Forum   |   Links    


Forum Home   Start New Topic   Edit Profile   Register  

1   2   3  

New Ranking list

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 14 February 2005, 2:22 AM  
M21E 1 0.0000 Carsten Jorgensen
M21E 2 2.6253 Chris Forne
M21E 3 4.7894 Karl Dravitzki
M21E 4 4.9574 Bruce McLeod
M21E 5 6.3214 Neil Kerrison
M21E 6 7.2735 Darren Ashmore
M21E 7 8.9337 Mark Lawson
M21E 8 9.6546 Aaron Prince
M21E 9 11.1428 Rob Jessop
M21E 10 11.9843 Alistair Cory-Wright
M21E 11 12.7918 James Bradshaw
M21E 12 12.7981 Stu Barr
M21E 13 13.6466 Michael Smithson
M21E 14 14.3089 Bill Edwards
M21E 15 16.9221 Greg Flynn
M21E 16 19.4793 Bryn Davies
M21E 17 19.8031 Michael Adams
M21E 18 21.2481 Jamie Stewart
M21E 19 23.0488 Andrew McCarthy
M21E 20 23.6650 Brent Edwards
M21E 21 27.2861 Martin Peat
M21E 22 36.1893 Phil Wood
M21E 23 40.3255 Fraser Mills
M21E 24 43.4603 Todd Oates
M21E 25 43.4817 Jim Cotter
M21E 26 46.7589 Jeff Greenwood
M21E 27 49.0702 Tim Renton
M21E 28 55.0781 David Stewart
M21E 29 55.5172 Ross Morrison
M21E 30 58.7368 Chris Howell
M21E 31 59.8300 Michael Tagg
M21E 32 68.7715 Robert Newbrook
M21E 33 72.4964 Julian MacLaren
M21E 34 73.8062 Joe Jagusch
M21E 35 76.4358 Andrew Whiteford
M21E 36 77.3417 Greig Hamilton
M21E 37 78.2033 David Melrose
M21E 38 87.4067 Suzanne Scott
M21E 39 94.9764 Stephen John

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 14 February 2005, 2:24 AM  
Hi Darren, hows your injury back there?

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 14 February 2005, 3:51 AM  
Where's Brent?

This message was edited by Neil K on 14 February 2005, 12:25 PM

Show Profile  mark Posted: 14 February 2005, 7:54 AM  
And in W21E

Clare Paterson is ranked 4th and
Claire Paterson is ranked 8th.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 14 February 2005, 8:55 AM  
It seems that the NZ rankings react more slowly than do the IOF ones, Bruce McLeod's last major run was probably Jan 04. That could be a bad thing or a good thing - where data is short we would want to use as much as we can, but it does mean that it isn't as sensitive a measure.

Show Profile  darren Posted: 14 February 2005, 10:24 AM  
The injury is not too good Neil, thanks for asking. The rankings obviously can't be right, I can't think of when you have ever beaten me in a major ranking race. You must have paid or slept with the statistician!!!

Show Profile  Rachel Posted: 14 February 2005, 11:18 AM  
and I can beat Marquita in 4/5 races and yet she is still ranked ahead of me??

This message was edited by Rachel on 14 February 2005, 6:19 PM

Show Profile  Marquita G Posted: 14 February 2005, 12:22 PM  
Age before beauty... Seems fair to me. If you want a copy of my secret training programme you need only ask!

Show Profile  jeffg Posted: 15 February 2005, 2:48 AM  
Marquita, can I please have a copy of your secret training programme?

Show Profile  Neil K Posted: 15 February 2005, 4:56 AM  
Darren, according to the results you beat me 7 out of 8 times last year. I must have really smashed you that one time, or does the formula take into account that your an old man now?

Show Profile  Greg Posted: 15 February 2005, 8:36 AM  
Bryan can you make it so we can see which races count for rankings and what were the points for other races etc.. like the IOF or Oz ranking.

Show Profile  darren Posted: 15 February 2005, 10:39 AM  
I stand corrected Neil. Well done young fella! I will ensure it never happens again!

Show Profile  ericm Posted: 15 February 2005, 4:40 PM  
Greg nice to see you are now well inside the top 30.

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 16 February 2005, 1:44 AM  
Nice to see the ranking list causing a stir. I will produce a ranking list from the Oceania carnival soon and I think the rankings will completely change.

The rankings are automatic and depend on who runs in a race (the top 3 ranked runners are used) and also on how runners do against their fellow competitors - eg an Orienteer can get good ranking points by having a good race against lower ranked runners (ie by thrashing them) when other higher ranked runners are not competing.

I'll have to do some analysis to explain about the questions raised (Neil vs Darren, Rachel vs Marquita) and I will fix up any errors I find. Remember, rankings are like an OY series, the average of the best 4 events count and if you compete in most events you are likely to get a better ranking/result than others who only compete at fewer events.

All A and B level events are included in rankings. This is because there are not enough events to really produce a ranking and often South Island competitors are disadvantaged. Because of the number of competitors and the number of events, statistically speaking, anomalies can occur. Really to provide good rankings you would need over 30 competitors in each class and many events. However, the rankings that are produced are not too bad but are always open to argument (as are Selector's choices).

I will add to my list of things to do, a new report which will show the points earned for an event.

I may at sometime in the future review the rankings system and may look at something more like the IOF system but the system will always be based on the New Zealand domestic scene (and not give more emphasis to more important events like World ranking events).

Show Profile  Bryan Posted: 16 February 2005, 1:51 AM  
And one other thing, the problem with Clare and Claire is a real pain. I am dependent on organisers getting the right name in the results but time and time again they don't. There is also the problem with different versions of names (eg Robert, Rob). I have had to create a system which checks for bad versions of names and corrects them but I can't find them all and sometimes I miss duplicate names/mis-spellings when I do some checking of the rankings. It would be nice if Orienteers used the same name for each event and make sure the organisers publish the right one.

Show Profile  Michael Posted: 16 February 2005, 5:46 AM  
Not such high priority but I would appreciate a simplified description of the algorithm. I'm sure I've seen it somewhere but it could do with being on the ranking pages. Even the fact that the ranking is best 4 in the period is helpful. And will you completely disregard 2004 when you add in Oceania, or have a moving 12month window, or what?

1   2   3  

Ruffneck Productions © Ruffneck Productions