Rankings

[awk]

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

Agree totally with Mharky here, with the added rider from an ex-selector's viewpoint that it would actually make life far more difficult (Why wasn't my child selected when s/he's ranked Xth?), especially as orienteering seems to always want a ranking scheme that compares wildly disparate events and treat them all the same.

I hate ranking schemes, or at least all those that have been used in orienteering - they are highly artificial constructs which try and do something that simply can't be done. What matters in orienteering is what you do in the forest on the day that matters, not what I did versus what X did on a different day in a different forest.

Far better than rankings: individual leagues based on a few well selected races, and on people racing against each other. To that extent, the only ranking that ever made any sense to me was one used back in around 1975, when the top few in each class were ranked based on how they did in the JK, British and Regional Championships. Not pisspottical regional/badge events.

[mharky]

Jayne, yes.

It should take in the strength of field, which I beleive the BOF one does. The only problem is that the strength of field is calculated from the ranking syste, so it's a catch 22.

Have you looked at the IOF world ranking system. It is much better wieghted than the BOF one, for example, if you go down to spain and kick iberian ass, you don't get the same amount of points as the winner of a swedish elite-serien.

however, mats troeng was ranked #1 for quite a while, so it can't be that accurate!

[Supersaint]

It would be good if all/most events could actually count. As Rocky said, BUSA is one event where you don't get any ranking points, yet the standard in the A race was certainly higher than the 0007 National event yesterday.

Having a system which could combine everyone would mean that you could use District events, and veterans who normally win their class by miles can see how far up the younger age groups they actually compare.

It would certainly be more representational to have a higher weighting to the more important events such as JK and British as these are the kind of events where the majority of top runners attend and also aim to do well at - as Mharky pointed out my White Rose run last year, although quite good, probably isn't as good as getting a top 6 performance at this year's JK, but points-wise it was the same.

[awk]

It would be good if all/most events could actually count.....Having a system which could combine everyone would mean that you could use District events, and veterans who normally win their class by miles can see how far up the younger age groups they actually compare.

Please, no! Surely only events that matter should count, and it's bad enough that Regional events get included.
National rankings should be based on nationally significant events - if you're going to have them at all (and why have them at all?).

[Blanka]

It would be good if all/most events could actually count.....Having a system which could combine everyone would mean that you could use District events, and veterans who normally win their class by miles can see how far up the younger age groups they actually compare.

Please, no! Surely only events that matter should count, and it's bad enough that Regional events get included.
National rankings should be based on nationally significant events - if you're going to have them at all (and why have them at all?).

Funny you should say that, because that is exactly what you were advocating for the junior standards a few years back. Not meaning to have a dig at you, but just wondering why your view of junior orienteering is so different to that of senior orienteering?

[Jayne]

Why have them at all, it's an interesting the question.

I would say the main reason is that if you have a good system that people believe is correct then it gives people something to aim for and to compare themselves to. Perhaps, not a necessity.

I think for what you say being "it's what you do in the forest on the day", surely this is true of any sport to a certain extent but most do have some sort of ranking table.

Another point on ranking tables is that you'll never devise a calculation to please everyone. It would be nice to devise one that at least pleased the majority.

[awk]

Funny you should say that, because that is exactly what you were advocating for the junior standards a few years back. Not meaning to have a dig at you, but just wondering why your view of junior orienteering is so different to that of senior orienteering?

Sorry Blanka, I don't follow. If it's exactly the same as what I was advocating for juniors a few years ago, how can it be different to what I'm now advocating for seniors?

[guest]

I suppose I've had as much as anyone to do with the setting up of both the BOF and the IOF Rankings and that it's worth pitching into this debate to attempt to correct some misconceptions ...

1. One list for everybody: since everybody doesn't compete on the same course, any attempt to rank all on one list would be pretty artificial as some fudge factors would have to be introduced somewhere along the line. You could either do this by by comparing mins per (height corrected) km on the different courses (very dodgy) or by multiplying existing points by the BOF speed ratio for the class concerned (which anyone could do right now if they wanted to). The results wouldn't be very meaningful in my view however.

