Rankings (again)

[The Loofa]

I see the Caddihoe Day 2 chasing start has had ranking points awarded. I was alerted to this by some random big scores making the M55 list. which only proves the point that chasing starts shouldn't be ranked. Anyone know who we moan to about this? I've lost the plot with committees these days

[King Penguin]

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... ndix_k.pdf

says

1.2.2 Night events, Relay, Score, Chasing Start and other mass start events may give anomalous results and are excluded from the Rankings scheme

[smf]

Anyone know who we moan to about this?

Send an email to the event organiser/BOF and they will be able to mark the event as a chasing start event in the events fixture list database. It seems this was not done when the event was registered.

[DJM]

Curiously, the results submitted to BOF seem to have been for Day 2 only (the chase start day). And these are the results which shouldn't be ranked.

What's missing are the results for Day 1 (the prologue day), which should be ranked!

[Fourth]

1.2.2 Night events, Relay, Score, Chasing Start and other mass start events may give anomalous results and are excluded from the Rankings scheme

I never understood why night events are excluded. Surely they are the purest form of orienteering? Can someone explain this?

[King Penguin]

Not me - I agree with Fourth.

[mharky]

Agreed. It's a normal race with poor visibility. They might as well remove any races run in the fog or in green forests.

[Big Jon]

They're scared it will let high quality technical orienteers lead the ranking list rather than urban event speed merchants - it doesn't go with the urban image of O that BOF is cultivating.

[EddieH]

It is not hard for anyone that is so motivated and can run fast to find 6 events on simple terrain, or on terrain they are totally familiar with. If i understand the system right although they will have a high ranking their avarage score of all (or most) of their runs is what is used as the base for calculating points and therefore when they have a bad run it does not help others score higher.

[greywolf]

They're scared it will let high quality technical orienteers lead the ranking list rather than urban event speed merchants

The rankings are currently headed by those well-known urban speed merchants Scott Fraser, Murray Strain, Oli Johnson and Mark Nixon...which high quality technical orienteers would you prefer to see leading the list?

(as has been suggested numerous times before) now that the rankings excludes events with less than 10 competitors the original grounds for excluding night events is much diminshed and they should be bought into the system, however the reality is that the effect on the list would be limited as there would be relatively few scoring events - also not helped by night-o enthusiasts repeatedly scheduling the two biggest events of the year on the same night

[mharky]

Scott's top score is the Edinburgh City Race (1394!!!), Murray's is the JK Sprint, Oli's is the JK Sprint, mine is the JK Middle... I've been done!

Look at the JK scores, same good guys everyday. Murray gets 1362 for winning sprint (it has a lot more punters on it), Scott gets 1340 for winning the middle, and Doug gets 1324 for winning the long. That's a big difference.

What is good to see is that now everyone seems to be having major events as their scoring runs, most people have all 3 JK days, and either a British Champs or Scottish Champs (WOC test) on their list, with maybe 1 or 2 smaller events. None of this 1500 points for winning the Harvester middle, or 21s at London.

[andypat]

Scott's top score is the Edinburgh City Race (1394!!!), Murray's is the JK Sprint, Oli's is the JK Sprint, mine is the JK Middle... I've been done!

Look at the JK scores, same good guys everyday. Murray gets 1362 for winning sprint (it has a lot more punters on it), Scott gets 1340 for winning the middle, and Doug gets 1324 for winning the long. That's a big difference.

I suspect Mharky's being a bit tongue in cheek here as the BOF ranking list probably matters least to elites who'll have an IOF ranking and I'd imagine have their own goals that wouldnt generally involve the UK ranking list.

There does seem to be a difference in the spread of ranking points for Sprint/Urban, I wouldnt say no to a separate ranking list for this, possibly initially even as a subset of the main ranking list to see how it goes.

[mharky]

Or just a filter, the Swedish rankings do this. So you can see discipline rankings as well as overall rankings. I think for the discipline one they only use 3 scores.

[Angry Haggis]

None of this 1500 points for winning the Harvester middle, or 21s at London.

The highest number of points awarded for a London City Race is 1367 for Graham Gristwood last year on Men's Long. Apart from your 1360 for Men's Short at the race the previous year, and the high-speed Martin Ward, the top 20 scores at the London City Race for the last three years were all on the top men's course or women's course. So I think your score was an exception rather than proving the rule that you get inflated points by running on short.

[mharky]

My point wasn't that any of these events can get high scores, the point I was making (and that you missed with your wonderfully selective quote) was that the top athletes at the top of the list are scoring with top races, not like in the past when everyone's best scores were coming from "lesser" events with anomalous results.

What is good to see is that now everyone seems to be having major events as their scoring runs... None of this 1500 points for winning the Harvester middle, or 21s at London.