Revive the Rankings?

[gone]

[quote="A
[list][*]The obvious change is the way the placings points are higher in bigger fields. Points go up by about 50% when the field size doubles. This should give a reasonable reward but without unduly disadvantaging the smaller events.

Alan[/quote]

Hi Alan,

Great effort and thank you for the position increase, but can i just say i do not like it. sorry but getting 123 points for a queens win (this is a lot more than 50% it looks to be more like 150%) and somebody getting a 111 for a fourth in a lead up to me makes it a little dysfunctional or lacking parity. personally a system that does not show Bob as the best F standard shooter in Australia must be floored. but that could just be me? Continuing that on getting points for 15th and 16th placing and then only 5 counting seems to go against the goal.

Continuing on the FTR 60 points for first and ten 42 for second and down to 2 for 5th seems less qualitative and difficult to calculate and therefore less transparent.

sorry if that just sounds negative.

Daryl.

[Bindi2]

I have concerns about rankings of any sort.
There are people who shoot for enjoyment and dont want to be shown on the bottom of a list all the time. Others dont give a toss but get tired of the mind games played by those that worry about placings.
In short the sport loses both ways.

[DannyS]

personally, I dont see much reason in a ranking system. All it shows is that those shooters that attend the most events end up with the higher rankings, doesnt mean they are the best shooters. Just that they have the time or the finance to attend so many queens.

Cheers
Danny

[AlanF]

...Great effort and thank you for the position increase, but can i just say i do not like it. sorry but getting 123 points for a queens win (this is a lot more than 50% it looks to be more like 150%) and somebody getting a 111 for a fourth in a lead up to me makes it a little dysfunctional or lacking parity. personally a system that does not show Bob as the best F standard shooter in Australia must be floored. but that could just be me? Continuing that on getting points for 15th and 16th placing and then only 5 counting seems to go against the goal.

Continuing on the FTR 60 points for first and ten 42 for second and down to 2 for 5th seems less qualitative and difficult to calculate and therefore less transparent.

sorry if that just sounds negative...

Daryl,

Firstly, I think you should have a good thorough read of the Explanation page before commenting too much, because I think you've currently got the wrong end of the stick on several points.

If a Queens field is double the size then it gets about 50% more points e.g. from the table, in a field of 23 shooters the winner gets 84 points. In a field about twice the size (47 shooters), the winner gets 123 points which is a little less than a 50% increase.

For a shooter to get 111 points for 4th in a leadup, the field size would need to be about 120 (off the bottom of the table). Leadup points are 2/3 of Queen's points.

The size of the points amounts bears no relationship to the previous rankings system. It was chosen as the smallest values which would allow whole numbers to be used.

Reducing the number of points to count from 6 to 5 was done in part to reduce what many believe is an unfair advantage gained from attending many more events than the average shooter. If you look at the derivations, the reasons why shooter A has more points than shooter B are clear.

No, you're not being negative.

Alan

[AlanF]

I have concerns about rankings of any sort.
There are people who shoot for enjoyment and dont want to be shown on the bottom of a list all the time. Others dont give a toss but get tired of the mind games played by those that worry about placings.
In short the sport loses both ways.

Bindi,

For some people (probably most who shoot at Queens level), the competition aspect is a major part of it. This is just another thing to compete for, like range wins, daily aggs and badges.

Out of consideration for those near the bottom of the list, we could simply not show the bottom half of the list I suppose.

Alan

[AlanF]

personally, I dont see much reason in a ranking system. All it shows is that those shooters that attend the most events end up with the higher rankings, doesnt mean they are the best shooters. Just that they have the time or the finance to attend so many queens.

Cheers
Danny

Danny,

Spoken like a true F-Std shooter - the playing field has to be perfectly level .

Let me use (yet another) motor racing analogy. What is the most prestigeous award in world motorsport? Well the Americans may disagree but it is the Formula One Drivers Championship. How level is the playing field for that?

Surely we can allow ourselves a little latitude and give this the respect it deserves. I have made a considerable effort to restore these rankings, and the changes have gone a long way towards addressing your concern. I would also urge you to read the Disclaimer at the bottom of the "About the Rankings" explanation.

Alan

[Bindi2]

AlanF it is the people who dont like their name falling to far in a list that are pushing for the 1000yds to be dropped at the WARA Queens.
I am one who dosent give a toss or worry about the mind games.
The best shooter wins on the day if they win regulary then i need to improve somewhere to change that. If i am happy with my results and relaxed with myself it has been a good shoot for me regardless where i come. I have been the fastest and the best and there is allways the day you come second. Top competitors dont look at or worry about rankings it is only a concern to those who will never quite make it to the real top not as said who attend more events.

[AlanF]

Bindi,

At every Queens I've been to, they pin up results sheets on notice boards after each range, have updated leader boards displayed towards the end of the shoot, then read out names of all the medallists and badge winners, including many scores. That is because the event is a major COMPETITION. You may attend Queens to be "relaxed with yourself" but the main reason I go is to compete.

Alan

[Bindi2]

You are right AlanF which is why the unhappy people with their 1000yd score which dropped them way out of contention are very unhappy.
I like the long ranges and do well because i am relaxed. I compete by being there and cause the mind game players no end of worry by not playing their game.
I have a fellow club member who shot a 60.10 @ 300yd at a OPM boy did the mind game players front up @ the next range.

[Bindi2]

ETs lend themselves to real competition no looking at the spotter. 4 shooters of which one must be the coach. This will bring many shooters to the front of knowing they can really do it with a little help. They might just have to coach the coach what a way to learn.
F/C is such a great match that just has to be harnessed.

[SuperV]

Allan have you worked out a tr ranking list.

[AlanF]

Allan have you worked out a tr ranking list.

No Ben, and no plans to do so. If there was someone else with good Excel macro skills who wanted to take it on, then I'd consider making the program available to them. As you can see from some of the comments here it can be a pretty thankless task, and doing it for TR would be a significantly greater chore after each Queens.

Congrats on the ACT Grand win.

Alan

[SuperV]

Thanks Alan.

[AlanF]

In response to Bindi's comments, the rankings lists have been reduced to approximately the top half of all those with points as follows :

F-Std : Top 70
F-Open : Top 30
F/TR : Top 10

If you want to check up on anyone outside those lists, everyone who has points is in the Derivations list for their category.

Alan

[higginsdj]

I see no overseas competition results taken into account! So those who compete O/S (ie the recent US and World Championships) and miss local events as a consequence are disadvantaged in the rankings?