrated the times.