Rankings

[wonderboy]

Don't bin the rankings list!

I know it appeals to a lot of orienteers (besides me) that I've spoken to, and acts as an incentive as well as increasing participation for events which are ranking status.

I am therefore in agreement with most of the points David May makes.

From a personal perspective of someone who does a lot of ranking events per year, i find the current points system generally amazingly good at reflecting how good a run i've had. If i were to try and rank my runs in order from best to worst, it would be almost exactly mirrored in my points. There are a few anomolies but these are generally a lot less significant than they used to be, and the fact that the system uses all ranked runners and their average points means it should be pretty accurate, except in small fields.

The problem with the masters cup is that it would only generally be relevant to the top few per class who travel to all the National events and if, as is currently the case, you use 6 events, there are only 10 or so people who score!

I do feel you could have a uk cup style competition for senoirs (masters cup) IN ADDITION to the ranking lists for those people like Gnitworp at the sharp end of the results.

I would also like to say something about short courses and their runners who I feel are generally under-represented on what is primarily an elite/long/super keen people based forum (i know this is not totally the case).

As someone who has run many short courses and long and elite you can't underestimate the competitiveness that exists between short course runners and their rivals. Most if not all are fully aware of the fact that in britain it is in effect a B class in terms of quality of field (but not in technical difficulty as a couple of long course runners I've spoken to thought it was!) but still enjoy competing and training to do the best they can, without the desire to do very long training runs or be out in the forest for 90 mins!

Their results can be measured by position, but the ranking lists provide the best way of comparing people who may only run head to head once a year.

I suspect many people on here underestimate the numerous M50's etc who's aims for the year is to get into the top 50 in the ranknigs list, or the M21S runner I spoke to yesterday, whose aim was to get an average of 1000 per event, etc etc.

Remove the rankings list and many peoples seasons goals or monday morning internet browsing will be lost!

As an M21 I, and many other M21's pretty much use the UK Cup as "the ranknig list" but due to field strength inconsistencies this is probably far more inaccurate! (i only finish higher up because i'm sad enough to go to lots of races).
i find a far more accurate indicator of how well i'm running and how fit i am is: did i score 1100 points? (obviously this is diferent for different people)


So in summary:
leave it as it is (posibly 5% for big events - no more)
don't get rid of short rankings lists
Add in/raise profile of masters cup stlye comp to keep Gnitworp and AWK as happy as us Uk Cup 21's!

Andrew Powell (40 ish ranking events in 2005)

[guest]

Great post Andrew

[mharky]

David, RE: BOF & IOF being essentially the same system:

Ok, that is interesting, because to me it does seem the the IOF ranking list appears to be more realistic. Maybe it is due to the fast that there are less events, and on average the events are all better attended...

[Gnitworp]

Can we call the Short Course Ranking Lists, if we must have them, something other than National Ranking Lists, which they are not, e.g., Short Course League? There can surely only logically be one 'National Ranking List for each age class.

Some people strive and even train to do well at a 'National' level. These 'second class citizens' deserve recognition in a single 'National Ranking List'.

[FatBoy]

David, RE: BOF & IOF being essentially the same system:

Ok, that is interesting, because to me it does seem the the IOF ranking list appears to be more realistic. Maybe it is due to the fast that there are less events, and on average the events are all better attended...

Statistically less events should make it worse, but the better attended is the key, or more accurately more people who go to define the mean score and standard devation. It's all to do with getting enough data to reduce the likelihood of freak results.

[gowrie]

As a participant competing largely on short courses I thought Andrew Powell’s comments on the subject excellent. Thank you.

I head the rankings for my short course. I do short courses usually as bits of my body are now less able to deal with the additional rigours of the longer courses. Taking as examples the British, two days of JK and NE1 I find that I have amassed a huge collection of ranking points. Indeed I have on average 55 points per event more than the winner on the corresponding long course. I have to agree with Gnitworp and others that this is a completely false state of affairs and I cannot be compared to the National leaders in my age class. However I do still want to be in a competitive position in regard to the courses I choose to do. I do not care what the short course rankings are labelled - just let me have some rankings! Perhaps my advice to anyone devising a revised system is: please arrive at a new system which puts my ability in the context of the longer course participants - even if only roughly.

[distracted]

Perhaps my advice to anyone devising a revised system is: please arrive at a new system which puts my ability in the context of the longer course participants - even if only roughly.

One way to do that is to use the badge standards to compare the courses - after all the short course badge times are set from the long courses. So someone achieving gold standard on the long and short course would get the same ranking points. Or maybe the short gets a bit less, something to factor in that it's 2/3 as long and so (in theory) you can run a bit quicker it... After all, there are people who go round the short course in ridiculously quick times and should really be running long...

