Cannot see the Nationals being shunted around the states -- certainly the NRAA don't want that and I suspect the states have enough on their plate now as well.
Not real sure why there is a Nationals anyway - - it does'nt seem to have any more " prestige " than a State Queens.
In a country the size of Australia where there are vast distances to travel -it becomes a matter of " who has the time and who can afford it" so any ranking system really needs to take this into account -- but then, would it truly reflect what should be?
Revive the Rankings?
Moderator: Mod
-
Barry Davies
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm
- Has thanked: 131 times
- Been thanked: 232 times
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
Barry Davies wrote:...In a country the size of Australia where there are vast distances to travel -it becomes a matter of " who has the time and who can afford it" so any ranking system really needs to take this into account -- but then, would it truly reflect what should be?
Yes, the NRAA rankings favour those who have more opportunity to travel, but then some still make a big effort to travel despite their unfavourable circumstances. Oh, and one other small thing, the level of performance reguired. No matter how far and how often you travel, you won't get any points if you don't shoot well. No ranking system can be perfect - as long as the shortcomings are made known (that can be your role Barry
) then people can give it the respect it deserves.
Alan
Barry Davies wrote:Not real sure why there is a Nationals anyway - - it does'nt seem to have any more " prestige " than a State Queens.
In a country the size of Australia where there are vast distances to travel -it becomes a matter of " who has the time and who can afford it" so any ranking system really needs to take this into account -- but then, would it truly reflect what should be?
Last year I would have agreed with you Barry - But this year with 37 shooters and most of the top ones in the country it felt like a real Nationals. It is the way it should be. If there was more prestige and more ranking points associated with it then I think it would encourage more to attend. Sure we can't all make it every year but it would be nice to aim at your own state Queens and the Nationals.
-
Barry Davies
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm
- Has thanked: 131 times
- Been thanked: 232 times
Hi Dave,
Yes 37 FO shooters and 20 of them from Queensland.
Have a look at any State Queens and you will see the same story.
The locals make up the majority.
How are you going to make this even close to something both Fair and representative?
Alan,
You make it sound like I spend all of my time picking the nits out of proposals, --not so. You put it up and asked for comments and you know I am one of your favourite commentators.
Seen too many proposals hastily put into practice then put in the "can't be bothered any more" basket
All I am saying is any ranking list, to be creditable, would need broad ( Australia wide ") coverage and input, simply because we have top ranking shooters in ALL states.
I rather think that a state by State ranking would be more meaningful as it gives more people a chance to participate.
Yes 37 FO shooters and 20 of them from Queensland.
Have a look at any State Queens and you will see the same story.
The locals make up the majority.
How are you going to make this even close to something both Fair and representative?
Alan,
You make it sound like I spend all of my time picking the nits out of proposals, --not so. You put it up and asked for comments and you know I am one of your favourite commentators.
Seen too many proposals hastily put into practice then put in the "can't be bothered any more" basket
All I am saying is any ranking list, to be creditable, would need broad ( Australia wide ") coverage and input, simply because we have top ranking shooters in ALL states.
I rather think that a state by State ranking would be more meaningful as it gives more people a chance to participate.
-
johnk
- Posts: 2211
- Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:55 pm
- Location: Brisbane
- Has thanked: 71 times
- Been thanked: 92 times
I've never quite understood the necessity for both ranking & grading.
From my perspective, the latter seems to ascribe relative merit to shooters based on individual performance against the best of the best. Correctly & immediately applied as it appears it will be with the new NRAA PM software, it is dynamic & timely. Dynamic, in that it reflects most recent performance for all shooters, albeit that may not be all that recent for those with patchy participation & timely, in that it will be able to include events immediately they are brought on line.
On the other hand, rankings are very much participation dependent. For shooters at any given level of performance, those who compete more can & do outrank higher qualified shooters who participate less. As somebody already said, it rewards attendance as well as excellence.
There was a time when the TR rankings were significant, in that they influenced Commonwealth Games selection (if I have it right). These days, ranking for that event & the like are more or less dependent on participation in shoulder to shoulder events.
On the other hand, if shooters need some statistical system for self or comparative evaluation, I wouldn't deny them that tool.
From my perspective, the latter seems to ascribe relative merit to shooters based on individual performance against the best of the best. Correctly & immediately applied as it appears it will be with the new NRAA PM software, it is dynamic & timely. Dynamic, in that it reflects most recent performance for all shooters, albeit that may not be all that recent for those with patchy participation & timely, in that it will be able to include events immediately they are brought on line.
On the other hand, rankings are very much participation dependent. For shooters at any given level of performance, those who compete more can & do outrank higher qualified shooters who participate less. As somebody already said, it rewards attendance as well as excellence.
There was a time when the TR rankings were significant, in that they influenced Commonwealth Games selection (if I have it right). These days, ranking for that event & the like are more or less dependent on participation in shoulder to shoulder events.
On the other hand, if shooters need some statistical system for self or comparative evaluation, I wouldn't deny them that tool.
-
Barry Davies
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm
- Has thanked: 131 times
- Been thanked: 232 times
I am kind of with barry in the fact that cross border grading wont really have merit, or be accurate..
Outside the box idea maybe....
