Does someone running down affect others points?

[graeme]

Does this mean that if you are fast and run a shorter course than "normal" you are very likely to get more points than if you ran your "normal" course?

No*. Course length and age don't come into it.

You'll only be more likely to get more points if the people you run against are overrated. As Eddie says, older people were (on average) overrated when the system was set up, and this bias is still working out. Since the ranking is averaged over a year, anyone who is improving rapidly will also be underrated.

If you want more points, you need to run well!

* Unless by "fast" you mean "better at racing short distances than long distances".

[Paul Frost]

No*. Course length and age don't come into it.
* Unless by "fast" you mean "better at racing short distances than long distances".

I suspect that most people who can run fast over a long distance would be able to run faster over a shorter distance.

So if a fast younger person ran a lot of Green courses and came 1st every time would they generally get more points than if they ran Brown and came 4th,5th etc.?

[andypat]

I ran "down" on green both days for family reasons and still was out for an hour or so. Really bad run on Saturday probably helped boost some points. Better run on Sunday but still not a counter for me. Definitely felt some added pressure to run faster...
Main issue with ranking points still seems to be the "urban" bias, where its easier to score highly, at least for some people. Not sure if thats a terrain/BMI thing - I defintely run with more confidence on hard surfaces.
Agree with Mharky that him running down should encourage people, and also it should help mix up the rankings bias.

[charles2]

Someone running well and finishing a long way ahead of other competitors does skew the results and lead to a larger standard deviation of times. Depending on the number of finishers on the course it might not affect the mean time too much.
This leads to those who ran better than the mean time generally having fewer points than they would if the person in 1st place hadn't run.
Conversely those who ran slower than the mean time generally will have more points than they would if the person in 1st place hadn't run.
This is die to the ranking calculations whereby the points awarded are dependent on a factor of (MT-RT)/ST [MT = mean time, RT = runners time, ST = std deviation of times]

So if RT < MT as ST increases points decrease.

Outlying times which are large (the slowest 10% of times) are excluded from the calculation, should outlying times which are small (e.g. fastest 5%) also be excluded?

[SJC]

Main issue with ranking points still seems to be the "urban" bias, where its easier to score highly, at least for some people.

The "some people" are the fast runners whose navigation may not hold up that well in the forest but is good enough for the simpler urban terrain. Conversely some very good navigators may simply not have the basic speed to get the same results on the road as they do through the forest.

The two types of event should ideally be ranked separately, although this is unlikely to happen.

[EddieH]

Simple. Remove long urban from the ranking lists. Proper sprints are okay though.

And if you do that what about parkland level Cs ........?

[Gnitworp]

Yes, I agree Eddie, in Long Urban, basic (road) running speed tends to predominate, which, I hasten to add, doesn't necessarily devalue it as a good sport in its own right. It's just a different one.

[andypat]

Main issue with ranking points still seems to be the "urban" bias, where its easier to score highly, at least for some people.

The "some people" are the fast runners whose navigation may not hold up that well in the forest but is good enough for the simpler urban terrain. Conversely some very good navigators may simply not have the basic speed to get the same results on the road as they do through the forest.

The two types of event should ideally be ranked separately, although this is unlikely to happen.

I dont think its as simple as that. I'm pretty sure anyone who knows me would attest to my navigation being comparatively stronger than my speed! I definitely lose more time to faster runners in terrain than I do on roads though.

[graeme]

I suspect that most people who can run fast over a long distance would be able to run faster over a shorter distance.

I would guess so too. In fact, when they set up the ranking list, they assumed there would be no slowing down. That's why people running shorter courses were initially overrated. And because the seed data was from age-class races, "people running shorter courses" meant "older people"

So if a fast younger person ran a lot of Green courses and came 1st every time would they generally get more points than if they ran Brown and came 4th,5th etc.?

No.
For me to get the same points on short green as I did from trundling round brown, winning would not be enough - I would have had to run faster and won short green by about 10mins. mharky would need to be 20mins clear.

urban bias, where its easier to score highly, at least for some people.

Yes, the way the list works people score better for things they're good at than things they aren't so good at.

[greywolf]

I suspect that most people who can run fast over a long distance would be able to run faster over a shorter distance.

But some people are comparatively better at shorter distances: i'm sure there's many nopers, including some Ws, with better marathon PBs than me, rather less (and no Ws) with a better 1500 time... Whilst those pbs are (unfortunately) decades away, I still prefer shorter races, and will often run down just because I prefer to run fast (-ish) for 30 mins than plod around for 60+

[greywolf]

[quote="charles2"][/quote]
You've omitted that the calculation also factors in the standard deviation of ranked runners points. If Mharky runs down this not only increase the mean of the ranked runners points, but also the standard deviation - so the effect on other runners points is not straightforward and will depend on whether or not he (and they) runs better or worse than expected.

[graeme]

1500 time... (no Ws)

sub 4:15 then?

[JK]

1500 time... (no Ws)

sub 4:15 then?

Wow that is even faster than Daley Thompson jogging roudn waving to the crows (unlike my PB for 1500).

But what about 400m Hurdles - my best distance - although I am better known in O circles for Mountain Marathons.

JK
[who seems to score more points when he makes less mistakes so the less controls on a course the less mistakes I make = shorter courses I score better]

[Jon X]

1500 time... (no Ws)

sub 4:15 then?

It'll need to be quite a bit quicker than that to beat Sheila Carey's best!
4:04.81 in the 1972 Olympic Final.