Revive the Rankings?

[jasmay]

Alan, that's why I like the QRA % ranking.... It directly relates to scores

[DenisA]

IMO, in-equality of conditions is something that has and will continue to effect all classes of Fullbore in general in Australia until the point that competitions are shot Bisley style which will most likely never happen or not at least for a very long time..

As we all know and have seen many times, in any given event, one shooter will be on the firing line in volatile conditions while another shooter 30 minutes down the track will get much calmer conditions or visa versa.

True averages are not debatable especially when considered over a few or many events. The odds of shooting several events and always getting the easiest conditions are low. Concerning those with a higher average and low (selective) event count, then its published for every one to see.
Maybe the event attendance could determine different classes. ie, <3, <5, <7.

Standard deviation could also be used to display the consistancy of a shooter. It would identify the difference between a shooter that averages 58 by shooting 60's and 56's and a shooter that averages 58 by shooting 59's and 57's..................... for example.

If somebody had all their shoots without encountering tough conditions, they would just as easily have the opportunity to place well in a % of win system.

Thanks for the reply Alan. I thought I must have smelt bad.

[gone]

Alan, that's why I like the QRA % ranking.... It directly relates to scores

Jason the QRA has a grading system not a ranking system!

[higginsdj]

OK, my 2 bobs worth....

Aim:
To rank shooters based on:
1. Result achieved (regardless of grade - see comment below)
2. Recentness of the achievement
3. Number of achievements
4. Anything else?

Things to consider:
1. What events are to be considered? Queens, Lead-ups, OPM’s
2. Are all events to be treated equally? Ie does a Queens count for more than a Leadup? Does the National Queens count for more than a State Queens? Does a Queens with 300 shooters count for more than a Queens with 100 shooters?
3. How do we rank results? Ie at present only placings are considered BUT is a first by 1 centre as worthy as a first by 10 points? Ie what if the ranking, rather than using points for places uses % grade values instead (Winner = 100, second = % of winner etc) this way if results are very close then the ranking results should also reflect this. This method will also allow lower grade shooters to be ranked. ie Why should a B grader not be considered if they are currently shooting as good or better than A graders just because on average they are still in B grade?
4. Age the ranking values (anything wrong with the current method of aging the results?)
5. The more you compete the higher up the ranking you may appear – have no limits or set limits on number of events that count?

[DenisA]

Is the goal of any kind of system to:

a. Identify the shooters that have had the most success in terms of placing's at events? Or:-

b. To establish a National ladder of shooter skill?

They're different things and need different systems. The guy that's won the most events isn't necessarily the best shooter.

[AlanF]

Is the goal of any kind of system to:

a. Identify the shooters that have had the most success in terms of placing's at events? Or:-

b. To establish a National ladder of shooter skill?

They're different things and need different systems. The guy that's one the most events isn't necessarily the best shooter.

Denis,

Agreed. The previous ranking system, and what I propose to revive, is definitely closer to your (a.) The proposed "grading average" to be used for a national grading system attempts to identify the shooters who have had the most success in terms of comparative scores. It doesn't necessarily establish a ladder of shooter skill either, because again it will depend on which events shooters choose to attend.

If you wanted to find out who is the best shooter, you'd need to have a series of events with compulsory attendance with all participants shooting simultaneously on ranges where conditions were equal across the full width of the mound. And even that wouldn't satisfy the purists, unless equipment was identical.

What I propose is something very easy to maintain, which goes a long way towards recognising who are the best shooters currently competing reasonably often at Queens level. I would like to make some improvements to have it better achieve that goal, as long as those improvements don't add significantly to the maintenance task.

Alan

[jasmay]

Alan, that's why I like the QRA % ranking.... It directly relates to scores

Jason the QRA has a grading system not a ranking system!

Yes but if you look at the way it works i.e. giving you a % figure based on the top score for each PM you attend rather than awarding points. I think it a system that could work quite well. Rather than using a complicated system that awards points that slowly diminish over time.

[TOM]

Alan Would the ranking list include F Standard and FTR.

[AlanF]

Alan Would the ranking list include F Standard and FTR.

