OzFclass

Matt P wrote:Alan
There is no really fair system, the Queensland shooters have 3 Queens in their State and the likes of SA and WA only have one and it's a big drive to do two in a year, NSW and Vic have the ACT Queens and so on.
I would just continue with what we have.
Matt P

I am trying hard to imagine this shot is not taken at me Matt (especially as it was posted immediately after Alans unofficial list- I don't really think it was ). In rebuttal (just in case) I would like to point out that you have 3 Queens within a shorter distance than our home state (NQRA - Mackay) is from Cairns and all bar WA are less of a drive for you than the time it takes us to drive to the next one - Brisbane. For those uneducated in Australian geography Qld is a bloody big state (And as far as the NRAA is concerned is actually divided into two states - quite justifiably)

So if the shot was taken at the Brisbane crowd then sure they have two Queens but it is hardly a drive for you guys to get to Canberra and you also can relatively easily get to Bendigo and Brisbane. Even Lower Light is comparatively not that much of a challenge and the same order of magnitude to the Brisbanites getting to Canberra or Sydney.

In fact even the SA boys have a similar drive time to us getting down to the Brisbane Nationals! (currently 24 hours of driving time - 2 days). It is easier and cheaper to fly and once you hop on a plane the same can be said for the WA boys.

I have only attended 2 Queens this year and 2 last year. My home state and the Brisbane Nationals and with this system that is all you need to do to achieve a reasonable ranking. To attend 2 Queens a year (and fly to one) you will spend a couple of grand. But what sport can you compete on a national level any cheaper???

The more I think about this the fairer I think the system is and does not require people travelling all around the countryside all year (in fact it is less onerous than attending 6-8 OPM's. It may not be perfect but I doubt there is much better considering the logistics and size of the country involved.

OK, here's a stupid question.......

What is the actual purpose of a ranking system?

It's not really for use in selection of a National team (lets face it those teams are self finded so it simply comes down to who is able/willing to self fund to get into the team)

Cheers

David

Makes one feel warm and fuzzy.

higginsdj wrote:OK, here's a stupid question.......

What is the actual purpose of a ranking system?

It's not really for use in selection of a National team (lets face it those teams are self finded so it simply comes down to who is able/willing to self fund to get into the team)

Cheers

David

Why compete at all??

Barry,

I think it would be too hard in the short term to achieve a ranking system which does all the things you would like to see. But even with its deficiencies, I suspect the former NRAA system had sufficient respect to increase attendances at Queens, particularly for those shooters near the top of the TR list. Even in F-Open, it was one of the factors I weighed up when deciding which events to attend (couldn't let Rod Davies clear out too far ).

Alan

higginsdj wrote:OK, here's a stupid question.......

What is the actual purpose of a ranking system?

It's not really for use in selection of a National team (lets face it those teams are self finded so it simply comes down to who is able/willing to self fund to get into the team)

Cheers

David

Mainly I think its just another thing to compete for.

But it does actually have funding benefits. I applied for a Vic Govt grant to help with costs for the FCWC trip. It was for travel to individual competition. An important selection criteria, apart from ability, was level of participation. The NRAA rankings are a good indication of both.

Dave
I wasnt having a shot at anyone, all I was saying is there is no fair system. NSW shooters probably have the best as ACT, Vic and Brisbane are all within a days drive.Several ranges don't have/use 1000 yrds as I said before the WA guys only have one Queens within driving distance etc etc. I'm for keeping the current system, simply because if you add OPM's it becomes a massive job.
Matt P

One obvious deficiency in the NRAA system which would be simple to fix is its failure to take into account the size of fields. I think Rod Mahon would be the first to agree that his Tassie win in 2009 (field size 1) should not get equal points to recent wins by Marty Lobert and Dave McN where field sizes were 37. Sorry Rod - we all know that everyone else stayed away because you were in unbeatable form .

I need some opinions on what are the relative merits of winning in various field sizes. I'm thinking that as the field size doubles, the points should increase by about a quarter. Assuming we give 12 points for a win in a field of about 5, here's a few possibilities from no points increase to 50% points increase (as field size doubles):

Why not field size plus one?

DaveMc wrote:

higginsdj wrote:OK, here's a stupid question.......

What is the actual purpose of a ranking system?

It's not really for use in selection of a National team (lets face it those teams are self finded so it simply comes down to who is able/willing to self fund to get into the team)

Cheers

David

Why compete at all??

Sorry - I don't get it. What has ranking got to do with competing? Does a #1 or #10 rank in Tennis or Golf or Cricket or Rugby or Track and Field actually mean anything (other than possible sponsorship money) or is it some sort of grab at 'prestige'? ie it's just an arbitary value!

Cheers

David

higginsdj wrote:... ie it's just an arbitary value!

So are points in any competition.

AlanF wrote:

higginsdj wrote:... ie it's just an arbitary value!

So are points in any competition.

Yes - where there is a side by side comparison. The ranking system is not providing this side by side comparison.

In a professional sport a ranking system works because on the whole everyone is always competing against one another at most events. In our world only a small percentage of shooters have the time/money/inclination to travel to all the majors.

So before we start fiddling with numbers, lets agree on what aspects of shooting the ranking should be based on!

Cheers

David

higginsdj wrote:OK, here's a stupid question.......

What is the actual purpose of a ranking system?

It's not really for use in selection of a National team (lets face it those teams are self finded so it simply comes down to who is able/willing to self fund to get into the team)

Cheers

David

Just happens that 7 of the top 11 made it into the worlds team guess we could just afford it

wilddog wrote:

higginsdj wrote:OK, here's a stupid question.......

What is the actual purpose of a ranking system?

It's not really for use in selection of a National team (lets face it those teams are self finded so it simply comes down to who is able/willing to self fund to get into the team)

Cheers

David

Just happens that 7 of the top 11 made it into the worlds team guess we could just afford it

Actually I also said 'willing to self fund'. It is no suprise that those who do compete a lot also tend to be the best

Just out of interest, how did you decide who were the top 11?

Cheers

David

one thing to consider is that if we change the current system (even to improve it) there will be some who then question the integrity of the rankings.

And currently the system is not used for the selection of national teams, but it could be in the future? especially if FTR enters the list of rankings.

NB the number of queens entered does not affect your ranking the number of first 10 finishes does and if you are lucky enough to enter a queens with less than 10 people in it and get the points (you have to be in A grade to get points) good luck to you wow 10 points they will soon disappear in depreciation and if you are knock out because someone does this attend and beat them.