Discussion: splits?

epunch gurus - don't forget to upload or send me splits for Attackpoint. I can take whatever format you uploaded to winsplits or routegadget. thanks!

also the splits for GNC....

Can I get them also, please?

FYI - nobody from SDO is on attackpoint to read these messages.

So I was wondering if anyone has found the splits or any version of the results for A-B? I couldn't find the results at the event, either.

ah, I saw splits on the website but didn't notice they were from last year. maybe you guys are on your own for posting splits...if you have them.

It would be a shame to not have results of an event attended by a two-time World Champion and a two-time silver medalist... I know there was something that download station connected to, but maybe that was just a decoy?

What a nasty and unproductive comment.

So what suggestions for constructive commenting have you for a situation in which there are no results at the event or on the website almost a week later? There was plenty of praise for the organizers, despite at least two missing controls on Sunday. A simple note on the website saying "The results are forthcoming" or "We lost our hard drive, apologies, everything is gone" or "Next time we need someone to run our e-punch, here are the garbled files" would be a lot better than snapping at your event attendees. I stood in the download line for about 13 minutes on Sunday and didn't say a word other than "Thanks". The printer was working. Why not post the results?

Maybe it's b/c SD is underwater right about now. People were sandbagging their doorways as I was leaving La Jolla on Monday.

I hope it is not a trend but at another recent A-meet the results were not posted for the first day of the event or even at the evening dinner. Inquiries to the meet officlals brought irritated looks but no explanations.

As meet organizers we are always hassled, but we must provide the important basics for our paying customers. Timely results being one of the basics. Dinners, fancy awards, etc are nice but lower on the priority list.

Geoman, I agree with you 100% in general, particularly for A-meets. But this was a B-meet, they apparently have a skeleton crew of volunteers, and the extreme weather might be a factor; I will cut them some slack...

If results aren't posted by the time I'm back home on Monday, I'll offer to do that for them if they send me their OE event backup files.

I remember when results for club meets at DVOA weren't available until the next newsletter arrived via U.S. Mail.

I'm always amazed and excited when results are posted for club meets before Wednesday ... and they're often up on Sunday night these days, which is above-and-beyond the call of volunteer duty! Yay technology!

I'm with Brooke on the results posting timing. It's nice to have stuff up within a day or two, and that's now expected for A-meets, but this clearly wasn't an A-meet.

Though I do stand by my assertion that most of the results will be meaningless. It's too bad, and I feel for the volunteers who put so much work into it, but you can hardly count a course as valid when there are missing or grossly misplaced controls.

Actually it's not a day or two that is expected for the A meets, it's no later than one hour of the closing of the finish (USOF 16.1), and "as soon as practically possible" for a B meet (USOF F.7.1).

I'm selfish here. My best-ever percent behind a reigning World Champion was at an A meet for which there were no results (the only one in the U.S. in the past 20 or so years). There's some deja vu.

It wasn't a B meet, it was a local club meet. No contact with sanctioning occurred.

As far as I know, there hasn't been a B meet in the US in some years.

HAH! A-B-C. The most outmoded way to label courses. Newbies don't understand what it means. And apparently the regulars don't either ;-)

Wasn't there a suggestion a few months back about re-raming A-Meets to "US Cup" and "Canada Cup" or something along those lines? Maybe renaming both A and B meets would help?

I actually have no idea what a B-Meet officially is. I didn't know that they had to be sanctioned through USOF.

I'm selfish here. My best-ever percent behind a reigning World Champion was at an A meet for which there were no results (the only one in the U.S. in the past 20 or so years). There's some deja vu.

My recollection is that no results survived the weekend of the A meet the weekend before WMOC in 1997. I think some results were posted at the site, but that was the last ever seen of them.

That's The One.

From the BAOC web site for another definition of a B meet:

"BAOC puts on many “local meets” for which the courses meet the standards of A-meet quality; such events are called B-meets. Other events, say, with non-standard formats or with a more casual approach to the event, are called C-meets. As one of the larger clubs in the United States, BAOC usually puts on one or two A-meets per year."

