Results are posted.
2 Day combined winners:
F-21
. ............................................Day 1...........Day 2 .......Total
1 Penny DeMoss BAOC ....1:32:06.....1:32:14 .....3:04:20
2 Sharon Crawford RMOC ....1:39:00.....1:39:48.....3:18:48
3 Siobhan Fleming NEOC ....2:09:49.....2:04:32....4:14:21
M-21
. ............................................. Day 1............Day 2........Total
1 Jonas Kjall BAOC .............1:15:58.....1:14:40 .....2:30:38
2 Mike Smith Falcon ............1:16:11.....1:17:29 .....2:33:40
3 Gabriel Lombriser Club 29 ....1:19:01.....1:14:47..... 2:33:48
Grattis Jonas!! HÃĪrligt att se!!
Fastest women overall according to O-Scores was
Ellyn Brown (F55+), ARCT , running Green (Overall #21).
Also notice very fast Jaxon Rickel (M-16), TSN, (overall #5 !!) who was running Orange with speed faster than Eric Bone on his Blue/Brown...
Top Green runner was Matthias Kohler (M50+), BAOC. Overall #15
Top Brown runner is George Minarik (M60+), BAOC, overall #36.
@kretchet -- why are you comparing apples to oranges (Jaxon vs. Eric)?? If they had switched courses would the result be the same?
If Jaxon were running Blue - most probably not, but I do not know him personally and can not evaluate reasonably, after all Orange is not so advanced technically.
But if Eric would run Orange, I can confidently say that he will be about the same as Jaxon, believe it or not!
I have a lot of proof
The point is that I invented Oranges, which are very well equal to Brownies, Greens, Red Apples, Blue Whatevers and other vegetables and fruits including White milk still on the mustache :)
Pffft to apples and oranges, I just say way to go Jaxon!
Seriously! I hope Jaxon's parents can get him to some "back-east" A-events in 2010!
Pffft to apples and oranges, I just say way to go Jaxon!
Right again, Cristina... Way to go, Jaxon! He does seem like an up-and-comer and we'll hope he can make it east to the US Champs next October!
[ And, way to go, ladies on F21! Penny and Sharon are my idols. :-) ]
I think this is a new spin to market the Tucson training camp: "Come train where Jaxon Rickel learned to orienteer!" ;-)
It would be interesting to watch competition of
top 3 M-16 on the same course
I think you might have some of your ages wrong... John H-W is M-17 currently (M-18 next year)...
Thanks for mentioning. JHW is OK. Currently in year long rankings there are some last year races which he ran as M-16, so for a while he will appear in both categories. After Jan 1st he will move solidly to M-18. Same with you - appearing both in
M-18 (12th) and
M-20(15th)
Yeah, I think we're actually appearing in lower rankings because of Interscholastics, where we ran green because that was the ISVM category... I haven't run in the M-18 category at an A-meet, ever.
No, you are missing the point: you ARE M-20 ( and year ago you were M-18), independently of what course you were running... and my system allows you to get score and rankings as a function of your "O-speed" (running + navigation) independently of what course you chose to run.
as Jaxon's parent, I will try to get him "back east" next year... and yall are welcome out west!
krechet, this is the first I've seen your rankings... is there some place where I can get an explanation of how they work?
I have tried to explain how it works in help/definitions (up left corner), but you are welcome to ask if it is not clear. I will try to improve.
so how are comparisions made across different courses?
From the user perspective numbers are absolute and comparisons can be done directly. SCores are proportional to O-speed, which is combination of navigation and running skills
So person which runs slow but navigates well might get the same score as person running fast and making navigational mistakes.
If the course is simple and does not require navigation skills, the first person will get lower scores than usual as he will not be able to cash his navigational advantage.
Id the course is very navigationaly challenging, the second person will drop down, as he will be lost and score poorly...
That's why top runners perform about the same as M-14 on yellow courses - Navigation advantage can not be used.....