[wonderboy]

To quote distracted: "After all, there are people who go round the short course in ridiculously quick times and should really be running long..."

This may have been said to wind people up. I'm probably not the best at picking up sarcasm, but assuming it wasn't:

Why should they run long?
This is the default comment of so many orienteers when someone wins the short.

My girlfriend for example, prefers to enter a class where she can look for her result from the top down, rather than the bottom up, and has no desire to training runs longer than 1 hour. And she is under no illusion that she's better than the corresponding position on the long rankings.

What is wrong with only wanting to be out an hour (or 40 mins or whatever) and even putting in some training for that purpose?

Certainly at M/W21 the "Short" class is typically 7.5 / 5km which ain't that short! Hence the V class which I think is an excellent idea, but does not seem to be at all events only some.

And on a separate note, what is Gnitworp's obsession with short course bashing?! If he knows the difference between the short and long course in terms of standard (just like eveyone else does) and he can be safe in the knowledge that he's better than the top runner on M60S but is regularly wooped by mike murray, then can he not sleep easy at night? Or does he want the long rankings in 12 font and the short ones in 8 font coming from one of those "page under construction" BOF links?!

[redkite]

When I started orienteering again a few years back (after a 30 year break)I completed the short courses at ranking events. I was not fit enough to even contemplate the longer classes. The points gained confirmed over a period of time that I was slowly getting better and provided me with a significant incentive to get fitter and improve my technique. I may not have been reaching the heights of our leading M45's, even on the short courses, but still remember fondly milestones, such as reaching 1000 points for the first time.

Ranking points on the short classes should be preserved, and personally I cannot see anything wrong with just calling the classes long and short. Wouldn,t be upset with Long A rankings and Short B rankings. That should be cleatr enough for everyone.

[distracted]

wonderboy > I'm fully aware for a lot of people the short course is long enough, and that some people only want to be out in the forest for a certain amount of time. However, there's a difference between winning the short, and being consistently 5-10 minutes clear of the next runner, at a speed similar to the leading M21s on the long. It's the latter I object to.

Redkite > As a relative newcomer to orienteering I've used the ranking points in a similar manner. I think having rankings for the short is a good thing. Still, I feel having a weighting on the short course, so that people of the same ability on long and short in a specific age class get the same points score, would be better. You can still use the rankings in the way you state, and still have two lists (although they could then also be combined for comparison), it would just mean the target points would change.

[Gross]

[quote="distracted"]However, there's a difference between winning the short, and being consistently 5-10 minutes clear of the next runner, at a speed similar to the leading M21s on the long. It's the latter I object to.

quote]

So do you also object to those people who run long & are consitently out for longer than most? Do you believe they should be dq'd & made to run short?

[redkite]

Distracted - agree with your comments and no problem with weightings. Recently started to do longs and remember briefly looking through the long and short M45 rankings for anyone who did both so I could get an idea of what a reasonable target would be on the long courses and to make sure that I would not be totally uncompetetive.

[distracted]

Gross > Ultimately it's the competitor's decision as to what they run, no-one can force them to run a particular course. Maybe 'object' was too strong a word in this context. However, to me it seems unfair to those who are 'competitive' on their short course and, if they had a good/excellent run, would stand a chance of winning. But then they are denied by someone who could be doing well on a long course, and in cases have shown this to be true. Not in the UK, but take the case of one Mr Jostein Andersen at the O-Ringen last year, running H21 and easily winning the first 4 days. I think most would agree he clearly has the ability to run H21E, as shown by his 15th place on Leg 1 at the TioMila for Kristiansand OK 1 this weekend. Would you object if you were denied a podium/prize because he decided to run down?

Your counter-example doesn't work in this way. Unless you want to argue it is degrading the quality of the long course by having 'punters' out there taking far too long. but I think you'll find that's the subject of another discussion, with regard to elite courses...

[Gross]

[quote="distracted"]Gross > Ringen last year, running H21 and easily winning the first 4 days. I think most would agree he clearly has the ability to run H21E, as shown by his 15th place on Leg 1 at the TioMila for Kristiansand OK 1 this weekend. Would you object if you were denied a podium/prize because he decided to run down?

quote]

Actually on some occassions I have suggested to athletes that they run non-elite at the ORingen even if they are more than capable of being competitive in that class. I have no idea why the guy wasn't running elite... he could be ill, injured, have exams, just have got married, father/mother died or preparing for more important races in future.

Whatever it's for the individual to choose which class they run / don't run in.

Simone seems to be 5 or 10 minutes clear a lot of the time... don't see anyone objecting to her running:)

[guest]

Jostein was too busy working for Trimtex to run the elite - he told me!