2. Rankings for juniors: has been discussed many times over the years. However, the practicalities make this difficult to justify, from a statistical point of view, if for no other reason. The system works well for adult age groups as it relies on there being a reasonably consistent population of runners in each 5-year band (or 14-year for M/W21), most of whom (or enough, anyway) compete in their age group. However, juniors are in a 2-year age group and the population shifts each year. They often run out of class and, nowadays, rarely run in age class anyway (ageless groups and all that). Although it would be technically possible to rank juniors, I believe that the resulting lists would have pretty dubious validity.

3. IOF system "better" than BOF system: mharky - they are essentially the same system! The BOF system is simply a customised version of the IOF one, based on exactly the same principles in that it takes into account the strength of field at each event as well as the spread of times caused by different technical/physical difficulties. Thus there is no reason why winning the White Rose shouldn't produce the same number of points as a top 6 at the JK if the quality of run is the same (and I note that Supersaint uses the word "probably" and isn't certain that top 6 JK was better).

4. BUSA should be ranked: yes, and why not? if the quality of the race is good enough then it (and other races like it) should be ranked. All the organisers have to do is register it as a level 3 event with the appropriate Association fixtures secretary and declare it as a ranking event. Rankings events aren't just Badge (sorry - Regional) events (and higher) - Sprint races, Middle races, mass start loop races etc have all qualified as rankings races in recent times.

5. Why have them?: awk - you and I have debated this many times over the years and you and I will always have to agree to differ! Of course there are many who are completely indifferent to national rankings and thus rankings have a neutral effect (not a negative one) on them. But there is also a very sizeable number for whom rankings give a very postive incentive to improve. As a result, an event which is a ranking event will attract more competitors than had the event not had this status.

6. Give more weighting to top events: We used to give 10% more points to all level 1/2 events but this was removed a few years ago on the grounds that it was artificial. I never agreed with this removal and argued against it in BOF committee and I believe that it should be reintroduced for many of the same reasons voiced elsewhere in this thread - runners do try hardest in the top events after all, and this should be reflected in enhanced points. It would also distinguish National Events from Regional ones - for many, there's no difference at all these days, particularly where no elite courses are offered. However, I think that a 10% loading is perhaps a little too generous and that 5% would be more appropriate.

I could go on to mention a whole list of other reasons why we should have a rankings list - the use for selection and seeding, enhanced status of the sport (it would look odd to the eyes of the sporting world in general if we didn't have a rankings system) etc etc, but I've said enough already and won't go into even more detail.

David May

[Blanka]

Sorry Blanka, I don't follow. If it's exactly the same as what I was advocating for juniors a few years ago, how can it be different to what I'm now advocating for seniors?

What I meant is that Supersaint's suggestion (to which you said 'please no!') was what you were advocating for juniors.

Meaning that in the original junior course proposals, the JMW courses were simply called by colour and juniors were to be gaining their standards at CC and badge events in the same way, i.e. all events become 'ranking' (not in the same sense because for juniors it's badges rather than ranking that was discussed).

Does that make more sense?

[Blanka]

Sorry Blanka, I don't follow. If it's exactly the same as what I was advocating for juniors a few years ago, how can it be different to what I'm now advocating for seniors?

Here we go, I've found the right place:

http://www.nopesport.co.uk/forum/viewto ... 4&start=35

...but then the current system isn't what I wanted to see. I wanted to see National Events running what you are proposing for Regional events: JM/JW courses (but probably longer at older end), with separate A age classes incorporated. Then the metal system (inc Championship) spread across all three levels (up to Silver at colour codeds, up to Golds at regional etc). But was told too much at one go - so only got half way, and scheme not fully integrated as planned.

I know the junior badges are not the same thing as rankings but in the absence of a ranking system for juniors they are, to some extent, a measure of achievement. Yet you say, on the topic of adult rankings...

Surely only events that matter should count, and it's bad enough that Regional events get included.
National rankings should be based on nationally significant events - if you're going to have them at all (and why have them at all?).

Surely that is suggesting a totally different approach to senior and junior orienteering?

[awk]

No, I don't think it is, Blanka, although I see where you're coming from.

To my mind, the badge scheme and the ranking scheme are very different animals.

The badge scheme is simply an incentive scheme. It's reasonably simple, and pretty broad brush (only 3-4 levels).

A ranking scheme is more than that. It attempts to rank every individual in a certain order, and state that no. 1 is the best orienteer, no. 2 the second best etc. etc. It says that someone getting 967 points at National event 1 in the South is better than somebody getting 969 points at a regional event in the Lakes. It tries to do this by making very fine comparisons between people and events.

