Should under 16's be on the ranking list

[JK]

I'd vote for M/W16 and above probably - but there is no option for that since I don't believe that is leave it as it is now (unless that was one of the changes along with Night events coming back in).

I think for what it is we get good value out of it. You can use it for club handicap events, seedings, or even just "bragging rights" between friends. I suppose it could also be used to decide who should go in which relay team at JK and British if there are several ages categories in one relay-class. Of course it isn't that serious and it has its flaws. You can even use it to pigeon-hole people - aha - Urban/sprint specialist, depending on the type of events they get their good scores in.

[DJM]

if it wasn't broken don't try to fix it else you will break it - and for me it wasn't broken and now is!

Actually, it's not that the old ranking system was particularly broken, it's much more that it was not designed to fit in with the ageless course events introduced a few years ago.

When the four Levels came in, we were forced to scrap the previous rankings system and the RWP proposed the current one in its place. It was also clear that we had made a huge improvement at the same time and had devised the scheme we should have been using for the previous decade or so!

[DJM]

it has its flaws

OK - name them please!

[Homer]

it has its flaws

OK - name them please!

well, second year 16s are included and first years not for starters

JK: I think the reason for this was that juniors turn 16 in the second year of M/W16 and that was deemed the acceptable age to be ranked (for whatever reason- maybe beause that's the same age they can safely cross roads? )

[SeanC]

Its strengths are also its weaknesses. Many more people on one big list = decent competition = high places mean something = always someone to aim at.. but..

With the old style competition there were many more winners. Having the default display with many 1st places is not the same as requiring people to select categories to see first places. That feels like making up a competition.

The old style competition had A and B 'leagues'.. so if you were a mid table type of person you could win something.

All things that could be addressed if we could apply the right time/money.

[sketchweppers]

- personal profiling... ie rather as Ollie has done... see all your results and your trends.

This hasn't worked for me since the JK, when I think BOF re calculated all the ranking points. Has it been resurrected elsewhere?

[King Penguin]

My understanding is that Ollie had to stop updating it, as it would require a full reload of all results for all people for the last 12 months every week.
As I have said many times before, as far as I am concened the formulae must be defective if the points I get from an event 51 weeks ago can change as a result of what happened last weekend.
It seems to me like a desperate fudge to reduce the effects of a fundamental flaw, rather than a proper solution.
Since the Epping Forest event about a month ago the number of points I have got from that event has changed at least twice, possibly 3 times. The time I and other took has not changed since the event, so why should my points ?

[graeme]

The time I and other took has not changed since the event, so why should my points ?

Because more recent results give a better idea of how good the people you beat are? And therefore a more accurate assessment of how well you did.

[mharky]

But they don't give a better idea of how good you were

[graeme]

As in "the older I get, the better I was?"

[andypat]

Surely some people aim to peak for different races so the result in the race I peaked for in April, shouldnt be affected by the fact that some of the people I beat were targeting a race in September?

[m4rk]

I think that when BOF send out the membership renewal forms, there should be a box:
"Would you like to be displayed on the ranking list?"
Parents could answer for juniors under 16 (or whatever age)

Then, everyone is given points at an event based on the same formula as currently, but only those who answered 'yes' are visible and seen on the list.

This enables parents of juniors who think that being ranked is somehow damaging for them not to appear, but other juniors to be able to compare themselves across all ages/courses.

[Mrs H]

Parents could answer for juniors under 16 (or whatever age)

Don't put the parents in charge imagine being a child not appearing in the ranking list when your friends do - who will understand what that means!

[Gnitworp]

Let the kids decide whether the parents should be ranked (e.g. 'My dad's big-headed enough already')

[charles2]

I asked my 16 year old son about this on Saturday and he was non-committal.
On the one hand he likes being ranked and able to compare against others (his age and older).
On the other hand it is not good when you are learning the sport (he has only been competing for a couple of years) that a 'bad' result you have when maybe you are trying new techniques and so on gets marked (i.e. ranked). [Mind you this statement can apply to all of us!]

He did say that it should be at least all M/W16 (and not just half the age group) who are ranked, after all they are all competing against each other on blue equiv (M16) in regional and national championships.

As to younger competitors he suggested a level of membership whereby you opt in to be ranked - I guess this is similar to m4rk's suggestion of a visible/silent ranking list option.