Event Structure Review: Rankings List

[greywolf]

Appendix K: The Rankings List looks like an eminently sensible piece of work and I agree with pretty much all of it - 1 combined list for all rather than M & W separately please - and I'm not sure that the ranking list should be used for international selection.

It (Appendix K) starts by saying: "The aim of the ... ranking scheme is to rank all ... orienteers ... in order of orienteering ability" - brilliant!

Unfortunately this is contradicted by Recommendations 5 & 6 of the Consultation document, which say "The increased weighting for ranking points should be reintroduced" & "The quality of competition at Area Championships should be improved by encouraging greater participation ... and a higher weighting in the ranking system".

In other words, the ranking scheme will rank all orienteers in order of their carbon footprint

I guess if you live in the midlands and all 7 big events are a few hours away it doesn't seem all that big a deal - but if you live at one end of the country and the nearest of these events this year was 300 miles away you get a different perspective...

[Steve]

I like the idea of a single ranking list. If I understand the proposal correctly, I can compete in whatever class / course I like at a ranking event and my result will count towards a single personal accumulation of ranking points. Better than struggling to maintain 6 competitve results per rolling 12 months in 2 or more age groups, as at present. The single list appears to offer me more people to compete against at events, whether male/female/young/old, whatever course / class we all run. Some kind of nirvana if it comes off!

[Gnitworp]

Yes.

Don't understand the proposed completely arbitrary 'weighting' of selected events though - totally counter-logic, and I love Greywolf's apt summation of it that it will 'rank all orienteers in order of their carbon footprint'.

[Homer]

I disagree.

At present it is difficult to predict which events will gain you the biggest score. Therefore the more events you travel to, the greater chance of gaining a big score. Under the new proposals you will just have a limited number of events to travel to each year to maximise your score.

[graeme]

It (Appendix K) starts by saying: "The aim of the ... ranking scheme is to rank all ... orienteers ... in order of orienteering ability" - brilliant!

Unfortunately this is contradicted by Recommendations 5 & 6 of the Consultation document, which say "The increased weighting for ranking points should be reintroduced"

You are quite right that the weightings mean the new ranking list is, in part, an attendance prize, but only counting your top 6 runs skews it much more towards being largely an attendance prize. Since we want to encourage participation this is, in my opinion, a good thing.

However, if you look at the old appendix K (the wording of 1.1.1 is unchanged) you'll see that the ranking scheme produces both a score and Ranking List. The ranking scheme score satisfies the criterion you quote.

And if you understand all that you're way ahead of the people who actually care about these things.

[Gnitworp]

I'm not sure 'disinterested pedants' should be influencing policy

[Snail]

If people aren't sufficiently motivated to go to BOC / JK / 'national' events, then I would be surprised if applying an artificial x1.1 weighting for ranking list points is going to change their minds.

Seems a poor reason for producing a biased ranking list

[candyman]

The most valid races when it comes to rankings are the ones with the most (and best) competitors. To me it makes complete sense to put a higher weighting on the national level events and that the athletes who comparitively perform better in championship events get rewarded for that and do better in the ranking system.

To me it is completely bizarre that someone could be the best performer in Major (national) races for their age group but get beaten in the rankings because of results in regionalised events without the same level of competition or pressure.

It also means that the athlete who is competitive in a variety of types of terrain has an advantage over a 'home terrain' specialist who can not orienteer at the same level in different terrain types.

I don't pretend to have any sort of indepth understanding of the intricacies of the current ranking system but I definitely beleive that the seasons 'best' orienteer should be the best performer in major events.

I've certainly never heard anybody complain about the weighting put on World Championship races in the World Ranking System - and they aren't even races open to all participants!

[Wendles]

Where did you all find the rankings?

[candyman]

Go to the British Orienteering website, click on Event Information at the top and then click on Ranking List from the menu on the left

[EddieH]

Gnitworp, I hope you are not confusing disinterested with uninterested. Its always best to get disinerested people involved if they are sufficiently interested to be so.

[EddieH]

More seriously, I could not agree more with Candyman. The idea that by attending a regular event with no build up a strong athlete is effectively donating lots of points to the local ("this is my important event") orienteer is bizarre. It seems quite possible that a locally fast runner who never leaves Surrey (or the Pennines) could rank exteremely high even if they'd be last in different terrain.
If the rankings are to promote something amongst all orienteers fine - if it is to genuinely rank orienteers it makes no sense to have ranking events scattered all over the country almost every week. By weighting serious events you can perhaps get a bit of the best of both aims.

[greywolf]

At present it is difficult to predict which events will gain you the biggest score.

Well if I knew which events I was going to run well at I could save myself loads of time and trouble going to the others...

[greywolf]

The most valid races when it comes to rankings are the ones with the most (and best) competitors.

I haven't checked, but would guess the Scottish 6 Days has the most (and the best??) competitors, so by your logic shouldn't that be the most important for ranking?

To me it makes complete sense to put a higher weighting on the national level events and that the athletes who comparitively perform better in championship events get rewarded for that and do better in the ranking system.

The reward for winning the British Champs is being British Champion

To me it is completely bizarre that someone could be the best performer in Major (national) races for their age group but get beaten in the rankings because of results in regionalised events without the same level of competition or pressure.

But why do you think this will happen? It could happen under the current (unweighted) system - but a quick scan of the top few in the main age classes suggests to me that it's not - I wouldn't claim it gives a perfect rank order but it's not far off, barring a few runners who don't do enough events in their class, and it seems that more often than not the top runners get their highest scores at the biggest events (including S6D).

More pertinently, why concentrate on the class leaders, when we know who they are anyway, more or less? The interest of the rankings system (especially of having one big list) is the comparison and gentle competition between the rest of us, and we (should) know that it's all a bit of fun really. Don't know what the proposed weighting factor will be, but for what it's worth I'm currently about 15 in my class and judging by the names around mine in the list that's fairly reasonable - add 10% (as if I got all my points in the Nationals and no-one else did) and I'd be in the top 5, add 10% to everyone elses (as if they got all their points in the Nationals and I didn't go cos they were so far away) and I'd be down about 50 - that's some attendance prize Graeme!

And if the purpose of the ranking list is to encourage participation and involvement, why stop at weighting the results of National events? Maybe we should get 50 bonus points for every child we bring to an event , or Compasssport can give out 100 points with every new subscription??

[awk]

An ideal ranking system would be based on events where everybody turns out. That's impractical (or is it?), but you can at least encourage people to turn out to race each other; ranking people against each other who never race against each other has always struck me as a very artificial construct (but then I'd personally only use national events anyway!). I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that certain races matter more than others and should be given extra weighting. Carbon footprint aside, if you want to get ranked highly, you need to go to the races that matter and put yourself on the line, winner or not. If you want to see how you rank against your mates locally, then stay local.

Scottish 6-day is a holiday event, not a championship.