Rankings (again)

[Scott]

The fact that the other competitors haven't done their full six events shouldn't make any difference - the points are calculated based on the average (mean) of all their scores over the previous twelve months, regardless of how many events they have done in that time.

Do you have a specific event in mind?

[Sunlit Forres]

That's just the answer I need Scott so thanks. The question was theoretical for the moment, but some of the Moravian Sat League events are tending to have all the bells and whistles - enough to justify Level C status (they are normally Level D as there is sometimes no controller and they're arranged without reference to SOA).

We have a 1st year M16 (Andrew Barr) who is already beating all the ranked runners - including the great Mr Harwood - but he isn't allowed to score points til next year(another topic for debate!!). We also have quite a few adults who are very keen and getting OK but aren't yet travelling to events further afield. It would be good to increase the number of ranked runners in the club by having more local events that are included in the rankings. This might give them an incentive them to seek more points by going to other ranking events.

I'm very conscious that we mustn't devalue the Level C status by applying it to events that don't meet the criteria. However, I do think some thought could be given to encourage clubs to upgrade Level D events for this reason where this can be done without adding too great a burden on the organising club.

[NeilC]

Southdowns are doing just that and are upgrading several of our club league events in order (among other things) to get local members on the ranking ladder.
http://www.southdowns-orienteers.org.uk/index/home/news/national-ranking-points-at-selected-so-galoppen-events

[Scott]

Yes, personally I think clubs should be encouraged to register events that meet the criteria at Level C, particularly in regions where people don't get as many opportunities to pick up ranking points locally. Now that proper, pre-printed maps and electronic punching are almost ubiquitous it often seems to be the lack of a controller that is the stumbling block.

Down at the opposite end of the UK, Kernow have just started to register some of our "ordinary" events at Level C rather than Level D when the terrain warrants it, for similar reasons to Moravian.

[Ali Wood]

I have a slight reservation about the ranking points obtained in a lowly local event having equal eligibility to A/B level events.
Genuine C events, ok.... but D events deliberately promoted to C for this purpose? - not convinced. People often run in these events with a 'D' attitude in mind, namely less 'seriousness' than the bigger events, so times are maybe not as reliable as indicators of ability. And who is to say the map/terrain really justifies the promotion?
Remember, the Ranking system, bless its little cotton socks, has no 'weighting' to distinguish bigger events like National and Regional from any smaller events.

[mharky]

Remember, the Ranking system, bless its little cotton socks, has no 'weighting' to distinguish bigger events like National and Regional from any smaller events.

Graeme enters stage left...

[smf]

Southdowns are doing just that and are upgrading several of our club league events in order (among other things) to get local members on the ranking ladder.
http://www.southdowns-orienteers.org.uk/index/home/news/national-ranking-points-at-selected-so-galoppen-events

Event Guideline B : Long Distance Events
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/i ... line_b.pdf

3.5 Suggested courses for a typical Level C Long Distance Event

Brown, Blue, Green, Short Green, Light Green, Orange, Yellow, White

SO level C event at Rivers Wood 13th Oct 2012

Brown Not Offered
Blue
Green
Short Green Not Offered
Light Green Not Offered
Orange
Yellow
White Not Offered

[DJM]

I have a slight reservation about the ranking points obtained in a lowly local event having equal eligibility to A/B level events.
Genuine C events, ok.... but D events deliberately promoted to C for this purpose? - not convinced. People often run in these events with a 'D' attitude in mind, namely less 'seriousness' than the bigger events, so times are maybe not as reliable as indicators of ability.

Having some influence at the time in the Great Levels Debate, I did make the proposal that we had two types of ranking, National and Regional.

National rankings would be based on Level A and B events only, whilst Regional rankings would be based on results from all three Levels but displayed only by Region. Thus a member of SLOW may gain points from Level A/B/C events all over the country but would only appear in the SEOA Regional rankings.

This would have three main advantages:

National Rankings would only be based on results from the top events
It provides a very obvious distinction between Level B and Level C events
The ambition to rank as many as possible remains satisfied

The current database could be used as it stands and the two types of ranking could be produced simply by adding appropriate filtering. However, the proposal was unsupported

[NeilC]

And who is to say the map/terrain really justifies the promotion?

The club committee and the Grade A controller that's controlling. Of the 20 odd events in the series four were identified that were deemed suitable. This one happens to be on a newly surveyed area not used for several years.

smf

What's your problem? The whole level thing is all about quality and expectation not about how many courses. It' pretty clear from the details what's on offer. Just consider it an atypical Level C if that helps.

[greywolf]

And who is to say the map/terrain really justifies the promotion?

Yep, MOR do tend to hold their level D (and C) events on rubbish areas like Darnaway, Culbin, Roseisle, Lossie, whereas we know all Level A/B events are always held on brilliantly mapped, high quality terrain.....

The problem with trying to draw a distinction between levels B & C as per DJM's suggestion is that the distinction only really exists in the minds of the terminally nostalgic, yearning for the good old days of "regional" and "district" events. IMHO whether or not events get registered at B or C owes more to local practice and idiosyncracy than any genuine quality threshold: e.g. of the 7 SOL races this year 4 were registered at level B, 3 at level C...

[smf]

And who is to say the map/terrain really justifies the promotion?

The club committee and the Grade A controller that's controlling. Of the 20 odd events in the series four were identified that were deemed suitable. This one happens to be on a newly surveyed area not used for several years.

smf

What's your problem? The whole level thing is all about quality and expectation not about how many courses. It' pretty clear from the details what's on offer. Just consider it an atypical Level C if that helps.

People expect level C events to be run as per the level C guidelines, which clearly your event is not. Rather it is a level D event with 4 courses that thinks its a level C.

[NeilC]

From Guideline A:

5. Level C events
(snip)
5.4 The organising club shall decide which courses are to be provided based on the
requirements of the event.
(snip)

The intended audience know exactly what courses to expect, and hardly any orienteers read BOF guidelines anyway.

[AndyC]

Now Simon -don't rise to the (possible) bait.
There could be good reason for the omission of the Brown and White courses because of the area involved -it might not have enough distance available for the Brown and lack line features in a suitable configuration for the White (I'm guessing).
Personally I don't like the lack of SG & LG because as well as catering for the less fit they are an important development step for improvers (there is a big difference between Orange and Green in both TD and distance).
But it is down to the organising club to decide what courses they request from the planner.
Level C is more about the terrain and facilities than the number of courses (wrote this before Neil C posted!)

[mike g]

People expect level C events to be run as per the level C guidelines

No they don't, apart from a few rules nerds. Most people have never even looked at the level C guidelines. I couldn't care less about them. What I do expect is for an event (of any level) to be run as advertised by the organising club, and for higher level events to be of appropriate quality.

On that count, the terrain description for the Rivers Wood level C (on SO's events page) is certainly not overselling it: "Grassy paths, muddy and heavy going if wet. ... Heavy undergrowth away from paths."

[FRBlackSheep]

Couldn't be bothered to quote, but I am referring to a few of the above points. The idea that people run less hard at a level D event as compared to a level c event is fairly ridiculous, most people once they cross the start line give it everything they've got regardless and I have seen plenty of people cruising around Level A and B races at all levels, either because they are a. not fit at the moment or b. not treating it as an A race, thus meaning that ranking these separately wouldn't make any difference on this argument bassis.

As to the idea of ranking the smaller events, the statisticians I speak to assure me that ranking a smaller event with everyone running the same course would actually improve the data as that is what the rankings is based upon. So for example an evening event run as a ranking event with 100 people running the same course would provide anough comparable stat data to get any ranking nerds positively excited. Or so i'm lead to believe....