Why not keep it simple and have a system based on 2 Queens shoots/year but set a minimum number for the field size in order for the competition to qualify as suitable to attract ranking points. I would suggest a minimum field size of 5 per field class of competition.
How do others view a field size of 5 as a minimum number to qualify for ranking consideration?
As far as getting to events to qualify the states with one Queens/year are at a disadvantage as previously discussed. In SA we could always drive across the border to Bendigo and compete in the Vic Queens comp.
Now I know why Alan Fraser comes across to the SA Queens, its not just because he likes our company I guess its time SA F-Class shooters did the same thing if they are interested in attracting ranking points.
Summary :- 2 Queens/year with minimum field size of 5/field to qualify for use in calculating F-Class rankings.
Ian
__________________________________________
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
Ian i do not know why you need the the 2 queens entry criteria? Prior it has only been the top 100 a grade shooters that are ranked so not need. the other point of a min number of competitors in a class at a queens 5 sounds reasonable to me but once again as if we change the current system and change the location (if affect take control from the NRAA for this) we risk raising the question of the integrity of the system used? currently looking at the published F open rankings as done by Alan if you entered on one queens a year and won it and the lead up you would be NUMBER 1.
90 points per year for the 2 events and allowing for depreciation you would still have over 200 points.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is just using a per comp system. I understand the want for an overall grade but its never going to be a true representation, so rather than giving the potential for dispute or upset stick with a per queen placing result.
i.e. state championship placing for the year are just that and national placing the same.
Yes, we cannot please all with national comps, but if you really want to rank yourself you will make the effort to attend the event given its prestige.
It's kind of like saying I want a world ranking, but don't want to attend the event.
It's to easy to take advantage of the flaws in a grading system, not to mention those shooting FTR at the moment are not represented in anyway other than individual comp placing.
I thought we were discussing the national rankings of F class currently on the NRAA website (which was difficult to maintain and keep updated) and shifting them to this site, because the current NRAA site does not do them at all for F class and has not updated them since the change over.
The rules for points were very clear and easy and at least we had something, perfect or not, fair or not.
Really Alan if you where to do this I think it would be fantastic (official or not) The derivative section (which is no longer there) was great so if that could be included it would be great.
I thought we were discussing the national rankings of F class currently on the NRAA website (which was difficult to maintain and keep updated) and shifting them to this site, because the current NRAA site does not do them at all for F class and has not updated them since the change over.
The rules for points were very clear and easy and at least we had something, perfect or not, fair or not.
Really Alan if you where to do this I think it would be fantastic (official or not) The derivative section (which is no longer there) was great so if that could be included it would be great.
Daryl, read the first post of this thread and you will see Alan has opened it up for discussion on the NRAA system and improvement or change.
Jason, the nationals are largely just Qld based shooters and personally I think any 2 queens events as I discussed above would be a fairer system.
Ian
__________________________________________
A small ES is good. A small SD is better. A small group is best!
I think any 2 queens events as I discussed above would be a fairer system.
Ian
Ian
your quote above said Min 2 per year not any 2 queens? are you saying a max points of 180 (Any 2) or a min participation of 2 per year? if it is a min 2 per year and holding the current 8 top points positions going to your score and therefore rating, what happens to the person who is number one for the last 3 years and then only attends one in the fourth year? do thier points no longer count?
Yes I did mention that it would be an opportunity to make improvements, and that is what is being discussed now. But if the concensus is to revive it exactly as before, then that's what we'll do. Be aware that the appearance will be quite different, as I intend doing it in Excel rather than a database as per Geoff Roberts' version (Databases was my least favourite IT subject ).
I think it shows poor form to simply discount the national event purely because some shooters do not wish to attend, what your saying in essence is the nationals are just another shoot with no more prestige than a state championship.
We should be promoting it as the countries premier shooting event thus encouraging more shooters to attend THE shoot of the year.
Otherwise if you choose simply any 2 queens what is to discourage people from attending the 2 smallest queens in an attempt to boost their overall ranking.
A national championship is just that, I would not back any grading system that has the ability to undermine the scores and rankings from the national event.
If it is so necessary to have a national ranking outside of the national event why not use the percentage system the QRA uses to position you in A & B grade?
Using this system still gives you a relative ranking with our adding the confusion of awarding points that really seem to have no meaning other than to award a rank.
Using the % system you a ranked against other shooters scores on a % basis makes a lot more sense than using a point based system that is not actually referencing actual scores.
After giving this much thought and deliberation and listening to all comments I think the best thing to do would be to stick with the NRAA system. Alan - yours could be an unofficial "up to date" listing and the NRAA will occasionally update theirs. This would save a lot of frustration.
1) Suggestion of points weighting based on attendance has a lot of support and people have been throwing this idea around for a while but it has a negative side. If the points for the smaller Queens become less important then this will not encourage better attendance. A catch 22 situation and I believe encouraging attendance is the bigger goal here.
2) If you deviate from the NRAA system then we have two ranking systems as well as the gradings and all will lose what relevance that they might have. a bit like all the "world title" boxing belts
3) Most suggestions so far have some merit but also some issues. Nothing stands out as "wow that will work perfectly"
The current system really is not that bad and as numbers and participation grow the smaller Queens will get better numbers (look at WA this year) and Tassie next year will no doubt be at its highest participation ever.
Last edited by DaveMc on Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There's no guarantee of course that the NRAA will revive their system. As I said its stopped being published in the ATR and nothing's been updated on their website since the ACT Queens.
Yes I have thought about the equalibrium effect of giving equal weighting to the poorly attended Queens. In a way that's distorting it in the hope of achieving better attendances there. Then you might ask, should we give double points for the Nationals to lift its attendance? By doing that we would actually be countering a lingering boycott of the Nationals by those disaffected when it was moved from Canberra. Yes there are still some I know who go to the Qld Queens, but refuse to support the Nationals.
Anyway, we'll keep it open for more discussion. There's also some other possible improvements to the points expiry and points decay settings.
If we find that there's too much disagreement about changes, then I guess the best course will be to just go with the existing recipe - better that than cause too many arguments .
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
Quite simple. It brings riches, bitches, groupies, admiration and adulation by the masses, sponsorship deals, product advertising contracts etc etc
Rather than a National Ranking List (that's controversial for all the above reasons), what about a National Average List, based on each shot (rather than each match), of all Queens events that also displays the number of events that have been shot by the individual.
The main batching could be an average based on the main score and then a second average of X counts could then batch shooters that share the same main average.
That way there's little to argue about, the skill of the shooter is illustrated as is the effort in terms of event attendance.
Not at all Denis. All ideas welcome. If I had one reservation about your idea, it doesn't take into account different conditions. So if someone did all their shoots without encountering tough conditions they would have a flattering ranking. If you use placings or percentage of winning score, it directly compares your performance with others at the same event.
I guess its time SA F-Class shooters did the same thing if they are interested in attracting ranking points.
).
Menu
Newest members