Jaxon, f.e., need to start running at least Browns to get more navigationally skillful.
ok got it, GVs, how do your rankings differ from the USOF rankings?
My rankings are proportional to USOF if you take every class separate. f.e compare Oranges to Oranges or Greens to Greens.
Difference is when you try to compare Oranges to Greens. It is impossible for current USOF system to compare them. So when person runs Orange, he has no idea how he would perform on the Green course
My system is absolute and allows all comparisons perfectly, this was actually the goal by design.
Because if you think about middle blue, it is about the same length and difficulty as classic Brown, so why distinguish?
In the example above
(M-16 rating)
you can see that Carl was running Reds, Jaxon - Oranges, Ethan and JHW - mix or Reds Greens and Oranges and they weregetting comparable scores each time. All taken care...
This allowed me to predict in the beginning of this thread that Jaxon is one of the fastest M-16 now, even though he never ran Red while all his competitors are running Reds... Voila
My system is absolute and allows all comparisons perfectly, this was actually the goal by design.
Because if you think about middle blue, it is about the same length and difficulty as classic Brown, so why distinguish?
How did you establish the proportions?
Also, as noted in the
USOF Course Designing and Setting Guidelines, middle blue is supposed to be more difficult than classic brown, because brown courses are supposed to have less climb, and have controls on more visible features.
How did you establish the proportions?
I rely solely on the people who switch courses from time to time and on the events where not all courses are offered and people are forced to share the courses. F.E sprints, where many people de "facto" run the same course, even though they often register as different colors)
No single tweaking is used,
none .
Final result is normalized so that AVERAGE RUNNER has POWER = 50 ( out of 4000+ runners in the database)
Scroll to the last line in the
power rating
As for the comparison of the Blue to Brown, sorry for putting it there, it was natural attention distractor....
Without getting into the deep and inresolvable conversation, I should have simply stated the fact that
"
courses of various colors at various places, with various setters and participants differ one from another by various amounts, forming in GV-space vaguely defined cloud of what one could call O-race.
Due to the vagueness of the cloud any attempt to draw sharp boundary can easily be criticized and therefore seems unreasonable.
"
Ufff....
:)
Enjoy
I am tired of discussing the problems with krechet's ranking system so I have been holding off criticizing it every time krechet seemingly inexhaustibly posts more information about it and its results.
Still, if krechet is going to make ridiculous statements like My system is absolute and allows all comparisons perfectly, this was actually the goal by design then I will try one more time.
Here's the very simple point. When you use people who switch courses, you find they do so for non-random reasons. You cannot then use a person's who usually runs course A and for once runs course B to estimate the speed of course B runners against course A runners. The bias is not easy to quantify. If, like me, you think even the USOF ranking system is garbage, then you think krechet's system is garbage squared.
(The USOF system is garbage because it conflates multiple factors that affect course difficulty - length, climb, navigational difficulty - and assumes that the way these factors affect the distribution of speeds is only by multiplicative factors (a 100 point runner is supposed to run twice as fast as a 50 point runner in all races, which if you think about it is also nonsense - the gaps will be bigger at Pawtuckaway than in a campus sprint). krechet takes these problems and makes them worse by mixing white courses with (say) brown courses in the same data set, identifying the relative difficulty of the two by the performance of the brown runner who occasionally runs a white course).
Garbage in, garbage out.
Provided you remember it is just for entertainment and don't take it seriously - any of these rankings - and that the way to judge that you are a better orienteer than someone else is to race them on the same course and beat them - then I have no problem with krechet spending as much time as she wants playing with this stuff - it's her time.
But as soon as you start using rankings for anything serious, please remember they are approximate at best...
krechet, can I request that you please stop posting your ranking news in what seems to be every event thread and a discussion thread every few days, and have one thread for 'O-scores, krechet-style' for those who are interested, so the rest of us can browse Attackpoint without having to read this stuff? That would make me at least very happy, and the fact that the usual Attackpoint readers seem to be ignoring most of your threads suggest many others feel the same.
