Isn't the ranking system accurate?

[Parkino]

... you get more points for your good run than your bad run, just like the guy who won the B final. Why is that a problem?

It's a problem when the results for the heats are not published.

[Marco Polo]

(In fact, this year, it's not immaterial because the results from the qualifying heats have yet to be published by BOF and thus a good run in the heats earns no ranking points whatsoever!)

If I understand Spookster's comment on the other thread correctly, the points from the heats should have been made available to the ranking list yesterday, even if they were not published?


viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12832&p=141748#p141748

[Parkino]

Made available but not published? How so?

Competition Rules C: British Sprint Distance
3.5.2 For ranking purposes the heats and finals should be considered as separate events.

[Scott]

You can create an event which is hidden from the fixtures and results lists (by ticking the "no publicity" box on the registration form), but which still scores points in the ranking list. I think this is what has happened with the qualifiers - if you look through the ranking list, there are a reasonable number of people with scores from "British Sprint Champs - prologue - 24/03/2012".

[Homer]

I still struggle to take the rankings as anything other than a bit of fun.

I scored more points running the Blue course at a EM league (level C) race the other week than Oli scored in winning the Elite course at the British Middle Distance Champs on Sunday.

I'd like to think my run at the Middle Champs deserved more points than I got at the EM league too. Until this sort of thing stops happening, I remain in favour of a weighting for Level A events.

[Parkino]

I still struggle to take the rankings as anything other than a bit of fun.

I scored more points running the Blue course at a EM league (level C) race the other week than Oli scored in winning the Elite course at the British Middle Distance Champs on Sunday.

I'd like to think my run at the Middle Champs deserved more points than I got at the EM league too. Until this sort of thing stops happening, I remain in favour of a weighting for Level A events.

Totally agree. And I thought there was a weighting for Level A events!

[King Penguin]

For instance, I'm fairly certain the downward movement, whereby it was easier to score points a year ago than today, is I'm pretty certain still ongoing (although that's admittedly anecdotal).

Interrogating Ollie's Athlete Stats for a number of people might help to make this less than anecdotal.
For instance, I was flat-lining up to early Set 2011 between 7251 and 7284. My plot then falls off a cliff to 7144 by the end of October after which it has flat-lined again. I am certain I have not suffered a significant reduction in speed or performance.
Spookster shows a similar drop between April and June 2011.
Greame shows a drop between October and January.
However, AWK shows a significant improvement to June 2011 and then an extremely flat line since.

[graeme]

Greame shows a drop between October and January

When I was mainly running (quite well in) M21, as opposed to age classes before and after. Fits with greywolf's assertion that brown/black runners are underranked because the system wasn't properly set up. This explains Homer's big scores when running down on blue courses.

What do you call discrimination against brown/black runners ?

[andy]

http://oobrien.com/stats/index.php?name ... &club=ESOC
I got fat and lazy last year, then trained a bit more at the start of this year, I think it's pretty accurate for me.
Also remember that a dip could be attributed to losing good scores from the previous year

[EddieH]

I run black where available knowing full well that (even if there are enough runners to obtain scores) I have absolutely no chance of scoring any worthwhile points. My scoring points come from when I am competing on courses that the stars don't run.

I have no doubt it is because the original seed data was so diabolical it is still affecting the system. Not enough people run across the classes to correct this quickly.

However my points do seem remarkably consistent with my performance when I compare them with other runs against a similar profile of competitor.

I guess it wil continue to improve slowly, but you make your choice - you either run what you want to or you go chasing points (in which case I recommend Short green).

[plain lazy]

I've tried to make sense of it and failed so far... but ultimately, I'm training harder, and my performances are improving even if my ranking points are not.

So for now I'll ignore the ranking points, keep my head down and enjoy competing.

[Parkino]

I've tried to make sense of it and failed so far... but ultimately, I'm training harder, and my performances are improving even if my ranking points are not.

So for now I'll ignore the ranking points, keep my head down and enjoy competing.

Aye, that goes for me an' all.

[Sloop]

couple of comments:

IMHO it is completely wrong to give points for heats. The best runners should not be producing true performances so the weaker runners will tend to benefit.

Anecdotal, true, but Mrs Sloop is completely convinced that when my course is shared with the young lads (eg. M16 and M60 as in the Middle Champs) my points are noticeably lower than when we run by ourselves.

[EddieH]

"Mrs Sloop is completely convinced that when my course is shared with the young lads (eg. M16 and M60 as in the Middle Champs) my points are noticeably lower than when we run by ourselves"

That seems common sense to me. They are getting better fast and therefore should always be rising with historically poorer scores. Also we are probably slowing down.

At the Scotiish sprints we shared with the M14s that aren't ranked so no such effect happened leaving me with not 1 but 2 big scores

[greywolf]

Mrs Sloop is completely convinced that when my course is shared with the young lads (eg. M16 and M60 as in the Middle Champs) my points are noticeably lower than when we run by ourselves.

Quite likely, as previously noted, old men (or at least those at the top end of age categories) have been overranked and are being brought down to a more reasonable level - whereas the youngsters are on their way up. This was particularly clear on Course 7 at BMC, where M65s shared the course with (and got their butts kicked by) much lower ranked W16s

I scored more points running the Blue course at a EM league (level C) race the other week than Oli scored in winning the Elite course at the British Middle Distance Champs on Sunday.

That looks like a freakish points score for you...although not for anyone else on the course. It might be because the system doesn't cope very well with someone winning big when the bulk of finishers are clustered around the mean (in which case it's a real weakness in the system). On the other hand, Paul Taylor and Craig Thomson appear to have got "lost" somewhere in the results processing/upload, which might indicate more errors - if runners have been misidentified (e.g. wrong BOF number) this can give anomalous points scores.

I still struggle to take the rankings as anything other than a bit of fun.

As it should be!