Nopesport Urban League

[Roger]

JK Sprint results have now been added to the Nopesport Urban League tables:
men, women.

As advertised (owing to the mismatch of classes between the JK courses and the Urban League categories), the results are based on minutes per height-adjusted km. Although the published straight-line distances are nonsense for a race like this, they are the best that's available.

Foreign competitors and M/W10s have been excluded.

Most categories had over 90 competitors, so the adjustments foreseen in the scoring system kicked in, to ensure that the last scorer in each category scored at least 10 points.

[Roger]

Results from the British Sprint Champs at Warwick University have now been added to the Nopesport Urban League tables:
men, women.

The rules for the main competition applied: to score points, you had to complete both heat and final successfully. The points are awarded with all those in the A final out-ranking all those in the B final.

The junior category (M/W 18-) caused additional complications: M/W 16 and 18 ran the senior classes whereas M/W14- had their own separate category, with a junior final (JF). M/W 14- competitors have been slotted in amongst the seniors based on minutes per km. The procedure was to rank by speed, then to promote anyone who had qualified for an A final above the top JF / B-finalist, to promote the lower B finalists above all the C finalists (and any JFs embedded amongst the C finalists), etc. There are of course several other reasonable ways to do the calculation, but this seems as fair as any.

[EddieH]

Roger I have had a look at your league and decided to read the rules re allocating points.

I note rule 4 allows you to alter the system mid-term. Well I have no doubt that you should.

With 5 races to counts anyone that did not run the JK sprint has no hope at all (unless virtually no-one does 5 races)

Taking M40+ with 230 points from the one race Maurice Calvert only needs to have an average run in a fourth event to make his score beyond the reach of anyone winning 5 races! Dennis Hooton (apologies to him as I have no idea who he is) gets 100 points at the JK - Is his run equivalent to the neighbouring Jon Musgrave?

I would suggest that if you want to give everyone points, which I am sure is a good idea that you scale them (e.g. with Andrew Dale winning I think on 240 simply divide all the points in that alss by 2.4 and round them off.) That way the problem I have noted is removed whilst everyone should get approximately the right sort of score.

[geomorph]

Firstly Roger, many thanks for starting and maintaining this
EddieH is right that you should revise the scoring, 'cos much as I want former team mates to be winners, it has to be fair across all races

but

I would suggest that if you want to give everyone points, which I am sure is a good idea that you scale them (e.g. with Andrew Dale winning I think on 240 simply divide all the points in that alss by 2.4 and round them off.) That way the problem I have noted is removed whilst everyone should get approximately the right sort of score.

won't quite work if there is an intent to maintain the 4,3,2, points advantage for finishing in the top 3. Roger's system already introduces dilution into the difference between scores of the top 4 when he adds 10 for each 'surplus runner' - in Maurice Calvert's case it is eroded from 4 to 3 from 1st to 2nd, and from 9 to 5 from 1st to 4th. By then dividing by 2.3 that would further fall to 2 and 4 respectively.

so perhaps for the first 45 just re-allocate their points as 100, 96, 93, 91, 90...50.
Then for everybody else calculate how many runners need to be included in each point down to 10 (or 1 or whatever is wanted). If there are 80 more runners and 40 points to allocate then there are two runners to each point; positions 46 & 47 get 49 points, etc.

It's still artificial, and still rewards turning in a valid run (and as one of those in the bottom section I'd still be very happy to have a score at all!), and it's still easy to do in your favourite spreadsheet

[greywolf]

The problem: lots more people ran the JK sprint than are likely at any other event. Therefore, either you unduly reward those who did - as Eddie says, anyone who missed it hasn't got a chance in the league - Jon Musgrave has won 2 races and will be below guys who came 18th on M50 in one race or you just work from 100 points down and leave off loads of competitors or you compress the points differential as per Eddie H's suggestion / geomorph's modification.
But maybe there's another way, which is to unpick the fiddle that's already been done to amalgamate the results in the first place - instead of combining M40, M45 and M50 into one "virtual race" for the purpose of allocating points, why not count them as three separate races, so that e.g. Charlie Adams, Neil Crickmore and Colin Dickson each get 100 points. I think that once you've removed overseas competitors the numbers will be low enough for (almost) everyone to get points. It's not perfect, especially for the Open, but it's certainly no more unfair than combining results on courses when some of which were markedly quicker than others. The main thing is that a win is a win regardless of the event - yes, it's easier to come 10th or 20th at a poorly attended event, but then spreading attendance is part of the point of the league.

[Roger]

instead of combining M40, M45 and M50 into one "virtual race" for the purpose of allocating points, why not count them as three separate races, so that e.g. Charlie Adams, Neil Crickmore and Colin Dickson each get 100 points

I like this idea. But should it kick in only when there are lots of competitors (and/or Urban League categories split across different courses)? If it happens in every race, there are going to be lots of scores of 100, and this could make it difficult to identify winners at the end of the series.

It will also require events like the recent Scottish Sprint to publish age classes. At present, the results (on the single course) are published in two ways: firstly everybody in one list, and secondly (a big thank you whoever did this!) by Urban League categories, 18- / open / 40+ / 55+. But the actual age classes aren't given.

With some of the fields likely to be over 100, and others in the same category less than ten, allocating points 'fairly and reasonably' was always going to be a thorny issue. My feeling was that finishing tenth from 200 (say) in the JK sprint was a better performance than say ninth out of 12 in one of the less popular races, and so deserved more points. The inevitable drawback is that the points for the popular races get inflated, and if someone misses one, they're scuppered. Before the season began, I expected that somebody was good enough (and keen enough) to win five races would inevitably run the big races. But that hasn't happened -- and it's also harsh on anyone who was injured, unavailable or disqualified at the JK. Although to be fair, anyone taking the Urban League seriously must have been aware that the JK would be a bonanza, and would have made sure that they attended. And finished.

