Rankings

[Jayne]

Hello,

Noticed the comments on rankings and thought it was probably a good chance to mention this. My MSc Stats dissertation task is to create a new orienteering ranking system.

So, what would people want from their ideal rankings systems. I could come up with a completely different way of computing score, base on something different like e.g time for equivalent distance, just have one long list rather than all the different classes (but then make it so you could filter down to just look at one class), etc, etc.

Jayne

[Gnitworp]

Sounds good; cross-age-class and gender comparisons would be interesting if not entirely fair because veterans may be able to sustain a faster pace on shorter courses.

However, the truism that you can only have one National ranking list for any one defined category of person, i.e., open, male, female and over or under a certain age, remains.

[guest]

I've always thought that there should be one all inclusive ranking list covering everyone, filterable on the various age classes.

In my opinion this would have the following advantages:
1. See how you compare against all your peers (I normally run M35S, but the people I typically compare myself against are running the other classes that normally share my course - several of my 'peers' according to the current ranking system live at the other end of the country so I only ever run against them once or twice a year)
2. Makes the move to 'ageless' classes a lot easier, as you no longer have to run a particular course to get ranking points.
3. The person who is no. 1 in the list really is the best in the country.
4. Gets rid of some of the issues of the current system - separate short & long rankings.
5. Would enable the difference between district and regional events to be removed - ALL events could be used earn ranking points.
6. Some age classes e.g. M55L and M60L typically run the same course. If an M60 consistently beat an M55, under the current scheme, the M55 would be the top of the M55 rankings, even though the M60 is technically eligible, and a better orienteer. Artificial distortions like this would be removed by having a single list.

I do have some sympathies with Jim's comments on problems with the current system, but until we change to an event structure with separate classic / middle / short distance events i.e such as todays middle distance race, then a single all inclusive ranking system using as many people as possible to normalise the results is really the only way forward.

I think the current way of calculating points is generally ok, but does occasionally fall down when there are small fields. Another plus point for including everybody - more people to smooth out any potential distortions.

N

[Tatty]

I think one of my lads did something similar for his GCSE Stats course work, back in the 90's!!

[roadrunner]

I agree with the previous comments. I think an important factor is that the scheme should allow for people to run different courses at different events: this could be someone running M21L in most events but M21E when available, or an M35 (or older!) running up as an M21, or (I recognise this is more controversial) someone running the long course at some events and the short at others. As Gnitworp said, there should be only one list for one category of person: at present, many people are listed in two categories, and some in at least four (one of my club colleagues is ranked in M50L, M55L, M40L and M21L!)

[Gnitworp]

As Gnitworp said, there should be only one list for one category of person: at present, many people are listed in two categories, and some in at least four (one of my club colleagues is ranked in M50L, M55L, M40L and M21L!)

Anyone (except M21's - W21's can be M21's!) can be more than one category of person (I'm 7 - M21-M60 inclusive) but logically ranked in only one ranking list for each. Under Jayne's proposal, I'd love to know how I would rank in all 7.

By all means have 'Short' or 'Medium/Sprint' orienteering ranking lists, but base them on events where these competitions are run separately and not simultaneously with the 'Long' courses at Regional, National and Championship events.

[King Penguin]

I have long though that ranking list should be availanble for age groups under 21

[Jenny E]

i agree king penguin! the argument against junior rankings is that it makes it too competitive and that you know who the good people are anyway. but if we already know, what is the harm in having rankings!!!

[m4rk]

i think the main argument against junior rankings is that people think it will make parents push their children too hard, and that the parents will be far more bothered about their childs ranking that the juniors themselves are

[helen]

I'm undecided really. It would certainly make selections easier if there was a junior ranking system, but then again I guess the coin has two sides, cos then what happens to people who have missed races cos of illness or injury, if they are fit and deserve a place on tour but have missed the bulk of the races...

[mharky]

It would certainly make selections easier if there was a junior ranking system

No, selections are made on selection races and exceptional all known form.

The ranking system is no way near accurate to provide and solid evidence of ability, for exaple. Is Jan's 2005 White Rose day1 vicotry worth the equivilant of top 6's at this years JK...???

The reasons for not having a junior ranking list are lame, but there are also no reasons for having it...

[Jayne]

[
The ranking system is no way near accurate to provide and solid evidence of ability, for exaple. Is Jan's 2005 White Rose day1 vicotry worth the equivilant of top 6's at this years JK...???.

So, is that suggesting the number of points scored should reflect not only the number of people in the class but more who is actually running in the class?

I was also thinking of doing something different to "mean score of 6 races" .

[rocky]

my only thought:

it would be good if all the events that were "Important" counted for more than those which don't. By important I mean UKCup, FCC, Selection Races (to those classes to which they apply) etc.

At least if they were all counted in the system it would help: i remember being a top year 20 and having people like "graham gristwood" and "mark nixon" ranked ahead of me, because the races i did best at were FCC-only - a short race in HOC-land i won, a M21E where 20s ran 21 for FCC points, and the FCC final which was run on its own that year.

i guess a similar situation applieas to BUSA champs: one of my biggest aims for the year, and my best result in a domestic championship, but it won't count since it wasn't an open event. is there an argument against including events like this.

this is all a bit selfish really isn't it? just trying to improve my own ranking! well since im heading in that direction, if you could come up with a system that rewarded individual leg performances in relays as well, then that would be ace

-m

[bendover]

if i'm going to be honest: a ranking system that ranked me against and alongside all age groups and classes using some kind of 'equation', wouldn't interest me in the slightest.

[graeme]

Heteroskedasticity