Rankings

[FatBoy]

Not wanting to go off topic as usual I thought I'd start a new one.

As for the ranking scheme providing a 'true measure', it requires a minimum number in a class to function properly. Many regional events don't achieve that number.

Absolutely - as discussed several times on this forum. An idea I had recently would sort this out though.

Without getting too technical on the stats, the rankings work by basing the points available on the people who are ranked who are running the course. The problem generally comes when there are very few people ranked running the course. One issue is that people don't always run the same course - e.g. I might run M21S if injured as I did earlier this year. Graeme (not picking on you - just a good example) may run M21L or M40L. Helen Winskill keeps beating me on M21L. You get two rankings which in my opinion is silly.

What if we said there was one ranking list for all, and your rank was based on how good you were in the whole of the UK? You could see (via a website?) who was the top W45+ etc. To keep the statistical numbers up you rank the whole of a course not a class at a regional event so that you're W21L M45L J5L (or whatever it is now) are all scored together. You could then extend this down to district events if there was a want. Anyone who runs different courses as the above examples would not only get points from both courses but would also keep the averages on the points more in line so that you didn't get any points drift so that a good run in one class is somehow worth more or less than another.

Thoughts?[/quote]

[Ed]

there was some unofficial ranking lists in compass sport a few (maybe 10??) years ago which were meant to be comparable across classes - I'm not sure of the stats behind the whole thing (I suspect there may well have been a fair few fiddle factors in there) but from what I remember at the time it seemed to give a believable set of rankings.

anyone who's got some compasssport archives handy want to look them up?

[John]

Why no rankings for M/W18 and below ? Other sports have ranking lists for juniors.

[FatBoy]

There used to be junior rankings but when I was about 15 or so (1989) they got removed. I think the basic argument was to stop juniors being too competitve (which would be bizarre given juniors are the most competitive anyway) but maybe my memory is that way because I was a rebelious teenager. It didn't work because there were unofficial rankings done and many of us raced M19 regularly at Badge events just to compare rankings.

[Domhnull Mor]

Sorry to hijack the topic but talking about ranking lists reminded me that the Scottish 6 days is registered as a ranking event for the Swedish rankings. Anyone out there running for a British club but who is registered with a Swedish club (and has paid the fee for the ranking list) can get Swedish ranking points. I have been asked to check that all people who should get points actually get them so if you belong to this group drop me a line.

[distracted]

Might require a bit of standardisation so that every regional event etc uses the same course combinations. For example there's the experimental set of courses been trialled recently where in theory anyone can run any course. How would short/long course rankings come into play? - there can be a significant difference in someone's ranking scores dependent on which they run.

[FatBoy]

Shouldn't make any difference what course combinations are there or whether you run long or short. The idea is that based on the current average point scoring ability of everybody running that course you can come up with the scores for that course. It's just the same as now except the list to provide those averages is one list rather than one for each age class, and therefore applicable to any course.

I do however think it would fit in quite well with the expiremental stuff with anyone running any course - much better than the current rankings do.

Random example - my average is 1000 (say) and the top W65 is 250. The two of us are the only people on a same course and she takes 4 times as long as me. Go through all the maths and I get 1000 for my run and she gets 250 for hers i.e. we ran true to form. If she has a better run than her average should dictate i.e. less than 4 times my time she will get a higher score and me a lower. With enough people (the problem with many events under the current system) it should work out that I wouldn't have a much different score just because she had a better than their average would dictate.

[awk]

What if we said there was one ranking list for all, and your rank was based on how good you were in the whole of the UK? You could see (via a website?) who was the top W45+ etc. ....
Thoughts?

Good idea (given caveats in following post) - much better than current way. Isn't this what the Swedes do?

[awk]

There used to be junior rankings but when I was about 15 or so (1989) they got removed. I think the basic argument was to stop juniors being too competitve.

Not at all. There were a number of reasons. First of all because the rankings scheme at the time was unreliable. Secondly, and related to this, because it couldn't (and can't) cope with small numbers - these also appear in the seniors, but then...Thirdly, because they were being used by parents to try and justify why offspring should have been selected for tours etc. Other reasons as well, but from recollection these were the most important.

I'm never quite certain why there is so much fascination with rankings lists. The only results that matter are in the forest, not some theoretical system that tries to match one obscure race in Cornwall with another perhaps equally obscure race in Thurso. It's where you finish in races that matter than defines how good you are.

[FatBoy]

I thought it probably wasn't the too competitive thing - that's just how I remember it with a bit of teenage angst.

What use are rankings? I'll tell you why I use them:

There are many people on M21L who are a bit random in their form (fit can't navigate?) and it's hard to judge a single race where you're at compared to them. If there's enough people there this should average out in the ranking score you get.

I race proabably about 10 ranking events a year - these are really the only time I get to see how well I'm doing via the score. On your average Brown course it's not long enough to be a true indicator, and the competition isn't really there - I'm normally top few on a Brown then well down on M21L.

[CHS]

I'm not old enough to be on the ranking lists, but I think that people find them useful as a target- ie they find it a useful target to improve their fitness to do better or track their improvement in results over a longer period of time maybe several years instaed of fluctuations at eaxh event.

[pasta and cheese]

Ed mentioned a ranking system in compass sport once.

Feb 1998...

Anthony Garratt OD did a alternative ranking system. This was completely based on the average SPEED of competitors across all senior courses. 10000 points for average speed. Run faster, and you get less points and a higher ranking.

Great for comparing people across ages an course.

Here's an example from the top,

M21

Stephen Palmer 4514
Steve Nicholson 4610
Jamie Stevenson 4610

M35

Staven Hale 4383
Jon Musgrave 4590
Martin Bagness 4818



Much easier to compare class against class. As you can see Steven Hale and Jon Musgrave would be 1st and 3rd respectively on teh M21 rankings.

[Stef]

but 18s can get on the ranking lists if they run w21 courses because ive done a few and im in the rankings and got w18 in brackets next to my name

[rob f]

Jack, Hector and Dave also are (and i'm sure there are more) I still don't understand why we don't have junior rankings

[Ed]

if you're that bothered, calculate them yourself and publish them on the web. it's not that hard to do.