Tom,

Would certainly include F-Std (on its own list), but F/TR figures would be pretty meaningless until it gets included at most Queens.

Alan

[jasmay]

Alan, how do points get awarded? Is it by placing?

Does it cater for Ties? how are points awarded if say, the top 10 shooters were separated by only a few centeres? Or by count back alone?

[AlanF]

Alan, how do points get awarded? Is it by placing?

Does it cater for Ties? how are points awarded if say, the top 10 shooters were separated by only a few centeres? Or by count back alone?

Jason,

The existing system used placings, which are always resolved at Queens (by either shoot-offs or countbacks if necessary). In F-Open for Queens for example, the points were 1st place 43, 2nd 32, 3rd 21, 4th 11, 5th 1. After 3 months, each points amount would subsequently "decay" by 1.5 points per month. After 2 years any remaining points value from a placing was lost. Also, only a shooters top 6 points amounts (remaining value) were included in the ranking total. It might sound complex, but is quite simple for a computer program.

Alan

[gone]

OK, my 2 bobs worth....


Things to consider:
1. What events are to be considered? Queens, Lead-ups, OPM’s
Current system Queens and lead up events only
2. Are all events to be treated equally? Ie does a Queens count for more than a Leadup?
No currently lead ups are 25 points (I think) for the first 5 places being 25 points first, 20 points second and so no,
Queens 50 points going to the first 10 places (A grade only) being 50 points first 45 points second etc
Does the National Queens count for more than a State Queens?
Not with the current system.
Does a Queens with 300 shooters count for more than a Queens with 100 shooters?
Not with the current system.
3. How do we rank results? Ie at present only placings are considered BUT is a first by 1 centre as worthy as a first by 10 points?
If you are second you get second points regardless of the amount (I lost the national queens in a shoot off and got second points)
Ie what if the ranking, rather than using points for places uses % grade values instead (Winner = 100, second = % of winner etc) this way if results are very close then the ranking results should also reflect this.
If you look at the current grading's B grade cut off is 94% most A graders are over 98% how many decimal place should we go to (how do you handle ties?) the derivative sections would be very hard to check? and what happens in the event the B grade score is higher than the A grade winning score where is the 100% mark then?
This method will also allow lower grade shooters to be ranked. ie Why should a B grader not be considered if they are currently shooting as good or better than A graders just because on average they are still in B grade?
I was told then nominate as an A grader, the current system only tracks the top 100 A grade shooters.
4. Age the ranking values (anything wrong with the current method of aging the results?)
Pros and cons (as I see it) it takes a long time to loss points but if you only shot 1 per year (and win it) you still have a high position down side try to be a splash in the pan and catch bob pado or rod davies?
5. The more you compete the higher up the ranking you may appear – have no limits or set limits on number of events that count?
Currently only the your top 8 points 25 or 50 finishes count therefore max points would be around 375 but if you look the top points f class by Bob is only just over 200. win four queens next year and place well in the lead up and you have him easy!

Please see the answers above, it is a pity the NRAA have taken down the derivatives section and the rules when they copied them across are a lot of this was covered. If you look at the rankings they seem to have worked prior.

[TOM]

Lead up results from South Australia would be a good argument to include all F class results in order of merit, regardless of grade or discipline this would give true indication of who's what.

Then you could have a seperate Rank for discipline if your warm and fuzzy is a little wrinkled.

[AlanF]

Lead up results from South Australia would be a good argument to include all F class results in order of merit, regardless of grade or discipline...

Tom,

The 3 disciplines have clearly different equipment specs so it makes sense to have rankings for each. Often, particularly with small fields as in the SA leadup, you'll get surprises, in this case the strong F/TR showing. I'd generally expect F/TR to score similarly to F-Std in easy conditions then somewhere between F-Std and F-Open in tougher conditions. In the Hunt, the F/TR median agg score was pretty much identical with F-Open. Lets see if that trend continues in the Queens.

Alan

[TOM]

I understand your line of thought Alan, however, You can use any calibre in F open and those rifles with F/TR or F standard specs will fall in line with F open Rules, why not lump them together to derive a true F class rank on a whole? If need be, then a discipline ranking?