How attentively one reads the thread to treat Shura K - M34 as "her" :)
Anybody seconds feet's request?
Are you more tired or entertained?
Apologies for the gender error - I should have got it from the last name, though I am confused why you think I should be able to deduce your gender from something in this thread. (I was incorrectly assuming that Shura was a female name, and I have been incorrectly assuming this for months.)
:)
When I point my mouse to "feet"
I see
William
Rochester, NY (14620)
:) what do you see when you do the same with krechet? I mean pointing mouse to the nikname...
Well, I am amused by all of this. Please, carry on!
I like your rankings... keep it up
I like your rankings... keep it up
I do too, as long as he isn't touting it as the perfect, absolute, be-all, end-all to all ranking systems, because it has a number of flaws which have been enumerated already.
Note: "absolute" is used in mathematical sense not meaning "the best" but meaning measure from 0 to some "#" points using the same scale and value for all courses. F.e. 90 Brown points means the same "O-speed" as 90 Blue points and 90 White points, as opposite to 100 Blue points USOF system meaning "relatively" different than 100 Brown points and 100 White points.
I don't know about the validity of the system we use, but I do like the normalization so that the average runner = 50, rather than the top 3 averaged to 100.
krechet, so if an orange runner moves up to red, you'd expect his ranking to go down until he gets used to the increased navagational difficulty of red, and then after he gets used to the navagation his ranking would probably return to what it was on orange?
Yes. With slight correction. I expect his score go down slightly at first and then go quite significantly higher (10-20 points) when he gets used to the navigational difficulty.
Scores of top runners tend to be about 10-15 points less than average at simple courses like orange or sprint due to lack of this very navigational challenge.
In simple words ( and slightly exaggerating) this is due to the fact that even if THE TOP RUNNER can finish blue course 3 times faster than average person, when running plain road the same top runner can be only twice as fast as average runner - no brains involved.
except that it generally takes years for developing runners to really "get used to" the increased navigational (and physical) difficulty of the hardest courses, if they ever do...most don't. It really is more a matter of deliberate training. put nicely, this type of upward comparison is extremely dubious, though it is a great goal for young runners.
although there seem to be several young runners running the red course quite well...
@kretchet: whoa there. the fact that top runners get 10-15 less points than their average on beginner courses in no way implies that developing runners will get 10-20 more points than their beginner average on advanced courses. think about it...you suggest that Jaxon will eventually be 10-20 of your "power points"
faster than Eric Bone on the same course? (again, I really don't intend to be discouraging...I would be very excited to see this happen)
jump in math guys, but there is something like a
conditional probability aspect being ignored.
P(AdvancedResult | BeginnerResult) != P(BeginnerResult | AdvancedResult)
Ken, we can talk about probability applied to real life somewhere else. I'm engineer with a lot of math education and would refer you to the recent book: "Black Swan". if you read it you know what I mean. It is a long discussion.
My statement is purely statistical and based on existing data analysis.
"
Established Blue runner gets statistically significant lower scores while running less navigationaly advanced courses, especially Orange and below.
"
This is the only think I said
I expect his score go down slightly at first and then go quite significantly higher (10-20 points)
apologies if I misunderstand.
I expect his score go down slightly at first and then go quite significantly higher (10-20 points) when he gets used to the navigational difficulty
krechet--I used to like you until you started shilling for NNT and that tripe. ;)
Well, It is OK, if somebody's appreciation is so unstable it doesn't worth much :) I still like to use you as an example, and you somehow related to russians, right?
Now you start to insult me. :)
Sorry If I do, didn't mean to. you are good guy.
you somehow related to russians, right
I'm pretty sure that's z-man.
Isn't there a well established j-man|Russian connection? Even possibly involving a binding legality? Where is Balter when he is needed most!
j-man is very much related to russians.
Or, should I say, one Russian. :-)
I am undercover. For shame!
This discussion thread is closed.