If it's just a 'league' competition, then fine, I can probably handle that, although I think it's way too complicated - I don't like any system that can't be calculated on the day in the assembly field - and fails big time in my opinion in that competitors may never compete against each other.

But as soon as you start putting the label 'ranking' on it, it gives it a credibility and status which I believe it simply can't have, however sophisticated the mathematics.

To my mind, far better than any ranking scheme, is to have a national league, based on a few significant races, and with a simple scoring system. Elite have already got it - now role it out for other classes, and bin the ranking scheme.

[Gnitworp]

To my mind, far better than any ranking scheme, is to have a national league, based on a few significant races, and with a simple scoring system. Elite have already got it - now role it out for other classes, and bin the ranking scheme.

Do you know that there is already a 'Masters' Cup' for age classes M/W35 upwards based on National Events and above? A lot of people don't, such is its invisibility? It is compiled from scores extracted from the main ranking lists. Incredibly there are 2 'Cups' for each age class, one each for 'Short and 'Long' course competitors.

How about scrapping the current rankings, and elevating this, giving it more prominence, and, most importantly, having only one Masters' Cup per age class?

[awk]

Do you know that there is already a 'Masters' Cup' for age classes M/W35 upwards based on National Events and above?

Yes, especially as it was based on something I tried to get off the ground some years ago.

How about scrapping the current rankings, and elevating this, giving it more prominence, and, most importantly, having only one Masters' Cup per age class?

Totally agree.

[Gnitworp]

and score it in the same way as the UK Cup?

[FatBoy]

I agree that "ranking" based on performance at top level events for the top guys is the way to do it. However personally I don't make an effort to go to UK Cup races because I'm not going to flog myself round the country just to find out I'm 3rd last of everybody who did so.

Rankings should tell me in an ideal world I'm (e.g.) 120th in the UK. At the moment I can say I'm x (74?) on M21L but there's plenty of people better without 6 scores and plenty better in other age classes who don't have an M21L ranking.

I don't believe what people are saying to do with fudging across age classes is true - there doesn't have to be a fudge. If for example you kept the current system but applied it from one ranking list then the scoring is consistent whichever course you run. In fact it's more consistent because you don't have so many problems with competitors being unranked in that class - any ranking means your time will go to determining the average points/standard devation. Often in small fields now the majority are not ranked making it a bit of a nonsense. When I broke my rib and "ran" (walked mostly) M21S I went to an event and none of the M21S competitors were ranked! If we could have got a score from the M45s on the same course who were quite a few in number that would be better than current and not at all a fudge.

What Mharky says is true - chicken and egg. You have got to get the initial combined for all ranking list from somewhere. I think you'd have to take the current scores and fudge them with a hanicap. However this should settle down after a while (probably a year?). You had to have either a chicken or an egg to start (the egg came first BTW), but once it's running chickens keep producing eggs.

I think the argument for not having junior rankings because of few numbers is pretty thin (now) comparing it to seniors. Many senior classes at pisspot (not my words) regional events don't have enough numbers to make any statistical sense. If you had a combined list this would be less so.

One of the keys of a combined list is you could apply ranking to any event. The more you do so the more statistics it adds which means it's more likely to be accurate. Yes the top guys will only try hard at a top event, but they'll still run at 95% at a local colour coded and win it. I think the current system is in no-mans land ranking pisspot regional events but not 600+ district events in the West Midlands. Actually with a combined list you would want to include as many events as possible with people running different courses to their usual competitors. E.g. some W21S will run green, some blue. This ensures that statistics remain correct between age classes and you don't get freak results staying within a particular age class - by exposing them to other age classes they will get averaged out. The only problem with making more events ranking events is the extra load it will place on organisers (it shouldn't be a burden but to some it is).

One problem not touched on with the current system is the inconsistency between average score and best 6. If you have say 7 events, 6 are all your usual scores and one where you wandered round with a cold. Your ranking is where it should be but your average is dragged down quite considerably (particularly true for M21L - easily 300 points lower going for a wander than usual pace). Go to a small regional event with only a handful of people on M21L and that bad score dragging your average down drags down the mean score for everybody. Get two or more people this applies to and forget getting any good points! If you are judged to be ranked based on your best 6 surely this should be used to calculate the mean score?