Isn't the ranking system accurate?

[King Penguin]

Surely if the top 18 in the heats go into the A-final, then the leading B-final competitor is equivalent to being 19th?

For British Championship position - yes.
For ranking points - no.
The qualifier and final are separate events as far as ranking points calculation is concerned. The winner of the B final might be the best orienteer in that class who had the misfortune to MP or DSQ in the qualifier.

Would you also suggest the winner of JK day 2 should get less ranking points if they MP'd on day 1 ? Surely not, even though their overall JK position will be affected.

[mikey]

Where would we be without the ranking system to talk about.

Never have so many words..etc. etc.

[DeerTick]

Where would we be without the ranking system to talk about.

Never have so many words..etc. etc.

Yup, Mikey. I'm often of a mind to post just to get things going again.

AP

[awk]

This should mean the leading B-final person should have less ranking points than the losing A-final competitor?

No it doesn't, as has been explained above. The B race is a completely separate set of results to the A race. It is perfectly possible for somebody in the B race to run a better race than somebody in the A final, even if, according to the rules, they can't gain a higher position because of their previous performance. Happens all the time. For example in last year's sprints I made a one minute mistake on the first control, and finished last in the M50 A-final. Surprise, surprise, I didn't score very highly in terms of ranking points. There was no reason why, though, that this should have forced all the B-finalist ranking scores down below mine (it certainly wouldn't have done if we had been running the same course).

[graeme]

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

Whereas a competition where the fifth fastest M35+ running the M35 final course gets to be M35 Champion is a serious matter?
It's all just a bit of fun.

[roadrunner]

Surely if the top 18 in the heats go into the A-final, then the leading B-final competitor is equivalent to being 19th?

No - it depends how many heats there were. If there were three heats, for example, then someone who comes 4th in their heat will be in the B final. If that heat happened to contain the three best competitors, then they could have been the 4th best. Of course, good seeding should avoid this situation.

[madmike]

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

Whereas a competition where the fifth fastest M35+ running the M35 final course gets to be M35 Champion is a serious matter?
It's all just a bit of fun.

In the spirit of Nopesport pedantry, I feel obliged to pointout he was 3rd fastest M35 not 5th albeit he was also beaten by the fastest M40.

[Marco Polo]

+

In the spirit of Nopesport pedantry, I feel obliged to pointout he was 3rd fastest M35 not 5th albeit he was also beaten by the fastest M40.

[madmike]

touche - 4th then

Eye test time again


Edit:

double eye test time - he was in fact 5th over 35 - sorry Graeme


I am hanging my head in shame

[awk]

touche - 4th then

Eye test time again


Edit:

double eye test time - he was in fact 5th over 35 - sorry Graeme
I am hanging my head in shame

But over-35 doesn't mean M35. I've been told off here on many occasions for arguing that if (for instance) the top M/W50 beats the top M/W45 on the same course, then the M/W50 should be the champion/prize winner.

[madmike]

Awk - very true and, ime there have also have been issues with very good M/W18Es and good but not quite so good M/W20Es when they have run the same course.

I was advised to state beforehand 18s and 20s were running against age groups not each other so that everyone was clear (if they had read the final details) on the prize-awarding policy. Not sure it maters but important it is clearly understood and consistently applied.

Nonetheless, I accused Graeme of being wrong and he wasn't , I missed the + sign (damn the detail) and subsequently an M40 (eyesight).

[graeme]

awk: I don't think anyone would argue that taking the prize from the fifth fastest person and giving it to the third fastest person would be right. But when the guy who designed the system* is so dismissive about the odd discrepancy in ranking points nothing would surprise me.

* though to be fair, I don't think Charlie thinks much of the system either.

[awk]

graeme/madmike: I see (I think?!).

BTW, madmike, I've now been told that the top W18E was awarded the first prize for W20E at the British Middles, which makes sense to me.

[NeilC]

The middle champs are set up such that the elites all run the same race. If too many enter some can be selected off.

For all other classes competitors don't know for sure in advance against which other age classes they might be racing. An M55 might find themselves in with a chance of beating an M50 or instead watching out for a fast M60. Should the M50/M55 championships be partly determined on entry numbers, or on the whim of the planner? There might also be seeded blocks such that one age class gets caught in fog/snow strom etc.

Rules Group decided that for non-elite classes you are only placed in the class you enter. Of course Rules group is no more so people have another committee to moan to now.

[graeme]

important it is clearly understood and consistently applied.

So, according to results from the middles:
Vet Women on course 6...
1 Jenny Peel (40) SYO 33:48
2 Julia Jarvis (40) SO 36:13
3 Helen Marsden (35) HH 38:04
Junior Women on course 2...
1 Lucy Butt (18) SARUM 33:44
2 Charlotte Watson (20) WCOC 33:46
3 Tamsin Moran (18) SOC 35:01
Lucy wins W20 and Helen wins W35. And by far the fastest W35 was Claire who wins W21 because she came second. How hard is that to understand

So the champion is not decided by who ran fastest on the course, but rather by who ticked the right box in OEntries, unless they happen to be 18?

I'm beginning to think I should take the ranking list more seriously...