Junior Badge Scheme (again!)

[awk]

Carol: your example is exactly why I'm having to recalculate all the badge times as I go along, because most organisers don't calculate them correctly.

Lumpy Lycra: yes, gold times were based on W21L when the BOF lists were published.

does this not ask the question: why cant you apply the old award calculationsto (and those STLL used for JWM 1-4) to each individual JMW5 course?! or have i missed the point?

Yes, you have a bit. The idea was to produce one gold standard for each of JM5 and JW5, not separate S, L and M badges, which is what your idea would produce. After all, they are meant to be at the same technical standard. Also, it was designed to produce a more consistent award - junior numbers are just too erratic. We experimented with basing on junior times, and it just didn't work.

I agree with this it would be pointless to have JM/JW classes at the national events as there is always enough people to run each class and I don't think encouraging newcomers should be a concern at national standard.

.
The idea behind JM/JW classes is not about encouraging 'newcomers': that's what district and local events are about. Indeed, take a look at regional events, there are very few newcomers at them. They are about providing a sensible progression, particularly for young people who don't conform to preset steretyping of what somebody of a particular age should be doing.
It depends what you mean by 'enough people to run each class'. Just a random snapshot: at the 0007 National Event (one of the bigger ones this year), 16 of the 27 junior age classes had less than 10 competitors, most of those with less than 5. Not exactly great competition, which is surely what National Events are about. And 27 different age classes!! Would be fine if we had hundreds doing them, but we don't, and the quality of competition suffers.

[mark]

awk wrote

I haven't checked 0007, but in the past the only times that M16 Championship has been slower than JM5 Gold is when the winners of M16 haven't exactly set the world alight with their speed. I'll look at 0007 later to see what's happened there.

Andrew, you might also check the M16 BOC results I referred to yesterday in answer to Mrs H, as we can't say the top M16s weren't there!
There are always going to be inconsistencies when the 2 calculations are independent, and one employs the dubious practise of using the ratio of one course length to another (yes I know we've used it for years), when height climb, no. of controls, area of map visited, etc., all play a significant part in the 2 course times. Then to compound it by using an average factor, which cannot take into account the event terrain, distance/height ratio, over/underplanning, etc.
The only fair way of calculating badge times would probably be to feed the results into the ranking programme, modified to calculate badge times. Failing this I believe calculating badge times using only results from each class (or classes on the same course), without ratios, would be preferable to where we are now.
I also take it this 1.2 factor (which is actually 16.67% slower) does not apply to an M18, who must surely run slower than an M21?

[Mrs H.]

I'd just like to point out something else in favour of my A class+ U Class (abolish B class) scheme. you don't need separate U classes for boys and girls. They can also run in pairs, with a parent/coach or whatever. When they think they are getting up to their correct A class level they could even try out the equivalent U class (with a parent/coach if they liked) to see if they are up to it before launching into the A class on their own - how cool and child friendly would that be while still keeping the A class kids on their toes - imagin how focused they'd be if they could see someone like Mikey powering up through the ranks from nowhere

It's such a simple idea, it addresses everyone's needs and I would suggest, Becks, that this is the sort of refinement that the committee should be considering.

[Deaf Old Gorilla]

Does anybody actually have any numbers as to how the revised Junior Badge scheme has improved (or otherwise) participation. Otherwise all the evidence is anecdotal and we have no idea what changes should be made.

The Deaf Old Gorilla

[HOCOLITE]

Lumpy Lycra
(and an aside - making juniors older than their years while making adults younger is good psychology, but it's easy to forget that on average only 25% of M/W16s are actually 16....)[/quote]

I suspect it might even be lower than that. Trebor will actually be 16 for 1/12 of the time he's an M16 and it is unlikely that due to seasonal activities he will do a badge event as an M16 when he is 16. Often I think planners/controllers forget this fact when planning particularly when Nationals are right at the beginning of the year, when a new crop enter an age group so a large proportion are actually the age of the age group below.

[Mrs H.]

quite so - as you know the elder Miss H. has a Dec 30th birthday and similarly never competes at her designated age. Her potential is consistently blurred by this arbitrary division except at regional level- and a gap of up to 2 years at the age of 13 is the difference bewteen being a girl and a young woman. Happily she is not of the temprament to be aggrieved by this. but it would be heart breaking is she was and were missing out on BOF tours and selection by virtue of being born 2 days too early - i'm sure there are some out there for whom this is the reality. There does not seem to be a solution to this except possibly having a rolling age class which applies from the child's actual birthday - in the past this would have been impossible to administer but now days with the BOF data base i would imagine it is a distinct possibility - perhaps that is something Becks could also take to her committee (iyt is actually the only really fair way of applying an age class system)

[Becks]

I may be wrong, but I think most people would rather keep their age classes the same throughout, rather than a rolling idea. There's such a good sense of competition between age groups that to have them constantly shifting might destory this. I know that Laura Daniel has a very late December birthday whereas I have a very early one and even at 12/13 it never stopped her running twice as fast as me! The difference may be huge but by the time most athletes reach Lagganlia age I think there is very little difference. I definitely couldn't put the lot I took on Lagganlia into order of birthdays at all!

