No serious sport would ever decide a competition on something so arbitrary. Surely instead they could have given it to the person who bagged the most splits or had taken the least number of paces or something like that?
If it had been a sensible race with total time counts then they could’ve used the backup graeme, unless they decided they couldn’t adequately synchronise the primary graeme with the backup.
(Chas to win on penalties?)
Say what? Four best scores. The overall results are calculated according to your four best scores.
Anyway, overall results say 1st tied and that's the way history will/must record it.
Well done to both of you.
Published rules don’t seem clear on separating 1-1-1-4 vs 1-2-2-2 vs 1-1-2-3 either. I wonder what happened on M12B, where records were identical across 6 days...
Apparently the organisers decided splitting ties in junior classes was too harsh and so they awarded joint victories.
I'm a big boy so will take it on the chin...
My daughter got moved from 3rd to 4th (same points) when a girl downloaded just before the prize giving, beating my daughter on the day by 1 second. Just glad they called it joint 3rd. I trust you didn’t cry about it like she did.
Good to see you running the 6 days with aches and pains though.
Using positions is a much simpler system of scoring but doesn't at all take into account your relative time behind/in front of others. I think it it is too simplistic and causes too much upset on day 6.
The other problem with positions is people who dip in and out. 4 years ago I only won because Big Jon ran the last day and pushed my skandy competitor down a place.
I'd vote for the original 1000 points for the winner and pro rata behind. Only those entering at least four days to count.
Sounds good to me. I was fine with the points system they were using 4 years ago.
I like the system, it treats each day as a race where it matters where you finish. Otherwise there is very little difference between being (say) 5th at the front of some people packed in vs 15th at the back of that group.
The original 1000 point system is much more skewed if someone turns up for just a day or two and wins them by a big margin, the 1000 point system means that people with their best runs on those days are massively disadvantaged by that rather than just disadvantaged by a single point. It also makes the simple days where everyone is closer together pretty much ‘everyone scores them’ days and makes the technical/physical days the least likely to score.....not sure that is ideal.
The current system was first used in 2009 and so has been used for the last SIX events. Before that it was the ‘1000 points for the mean time with other points via 200pts adjustment per standard deviation either way’, which is fair but cumbersome and requires all runners to be finished on the final day before you have the final scores. The ‘1000 for the winner, pro rata for the rest’ was last used in 1999.
I agree there is something to be said for only having people entered for at least four days allowed to score points in the overall competition.
I also agree the position for resolving ties needs to be clearly stated, particularly if your fifth score may sometimes be used as the decider if still tied on the basis of four days. At least on M50L this time the winner under the 1980s/1990s system is the same person they gave the win to anyway :)
@RashRouteRicky. No backup graeme was available.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say Jon. Do we all not agree that the best (and fairest) solution would be all 6 days counting and simply add up the times? That would have the same issue which you claim is not ideal (with people closely packed) but so what? Over a 6 day competition surely being a few seconds down on the winner on any one day should hardly make any difference to the overall score?
I understand why all 6 days can't count, so we are talking about the fairest solution to the best 4 from 6 to count conundrum. I note that the Swiss O week have my preferred system of 1000 points to the winner...
Still not sure if I was 2nd or 1st= but I do agree that Al merits the win.
If you have all six days scoring and so can add up the times then great, that is a different system where the individual days are essentially only intermediate times anyway (and so position in a pack on any one individual day becomes irrelevant)
If it is fewer then six to score then I think it comes down to whether you think the differing spread of times on a class across the different days/terrain should play a part in the overall outcome, or whether each day is also a race in its own right and so finishing position should matter.
The current system says that Xth on one day is equivalent to Xth on any other day (and that percentage behind the winner is irrelevant), the '1000 to winner' system says that YY% behind the winner on one day is equivalent to YY% on any other days (and that positions on any day are irrelevant).
(eg M50L Day 1 was perhaps the trickiest day and had 35/98 starters within 50% of the winner, Day 4 was perhaps the most straightforward day and had 59/85 starters within 50% of the winner. So one system treats 35th on Day 4 as equivalent to 35th on Day 1, the other treats 59th on Day 4 as approximately equivalent instead).
In my opinion both are reasonable options for scoring but my personal preference is for the position based one rather than the percentage based one - I think most people look at how they place relative to their peers and clubmates on each day, so there is some logic to basing overall outcomes on that. I think the 1000point system does not work so well for people further down the field as it tends to skew point scoring towards the easier days rather than the rough days, instead of point scoring rewarding their best perfomances.
However having said all that then you - unlike me - sometimes win a day by a significant margin and might feel that the scoring system does not give that sort of performance sufficient credit. So I can understand why our preferences differ!
OK got it. Your last paragraph sums it up nicely. I think Alistair deserved greater credit for his win on day 1 (by a significant margin) than the single point difference which he ended up with.
I've always seen multi-day events as a version (copy?) of the Swedish O-Ringen and therefore prefer a system of scoring as near as possible to the total time for all days.
At least we can agree that including those who only run the odd day or two can unfairly affect the results and therefore should be excluded.
Interesting and persuasive analysis, Jon. Has there been a compartive study of the various options? Was something done before the change in 2009?
Outside of major champs, I place slightly more weight on time behind the winner than position and the race I'm having is ultimately with myself so intuitively I'd favour 1000 points system. Having said that, I don't like the idea of easier days offering easier scoring. So, damn.
(Also, forgive my dodgy memory, Oban 11 was the first Scottish 6 days I'd done in 30 years. I must have got myself confused with another multi-day event.)
Please login to add a message.