A desire for simplicity (and making the points calculable on finals day) militated against allocating points based on time, or even time-and-ranking-points like the ranking system -- which I still think is the fairest method.

If we can reach consensus here (including Team Nopesport, as sponsors of the series) on say re-scoring the JK then I'd be prepared to do it, but re-doing all the other races as well too would be too much. (Any offers? The data are all published!)

Anyway, the Nopesport Urban League standings after the Scottish Sprint Champs are:
men, women.

The top five in each category are:

Code: Select all

Junior Women (W18-)             races  best 5
Alice Leake          EBOR   W16    3    284
Alice Butt           SARUM  W18    2    192
Mairead Rocke        LEI    W18    2    191
Elizabeth Parkinson  NOC    W16    2    185
Jessica Orr          CLYDE  W18    2    181

Open Women                      races  best 5
Blanka Sengerova     SHUOC  W21    4    324
Laura Daniel         SHUOC  W21    3    305
Elizabeth Britton    SHUOC  W20    3    253
Sarah-Jane Gaffney   SLOW   W21    3    247
Lauren Ferrand       SHUOC  W20    3    244

Veteran Women (W40+)            races  best 5
Claire Allison       LOC    W40    4    354
Wendy Carlyle        AIRE   W50    4    342
Sarah Haines         AIRE   W45    3    305
Helena Nolan         ESOC   W40    3    298
Jane Halliday        OD     W45    3    293

Supervet Women (W55+)           races  best 5
Sheila Strain        ELO    W55    3    293
Sarah Brown          SLOW   W55    2    200
Katy Lessells        ESOC   W55    2    184
Susan Stevens        AIRE   W55    2    184
Hilary Palmer        NOC    W60    2    182

Junior Men (M18-)               races  best 5
Stuart Thomson       FVO    M18    4    445
Jamie Stevenson      FVO    M16    3    346
Tom Ryan             ESOC   M18    3    344
Craig Thomson        FVO    M14    4    331
James Allison        LOC    M12    4    299

Open Men                        races  best 5
Ross McLennan        FVO    M21    4    411
James Lyne           SOS    M20    4    375
Nick Barrable        SYO    M21    3    365
Douglas Tullie       EUOC   M20    3    357
David Schorah        SHUOC  M20    3    334

Veteran Men (M40+)               races  best 5
Steve McLean         SROC    M45    4    437
Derek Allison        LOC     M50    4    434
Martin Ward          SPOOK   M40    3    408
Donald Petrie        CLYDE   M50    3    406
Maurice Calvert      AIRE    M50    3    399

Supervet Men    (M55+)           races  best 5
Tony Carlyle         AIRE    M55    4    400
Roger Scrutton       ESOC    M60    3    318
Eddie Harwood        MOR     M55    3    293
Peter Gorvett        SYO     M60    2    247
Mike Smithard        DEE     M55    2    239


[andy]

I'd say the standings at present are an accurate representation of orienteering speed and ability.





Andrew Dalgleish ESOC 279
Matthew Crane SYO 279
Oliver Johnson SYO 273
Neil Northrop SYO 269
Michael Sprot SYO 264
Rob Baker SYO 264

[EddieH]

Why would you need to change any of the other events - it is only the JK that is likely to be a problem. In reality I am unlikely to run 5 events anyway so maybe it won't matter that I was in bed during the Guildford event. However when one person gets almost 2 and a half wins worth of points from one event and only 5 count that is far more inequitable than any low field high scores.

[lakes-claire]

I'm in total agreement with Andy! Wondering now if I should try and leg it back from the Scottish for York if I can still get an entry.

[andy]

Wondering now if I should try and leg it back from the Scottish for York if I can still get an entry.

I decided it was too much hassle, which is a shame because the York race looks really good. Pity the start times are so early in the day otherwise I might have made the effort...

[Big Jon]

I must admit I'd not checked out scores, mostly "cos I'll not be doing any more of the series. However Eddie's comments made me look - and I agree that having a scoring system that awards most winners 100 points but in one race 230 points is farcical - it totally removes any fairness in the system - either you had to run the JK sprint or you might as well not bother!

[greywolf]

I like this idea. But should it kick in only when there are lots of competitors (and/or Urban League categories split across different courses)? If it happens in every race, there are going to be lots of scores of 100, and this could make it difficult to identify winners at the end of the series.

Realistically it's only going to be the JK - the other races are unlikely to have anywhere near as many competitors

[Snail]

For this year why not just remove the scoring adjustment, so that the JK winners also get 100?

I think it a little ridiculous that I currently have more than 100 points from one race - and quite happy that this should reduce to zero if I am not in the top 100 in my (Urban League) class.

[HOCOLITE]

Looking at the top people I have to ask
Are there more events in the North/Scotland or
Are the best Orienteers up there or
Is Urban O more attractive to those from the North?

This is just curiousity, I enjoy urban O when it is not too far away but not enough to travel the length of the country, so wondered if the results so far reflected the locations of events, the skills of the orienteers, or the dedication of the orienteers.

Could there be a thesis on the spatial distribution of orienteers participating in urban O. Or perhapsthe question is can a postive correlation be established between residence and urban O results?

[EddieH]

Anyway Guildford University isn't urban therefore it should be excluded