[Simon]

in the past this would have been impossible to administer but now days with the BOF data base i would imagine it is a distinct possibility - perhaps that is something Becks could also take to her committee (iyt is actually the only really fair way of applying an age class system)

Not sure whether I agree with the idea or not, but it would make it easier to explain age vs 'age class' to new people to the sport.

Carol: your example is exactly why I'm having to recalculate all the badge times as I go along, because most organisers don't calculate them correctly.

Which makes me query whether the system is either not clear enough for organisers (or results teams) or whether the relevant explanation is just not easy enough for them to find. If people are consistently making mistakes generating the badge times (especially if they are consistently making the same mistakes) then it seems some more explanation is needed.

If you find a set to be wrong, Andrew, are you informing the event organisers so this can be corrected?

[Guest]

There are a number of problems with an 'age on the day' system.

The obvious one of multi-day events is sorted by using age on the first day of competition.

The one that is impossible to fix is caused by the moving date of events such as the JK and BOC. A child with a birthday in April could find themselves competing as a 13 year old one year and a 15 year old the next. Hardly fair.
However, they could get two chances to compete as a 16 year old in successive years.
(Children with birthdays in February would always be the youngest at the JK, so someone always loses out).

How about having age on day for some events and the current system for others ?

[Jo]

[quote]How about having age on day for some events and the current system for others ?[/quote]

...too confusing

[Rookie]

JM/W classes are fine (for badge ..er .. regional events NOT NATIONAL) providing we get the age classes published as well - then at least experienced juniors can make their own age class results

"age on the day" events would just spoil competitiveness between people in your age class - could possibly have a school year based system then the o season would start in sept ending with the inter-regionals (most other sports have seasons which are roughly school years)

one question - since all events are electronic now why do we have to wait weeks for the badge times (or go through the hassle of calculating them ourselves, which would be fine if it were just 1.25 * average of top 3)? Surely the software could calculate them as the provisional results are pasted up - or at least as soon as they get on the net - would help for when I have to send off my best 3 results each year to NWJS so they can decide on my membership status.

[awk]

Does anybody actually have any numbers as to how the revised Junior Badge scheme has improved (or otherwise) participation. Otherwise all the evidence is anecdotal and we have no idea what changes should be made.

The Deaf Old Gorilla

Before the scheme was introduced nationally, we ran the JM/JW scheme in the north of England and Scotland for 2 years, alongside the age class scheme in the rest of the country. During that time the regions carrying out the pilot all reversed previous downward trends, and saw regional event participation rise, whilst non-pilot regions all saw previous downward trends continue.

You could look at event participation since the scheme was introduced nationally, but since one of the main arguments of sceptics when the scheme was introduced was that the above results were subject to too many variables and couldn't be trusted, I can't see that there would be much point in repeating the exercise - it was very time consuming!

one question - since all events are electronic now why do we have to wait weeks for the badge times (or go through the hassle of calculating them ourselves, which would be fine if it were just 1.25 * average of top 3)?

I believe Mike Napier's system now does. I agree - it was anticipated that this would happen, and I'm surprised it hasn't. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the system to do it - I use a rather crude, self-built, spreadsheet to check with.

[awk]

Andrew, you might also check the M16 BOC results I referred to yesterday in answer to Mrs H, as we can't say the top M16s weren't there!

I have done - they are correct (Mike Napier's system was used, and this does do the calculations automatically and correctly). I don't know a lot about the current crop of M16s, but all it shows is that, on average, they were a bit slower against the M21 elite than in previous years. Of course, that might be because of all sorts of factors, including the weather!

Your points about the badge time calculations are perfectly fair - basing the time on M/W21L was an attempt to provide greatER consistency, and provide a single standard across 2-3 different classes all at same technical standard, and that I believe it has done, but I make no bones about it, it is not perfect by any means: it is for instance still usually easier to get Gold at a Regional Event than at a National Event. I would be quite happy for somebody to come up with a better one. As for using ranking points scheme, well there are quite a few arguments surrounding that, not least that the system breaks down with smaller classes, and it is class specific (separate rankings for M45L and S for instance!).

To be honest, if we were just using these schemes as they were originally intended - as incentive schemes - none of this debate would really matter. Problem is that we're trying to find a way of measuring somebody's ability from event performance, and nobody has perfected that yet, and probably never will.

On the Champs/Gold bit, I'm not overly bothered about Gold being faster than Championship. They are measuring different things after all, and simply underline the fact that if one wants one continuous scheme, then greater integration is needed, which is what I've argued all along.

[Guest]

The reason that badge times don't appear instantly (well certainly in HOC's circumstances) is that they have to be agreed by the controller before they are posted. We calculate them just after loading provisional results on the net, the senior ones are done with the BOF software but the JM/JW ones have to be plugged into a spreadsheet, but the controller still has the right/option to amend times where he/she thinks fit, see bof rules/guidelines.
I don't think there is any excuse for them not being posted within a week, unless controller is out of country or something, but then a note can be posted to tthis effect.

Hocolite

[Simon]

The reason that badge times don't appear instantly (well certainly in HOC's circumstances) is that they have to be agreed by the controller before they are posted.

Is there not the possiblity of putting them up, but making it clear that they are provisional and may change?