Apparently BAOC's definition is different than USOF's, which requires sanctioning. (I never knew either!)

I'll go on record as saying I don't like BAOC's usage. Besides the confusion, it's bad from a marketing perspective. Last year the BAOC Club Sprint Champs was called a C-meet. So was the uber-prestigous Golden Goat. But the label "C" carries a connotation of lower event quality. Shouldn't be that way.

Would be great if USOF could lead the way in nationwide rebranding, but maybe I can start something in BAOC for now. BTW, I think the "US-Cup" would be a great way to rebrand A-meets!!!

I like B-movies, and I like B-meets, but B has the connotation of not the Best usually. B-grade?

All events should be A-grade.

And what we are currently calling an A is a national level event with specific standards for qualifying as such, including the posting of results.

For those interested, SDO has posted results for Anza Borrego. I'm not sure how they dealt with any of the course issues.

It sounds like an explanation from Bill is coming on how they handled the course issues.

It looks like they pulled out control codes for the missing/misplaced controls on some of the courses.

A note for krechet: I wouldn't use these results in your O-scores database.

@ Cristina. I'm glad to accept any advise,
but could you explain why you wouldn't use them?
Let's say I can try and delete if they have no sense... After all many people ran...and finished. I assume explanation is coming as to where the glitched happened... I will read them carefully

I'll use Red Day 2 as an example, since I seem to have done okay that day (and it's not fair). Other courses may have similar issues, since there were missing/misplaced controls for at least part of the time on Day 2 on the Orange, Brown, Green, Red, and Blue courses.

On Red 2 there was a control stand where control 3 should have been, but no control. I spent 4 or 5 minutes running around to similar nearby features before I saw the stand and decided to continue. Some people searched significantly longer. Some people found a control with the same number about 300m away - but some of them found it right away (more or less 'on the way' to the correct location) and others found it after tens of minutes of searching. It appears from the splits that they simply removed control 3 from the course, which means that your time from 2 to 4 (which now appears as leg 2-3) includes however long you searched for 3. That's fine for a "let's compare splits on the course" use (which I suppose is the idea) but no matter what you do with the splits in this case it is not a valid competition.

Basically, if this were an A meet, the courses probably would've been voided.

One would hope.

I remember similar situation recently on one of BAOC courses led to the equalization of time around the missing control for all runners. In the case you are describing, this would be like setting leg 2-4 as let's say 10 minutes for everybody. Other splits remained untouched.
Even though any solution except void in this case can be called as unfair, the final result was quite consistent with usual finish picture.
The fastest runners were in slight disadvantage in this case, but they rarely complain :)

There were both missing and misplaced controls on almost all courses on Day 2. Some courses had multiple problems. My advice would be to count Day 1 only.

... From what I've heard, day 1 was only marginally better. I'd advise against using either.

One difficult is that while problems may be isolated to individual controls, their consequences can be widespread. It is disruptive to flow and to concentration to encounter incorrectly set controls. The psychological ramifications should be considered.

Since the initial conditions varied among runners more than is deemed acceptable, all the results should be disregarded for ranking analysis (only on the misset courses).

Day 1 had major problems with the contours on the map. For me, they were in a lot of places (on the first half of the course) uninterpretable or just plain wrong. Rock was mapped exceedingly well, though, and there were no missing or misplaced controls on Blue.

Actually, I believe there was a misplaced control on Day 1 for red and blue, fixed by Hubmann as he ran through.

Wonderful. Which one?

look at his tracking...

http://www.danielhubmann.ch/images/stories/maps/20...

Nice, looks like it was 2 on blue, which I think was also 2 on red.

I got there after he did and it was in the correct reentrant. Some of the people I talked to after I finished were going on about how it was in the wrong reentrant (one to the south of the correct one) and I was pretty confused, because it had sure seemed right as I left it. Mystery solved when we found out Hubmann had moved it.

Yep, I was there (along with Troy and Mark Everett) when he moved the second control on Red (#65). I SAW IT HAPPEN! ;-)