Why not run 2 grading systems, a state system, and a national. (similar to what we do in a way)
States could include or exclude as many prize meets as they choose, but a minimum attendance shoudl be achieved for the PM to qualify.
National should simply be that, once a year you come and test your worth against the best in the country at the nationals, those gradings remain in place for that year. (As do world rankings)
Could go one step further and say state championships are just that (Same as nationals). if you wish to be graded attend the event, it might encourage more attendance also.
I national sliding grading system just does not make sense to me, but a state by state, where you are more likely to be shooting amongst the same group has much more merit.
Hope that makes sense....
Outside the box idea maybe....
Why not run 2 grading systems, a state system, and a national. (similar to what we do in a way)
States could include or exclude as many prize meets as they choose, but a minimum attendance shoudl be achieved for the PM to qualify.
National should simply be that, once a year you come and test your worth against the best in the country at the nationals, those gradings remain in place for that year. (As do world rankings)
Could go one step further and say state championships are just that (Same as nationals). if you wish to be graded attend the event, it might encourage more attendance also.
I national sliding grading system just does not make sense to me, but a state by state, where you are more likely to be shooting amongst the same group has much more merit.
Hope that makes sense....
-
AlanF
- Posts: 7532
- Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:22 pm
- Location: Maffra, Vic
- Has thanked: 229 times
- Been thanked: 936 times
I think it makes sense that state based grading is good for state based competition.
Regarding the Nationals, and thinking outside the square, why not abandon grading for that meeting. Belmont already has the Queensland Queens for the grades. Clearly it doesn't matter having large field sizes - look at TR A-Grade over the years.
Alan
Regarding the Nationals, and thinking outside the square, why not abandon grading for that meeting. Belmont already has the Queensland Queens for the grades. Clearly it doesn't matter having large field sizes - look at TR A-Grade over the years.
Alan
AlanF wrote:I think it makes sense that state based grading is good for state based competition.
Regarding the Nationals, and thinking outside the square, why not abandon grading for that meeting. Belmont already has the Queensland Queens for the grades. Clearly it doesn't matter having large field sizes - look at TR A-Grade over the years.
Alan
Well, in essence what I was getting at is the yearly placings woudl be the grading....
-
gone
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:17 am
the current system
The current system
Only the top 8 scores count towards your total, so once you have nine wins only the highest 8 count.
They decay (off the top of my head I think it takes 3 years for a queens win to loss all the points gained) so if you only do one queens a year and win the lead up as well each year you will be in good standing as only the top 10 in the queens and top 5 in lead up events get points.
Even with these simple rule getting the standing updated where as a challenge for the people doing the work. So I would say set the level of what can be done and maintained rather than increasing the inputs and making the work load unmaintainable.
But if you finish in the top 10 at the Individual World Championships I think you should get massive points!! 1000 points
so just leaving it as queens events would be a more manageable system.
Daryl.
Only the top 8 scores count towards your total, so once you have nine wins only the highest 8 count.
They decay (off the top of my head I think it takes 3 years for a queens win to loss all the points gained) so if you only do one queens a year and win the lead up as well each year you will be in good standing as only the top 10 in the queens and top 5 in lead up events get points.
Even with these simple rule getting the standing updated where as a challenge for the people doing the work. So I would say set the level of what can be done and maintained rather than increasing the inputs and making the work load unmaintainable.
But if you finish in the top 10 at the Individual World Championships I think you should get massive points!! 1000 points
so just leaving it as queens events would be a more manageable system.
Daryl.
-
Barry Davies
- Posts: 1397
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 12:11 pm
- Has thanked: 131 times
- Been thanked: 232 times
No system is perfect ( contrary to my last statement )simply because we do not shoot within a controlled environment. This is why the grading system has no relativity to the achievable score.
However for a ranking system to work I believe the ranking should be related directly to the achievable score. After all isn't ranking about who is the best at what they do AND how well they do it?
Awarding points for the placings at a competition can be misleading, as second place ( for example ) gets the same points irrespective of how many points he/she finishes behind the winner.
Because of the large distances between major shooting centres it is not possible for ALL contenders to attend ALL major competitions. This then questions the validity of any system designed to determine who is better than who.
If ranking is going to have any meaning there has to be some control.
eg designated competitions, I simply don't believe people are going to put their lives on hold to attend a competition thousands of km away just to maintain ranking.
So in fairness ( if such a thing exists in ranking ) there needs to be designated competitions that those with ranking aspirations can easily attend --Australia wide .
My last take on the subject.
However for a ranking system to work I believe the ranking should be related directly to the achievable score. After all isn't ranking about who is the best at what they do AND how well they do it?
Awarding points for the placings at a competition can be misleading, as second place ( for example ) gets the same points irrespective of how many points he/she finishes behind the winner.
Because of the large distances between major shooting centres it is not possible for ALL contenders to attend ALL major competitions. This then questions the validity of any system designed to determine who is better than who.
If ranking is going to have any meaning there has to be some control.
eg designated competitions, I simply don't believe people are going to put their lives on hold to attend a competition thousands of km away just to maintain ranking.
So in fairness ( if such a thing exists in ranking ) there needs to be designated competitions that those with ranking aspirations can easily attend --Australia wide .
My last take on the subject.
Menu
Newest members