Results and Rankings.

[andypat]

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.

Not sure if that really counts as evidence - depending on what course you were on 1.5 minutes on the middle distance seems to count for around 20-30 points (more in the sprint of course). Of course if you made more mistakes in your top 6 runs......

[King Penguin]

hence my qualifier "near-perfect (for me)".
It's very rare for me to make less than 3 mins mistakes. However, when checking my 6 counters in more detail I see that only one is a conventional terrain event (CSC Final), at which I lost about 5 mins.
Maybe I should stick to sprint (3 counters) or urban (2 counters) ? - but still no counters since last Autumn.

[andypat]

Yeah - not disagreeing with your point - but its surprising sometime what difference a short amount of time can make. I got less points than I was expecting from my last run too (a sprint). I definitely score better in sprint and urban - so difficult to make a comparison between them and terrain O. If I was thinner and lighter on my feet I might be more consistent!

[AlanB]

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?

800 is the figure that my ranking scores have 'centred on' over the last twelve months or so, perhaps my experience could add to the debate. I had, however, a low starting point - my first Green course was Newtyle (SoSOL) in Feb 2010, and the first M50S course completed (at the third time of asking) was in June 2010 - so I would expect there to be some improvement.

If I look at the events where I didn't go into 'meltdown', there was a gradual improvement last year but almost all were in the 700-799 range (first couple just below - I was just happy to finish at that stage). My best ranked performance came towards the end of the year but I still didn't break the 800 barrier.

2011 started in a similar vein, although I was quite pleased to be maintaining my scores in January - my job means that I don't have a lot of time for training in Nov/Dec and I also 'over-indulged' over the period (perhaps many others did, that's why I maintained my relative performance ).

Since then I have regularly broken the 800 barrier (well broken - one was 992, although that was a sprint event which I suspect I am relatively better at). I feel as though I have improved since last year, and I have certainly been working on my fitness, but I am pleasantly surprised by how much I have improved my scores (by about a 100!).

Question: I assume most of the people here whose scores have declined by 100 is recently average above 1000; is some statistical phenomenon 'squeezing' the ranking scores, bringing the better than average down and raising the below average?

One thing to note is that most of last years scores came from short blue courses, whereas this year's have mainly been green (we had a lot fewer ranking events last year in Scotland.

2010
March 7 SoSOL Gullane Green 635
March 28 SOL Trossachs Sh Blue 0
May 16 SOL Balkello Sh Blue 0
May 29 Scot Champs Rannoch Sh Blue 693
June 6 SOL Scolty Sh Blue 704
Aug 22 Lakes 5 Haweswater Sh Blue 769
Aug 23 Lakes 5 Tarn Hows Sh Blue 0
Aug 26 Lakes 5 Caw Sh Blue 479
Aug 27 Lakes 5 Kendal Sh Blue 748
Sep 5 SOL Birsemore Sh Blue 721
Sep 10 PWT Scone Open Men 675
Sep 12 SOSOL Devilla Green 753
Sep 26 SOL Tentsmuir Sh Blue 781

2011
Jan 22 Urban Edinburgh Middle 789
Jan 23 SoSOL Holyrood Green 764
Feb 20 SoSOL Lanton Wood Green 531
Feb 27 SoSOL John Muir Green 886
Mar 5 Scot Champs Perth Sprint 992
Mar 6 SOL Dalrulzion Sh Blue 649
Mar 13 SoSOL Palacerigg Green 824
Apr 10 SoSOL Cademuir Green 864

bold - events where I didn't go into 'meltdown' (note that even my 'meltdown scores are getting better ).

[awk]

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

I do wonder about this: I have certainly found it a lot easier to score points on more technically 'interesting' areas, even when making mistakes, and a lot harder on easier, faster stuff. Now that might be because I am more reliant on technique than running speed, but it also makes me wonder if that is the reason for the differences that Dave Nevell found in his article in CSport: rhather than there being differences between the standard of orienteering south to north, there is actually a difference in how 'easy' it is to score more points south to north, with more technical terrain spreading people out more (but that would also, surely mean more people scoring lower points??).

[Oldman]

... but that would also, surely mean more people scoring lower points??

An astute observation which could be checked, but you need to look at the points actually scored at the event not those counting in the ranking because low points will often be discarded.

[roadrunner]

I think my experience supports the theory that it's the spread rather than the average score that's changing: I tend to get close to average (i.e. 1000 points) and haven't seen a trend either up or down.

[Scott]

To return to an earlier discussion, ranking points from BUCS have appeared.

[madmike]

That's great apart from the fact I didn't get any points and BUCS score would be in my top 6 - anyone know who from EUOC submitted the results so I can send a begging e-mail?

[Spookster]

That's great apart from the fact I didn't get any points and BUCS score would be in my top 6 - anyone know who from EUOC submitted the results so I can send a begging e-mail?

I reckon SIman probably has the relevant CSV file, but I reckon it may need someone at BOF office to re-do the data upload due to the long time since the event.

[SIman]

I will see what I can do.

[madmike]

Thanks SIman - grateful for any help

Edit: score is in now- v v impressed and extremely grateful

[Spookster]

Some clarification of the way the ranking system operates (especially regarding correction of missing BOF numbers, and times for cut-off of submission of results) has been published on the BO website.

[DM]

Useful clarification spotted by Spookster, thanks.

Won't be any comfort to runners at the recent Muncaster event where results have not been posted and 14 days have elapsed.

[King Penguin]

Further evidence of normalising towards 1000 ?

From the S6D, after a check on the top of my class and one other :

M50L
Tim Tett 5 x 1st 1 x 2nd 3 in his top 6
Martin Bagness 1 x 1st 2 x 2nd 1 x 3rd 2 in his top 6
Jonathan Emberton 2 x 3rd 1 x 5th 1 x 7th 0 in his top 6
Martin Dean 2 x 2nd 1 x 3rd 1 x 4th 2 in his top 6
Steve Keyes 1 x 7th 1 x 9th 1 x 10th 0 in his top 6
John Tullie 1 x 3rd 1 x 4th 1 x 5th 1 in his top 6
Don Petrie 1 x 4th 1 x 5th 1 x 8th 0 in his top 6
Mark Saunders 2 x 7th 1 x 10th 1 x 11th 0 in his top 6
Charles B-G 1 x 6th 1 x 11th 1 x 14th 1 in his top 6
Keith Masson 1 x 4th 0 in his top 6

I managed what I consider to be 2 "perfect" (or as near as will ever be) runs in the week, and only one of these just makes it into my top 6.


M60
Andy Hemsted 4 x 1st 1 x 2nd 1 x 5th 1 in his top 6
Steve Whitehead 1 x 2nd 2 x 3rd 1 x 4th 0 in his top 6
Peter Gorvett 1 x 1st 1 x 2nd 1 x 5th 2 in his top 6
Mike Smithard 1 x 3rd 1 x 4th 1 x 7th 0 in his top 6
John Britton 1 x 2nd 2 x 3rd 1 x 6th 0 in his top 6


Given the size and quality of the competition I would have expected a few more of these results to make it into the runners 6 counting scores for rankings.