EUOC Big Weekend Ranking points....

[greywolf]

the important question is do you think that the person who does 90 mins in race 1 should get the same points as the person who does 70 in race 2? (or will you give more points for a slow time in a technical race, or more points for a faster time in an easier race?)

if you start with the basic assumption that the points available are dependent on the strength of the field and you want to make some races worth more than other then (crudely) you can either weight the mean (give everyone more points) which makes a poor performance in a big race worth more than a good performance in a little race, or weight the spread to reward winners / punish losers (which rewards running down)...

and then if you were still sure that it was worth it, you'd have to decide which events to weight... some folks would argue that "important races" should be weighted - but Level A includes 3 sprints (British is 2 races) & the Midlands Champs so it's hardly a guarantee of "tough / more technical terrain" and in some years you could get your six counting Level A events without a genuine TD5 course at all...

of course if tough and technical terrain did earn more points that would be great news for those of us in N Scotland so maybe it's a brilliant idea after all

[AAH]

Here's the jpeg I mentioned from my post on the previous page showing in red the time taken by runners having a particular existing average score (which curves, as explained in my post) and in blue the points which each runner gets allocated, showing the reduction in points achieved by the fastest and slowest runners caused by the slower runners times tailing off disproportionately. I'm also attaching the excel spreadsheet for this in case anyone wants to experiment with this.

Jpeg

upload.JPG (26.26 KiB) Viewed 5234 times

[graeme]

Now suppose the distribution is not linear at some events. Some additional factor (e.g. slow runners getting tired and slowing down by a larger percentage than fast runners.

In fact, if slower runners slow down by the SAME percentage as faster ones, it's still non-linear. e.g. a 10% slow down affects the 60 minute runner by 6mins, the 80 by 8mins.

Also, making exactly the same mistake affects the slower runner more.
Say you pick a route which is 200m longer than the best (or bail out to relocate).
at 5mins/km, it's a 1 min error minute, at 10mins/km its two minutes, and you lose twice as many ranking points as the fast guy did (a double-whammy, since you had fewer in the first place!).

If you believe time loss comes from percentage slowdown or running extra distance, you should base your statistics on a log-normal distribution.

[King Penguin]

... but doesn't extreme fight (for example, assuming you take the same route through it) have a greater effect on fast people than on slower people, as the difference between running speed of fast and slow people is greater than the difference in walking speeds of the same people ?

[graeme]

I take it you've never seen Big Jon in extreme fight...

[mikey]

Thank the lord that we have a rankings thread up and running. We haven't had one of these for years.

[madmike]

I take it you've never seen Big Jon in extreme fight...

orienteering or politics?

[Big Jon]

I take it you've never seen Big Jon in extreme fight...

orienteering or politics?

In the old days - either!! but now the orienteering fight is generally winning - I must be getting soft, that or dodgy knees!

[andypat]

Thank the lord that we have a rankings thread up and running. We haven't had one of these for years.

Nicely put!

[IanD]

I also want to add my support to NeilC's argument about night events. There seem to be quite enough other anomalous things floating about and they all seem to get evened out in the long run. So I cannot see any justification in excluding them.

No, night events need to be excluded. Because night events are more difficult, including them would skew the rankings in favour of the better orienteers.

Well, that's my opinion anyway.

[SJC]

No, night events need to be excluded. Because night events are more difficult, including them would skew the rankings in favour of the better orienteers.

That depends on your definition of the better orienteer.

Why should somebody who is exceptional at running round a forest at night be classified as better or worse as an orienteer than somoene who who is exceptionally good at navigating round an urban area in the daylight ?

[Paul Frost]

No, night events need to be excluded. Because night events are more difficult, including them would skew the rankings in favour of the better orienteers.
Well, that's my opinion anyway.

And we wouldn't want the better orienteers at the top of the rankings list would we!

[andypat]

Now now Paul! I thought you didnt care about such trivial things

[Scott]

Personally, I tend to find that the ranking list is very accurate when I look at the people who are ranked below me, but not at all accurate when I look at the people who are ranked above me.