Should the sprint race be part of the overall JK?

[greywolf]

The JK Sprint this year was officially a level 2 event and will therefore count towards the ranking scheme. The British Sprint Champs is also level 2.

How's that going to work with the ranking list being split between L & S?

[The Loofa]

How's that going to work with the ranking list being split between L & S?

That's easy - everyone is L (or possibly both - you could run the results through the system twice)
Far trickier is the British with heats and finals and people not running against there own age class.
Roll on a universal list

[greywolf]

That's easy - everyone is L

except they aren't - because a) the rankings work off people's existing scores, and half of them will be calculated on L courses and half on S courses and b) if i'm otherwise an S runner then whats the point of having 1 or 2 races ranked in the L rankings?
So the only way I can see it working (until there's a unified ranking) would be to split the results of e.g M45 into 2 sets of results and thus ranking points, one for L runners and one for S runners...which might be a bit silly

[awk]

Which all goes to illustrate what a complete waste of time the current format of the ranking list is, not least of which because the sprint race wasn't a 'L' race or an 'S' race. As loofa says, roll on the combined list.

[DJM]

Hardly a "complete waste of time" more a minor inconsistency! We had a precedent for this a while back when the results of the Middle Championships in the Forest of Dean were submitted for rankings, the decision being to treat all runners as if they had run the "L" class.

A lot of correspondence ensued, but the majority opinion agreed with this principle. However, this should all change next year ...

[IanD]

I've got a different question. How does the Sprint fit into the Badge scheme? Can you use it to contribute towards a Championship Badge? A Gold Badge?

[greywolf]

We had a precedent for this a while back when the results of the Middle Championships in the Forest of Dean were submitted for rankings, the decision being to treat all runners as if they had run the "L" class.

Sounds like your decision was to ignore S courses runners, and as they were probably less than half of the total then you can call it a majority opinion

[awk]

Hardly a "complete waste of time" more a minor inconsistency!

We, as always on this one, will have to agree to disagree! As you know, I've long felt the current system has been a waste of time for a large number of reasons; this being just one minor (well we agree on that bit!) illustration. On the other hand, I think the prospective combined list is an excellent idea.

[Ant W]

DJM, I didn't correspond about that at the time, but I didn't agree with it either. From a rankings points view, it was a wasted run for me.

Agree that a combined list would make much more sense for the future.

[roadrunner]

The JK Sprint this year was officially a level 2 event and will therefore count towards the ranking scheme. The British Sprint Champs is also level 2.

In which case it's rather strange that the ranking list has been updated for the two following days' events, but not for the JK sprint.

[greywolf]

So the only way I can see it working (until there's a unified ranking) would be to split the results of e.g M45 into 2 sets of results and thus ranking points, one for L runners and one for S runners...which might be a bit silly

now i think about it, this seems not such a silly suggestion as it's perfectly normal for one "race" to be split into several bits for ranking purposes (e.g. SOL Course 11 covers M35S, M40S, M55L M60L W35L W40L etc) so in theory it ought to be easy for the organisers to split each age class into 2 sets of results (according to whether competitors ran "L" or "S" on days 2 & 3) - assuming the entry software was set up to do this - but IIRC it had two separate lists - sprint first and then days 2&3

[Snail]

In hindsight it might have been simpler for competitors if the entry system had been set up with L & S classes for the sprint day - with both classes running the same course.

As well as mkaing the entry process simpler, this would have resulted in the entry lists showing starts times for all three days in the same place. It would have adressed this ranking issue as well.

Perhaps one for future organisers to note.

[DJM]

roadrunner wrote:
In which case it's rather strange that the ranking list has been updated for the two following days' events, but not for the JK sprint.

This has now been done. As a Level 2 event, the JK Sprint should of course contribute its results to BOF Rankings.

[mike g]

roadrunner wrote:
In which case it's rather strange that the ranking list has been updated for the two following days' events, but not for the JK sprint.

This has now been done. As a Level 2 event, the JK Sprint should of course contribute its results to BOF Rankings.

Thanks David. That has considerably improved my M35L ranking.

However, you still have to go to Mike Cumpstey's website to find a ranking list that includes any of the days of the JK, as the version on the BOF website remains 6 weeks out of date.

http://ccgi.orienteering.plus.com/ranki ... glist.html

[greywolf]

roadrunner wrote:
In which case it's rather strange that the ranking list has been updated for the two following days' events, but not for the JK sprint.

This has now been done. As a Level 2 event, the JK Sprint should of course contribute its results to BOF Rankings.

Amazing. I now have 4 different rankings including one for a class i have never entered.
(not that you'd be able to tell from the BOF website, which is 2 months out of date....) the sooner we get a unified ranking list the better...