Discussion: WRE scoring / ranked runner calculation (clarification)

I thought I would pass on something regarding the WRE rankings that might interest a few people.

In North America it has traditionally been quite hard for women runners in particular to score WRE points. This is because of the requirement for a minimum number of "ranked runners" to complete the course in order for any scores to be awarded at all. A "ranked runner" is defined as someone with 600 or more WRE points average. Often in North America we would not have the minimum number of "ranked females" so no females would score points. Leading to a vicious circle.

The Canadian Federation approached the IOF who have now adjusted the calculation of what is a "ranked runner". Basically they have created a second WRE score for all runners which is an attempt to allow "ranked runners" to maintain their ranked status for a little bit longer.


2.3 becomes: A ranked runner is defined as one who has scored World Ranking points in the 18 months before the event and whose average points score is greater than or equal to 600 and who finishes within the winner's time plus 50%


2.10 remains at: The best four results in a twelve month period shall give the overall score of each ranked runner.

As I said, I'm not sure if anyone is interested ;-)

I have had some thoughts a few times before.

This "female problem" is not just your Canadian problem. It is a most common problem at WRE events in all less development o-countries.

My personal view about WRE goes in this direction.

1. One problem is that federation with only sending runners to WOC can’t produce enough domestic ranked runners. Federation or organizer interest to organize event with WRE status is basically connected with the goal of producing more domestic runners with WRE points / ranked runners.
2. WRE status should be free of charge or at least (different fee classes) as long as federation don’t have at least 6 ranked runners M/W at the end of the season.
3. In my opinion WRE is not stand for “World ranking event” as IOF not give any official diploma or medals for WRE event. I see that WRE status should stand for whole event not just one race which is part of the multiday event. Many events don’t need this promotion anymore. Many runners don’t care about WRE status as long as map and terrain is superb. Now we have WRE which stand only for “World Rankings”. Promotional aspect for the “small WRE race” (not event) is lower than it should be.
4. IOF should think how to use WRE to promote both: events and athletes. In orienteering we have World Ranking based almost only on athlete’s performances if we leave aside the IP factor. If you look at highest scoring runs you will see that WOC events are not among them. IP factor can’t solve this even if this was one solution to the problem without changing the whole formula. I think WRE formula should be generated from two parts – points from event status and points from athlete performance. In this way"IP factor" will be part of the first part of the formula and we could use in second part only one athlete performace formula for all races. Opposite solution to ours is ATP ranking in Tennis which is based exclusively only on events. Both systems have good and bad implications but in tennis they are also thinking to use athlete’s performances like they have had use it before. I think that combination of both systems can be batter also for orienteering.
5. Conclusion
Stimulating national organizers to organize WRE events should be the main goal. Each IOF member federation should organize at least 3 WRE events per year if it is capable to meet quality standards. WRE should be seen more as a necessary promotional tool of IOF development policy and not just as secondary “elite event” for countries willing to pay for it. Money should not be the factor of this basic development. If we change WRE formula IOF could make better fee system and charge fee based on event points status (first part of the WRE formula). More important event you want to host (points) higher is fee. But basic WRE event (the lowest points for event status) should be free. We all know that constant promoting of Elite orienteering is the first step for every country wanting to build Elite orienteering with sufficient number of R runners.

I am new to all this, but it sounds good - so this means those of use who scored over 600 at the WCOC WRE last May still count towards points being earned at the SML Champs Middle? That would be good. Is that a correct interpretation?

Can they retroactive it to Vancouver Sprint? or would that not have helped?

whose average points score

That's ambiguous... they should have stated whether this particualr average is over 12 months or 18 months. We know this is not the same average as in 2.10; the 2.10 score isn't an average, it's a sum of four best scores, whereas the number that goes into the calculation is the average of all non-zero scores.

Is being ranked have an AVERAGE of 600 points, or ANY run over the last 12 (18) months with more than 600 points? I thought it was later - if you had any run scoring 600 points, then you were a ranked runner.

It's an average. Eg, if you have 2 races - an 800 point race and a 300 point race, you wouldn't be "ranked".

Looks like it worked?

Pam James and Katherine Scheck are now ranked after the COC Sprint, even though only Louise and Carol were "ranked" prior to that event.

At: http://iof.6prog.org/WR_Aths.aspx?fed=CAN&how=F&so...

Women
Rank Points Athlete ID Best 4 Scores
91 4346 R Louise Oram CAN75 1206 1169 987 984
132 3726 R Carol Ross CAN101 988 929 907 902
181 3116 R Emily Kemp CAN83 934 760 750 672
203 2860 R Sandy Hott CAN4 1056 973 831
762 721 R Pam James CAN3 721
842 611 R Katherine Scheck CAN69 611
=950 416 Andrea Balakova CAN85 416 0 0 0

Note: All of the women in Canada's current list who have scored a listed run more than 600 recently are "ranked". On the men's side most are, except for Steven Graupner, Jeffrey Teutsch and Graham Ereaux. There appears to be a mistake with Darius Konotopetz's ranking as both his listed runs are above 600 and he hasn't got an "R" beside his name.

I'm confused about how 2.3 and 2.10 work together- so determination of "ranked runners" is an average over 18 months, with that average score presumably being the one that goes into the points calculation for the race? That seems to make the most sense.

And then 2.10 is just about the actual world ranking list, which is the sum of best 4 in previous 12 months? So you could have a WRL score of 0 and still be a "ranked runner".

The 18 month thing should actually really, really help the North American women get more WREs to count I think, which I'm really thankful for, so thanks to AZ and whoever else petitioned for that change!

Looking at the list for USA, then gals who are in the country for the fall S/M/L champs in Boston and already have high enough scores (that will last til then) are: me, Pavlina, Erin and Corinne. Hopefully Alex and Hannah will get enough points at WOC, Becks also has enough, and the 6 Canadian gals above, if any are planning on coming down (should be good races and Boston is easy to fly to...)!

Not sure that the current rankings have included any of the coc races yet. Only wcoc as it seems to have been last updated on july 21.

Just a quick note to clarify (NOT) the situation. You can not tell from the IOF's website what each person's ranking score is - that is calculated based on the last EIGHTEEN months of results. The only way to tell if they are ranked is by the "R" beside their name (or to do the calculation yourself).

The number shown in the IOF page is the current WRE score for the runner which is based on the best four scores in the last TWELVE months.

Confused? I sure am,

BTW: I have asked the IOF Foot O Commission to consider using the previous 18 months for both the WRE score and the ranking calculation. That certainly makes the most sense in North America, where we have so little access to WRE events that our points expire and therefore we get crazy rankings that are based largely on who has the most races. For example, even though we had 8 WRE events in North America last year, Patrick G had only three un-expired (based on 12 months) scores before the COC champs. This put him artificially low in the WRE standings. Extending the expiry to 18 months would have given a more accurate reflection of the abilities of our top runners.

PS: The rankings don't yet include the COC races - the score keeper is on holiday. He had warned about this. He is usually remarkably quick at putting up the results - and I'm sure he'll get them up shortly after the Scotish 6-days is done ;-)

Question: Is there any disadvantage (to anyone) of using the previous 18 months of results rather than the previous 12?

Also, where are the USA and Canada on using their allocation of WREs for this and future years? Maybe we should award WREs to events that are likely to have the highest possible number of female runners likely to finish with a 600 or greater. And we should be trying to get JWOC women into these, as well as promising local-event-only female runners. (And if this is already taken care of---sorry, I'm out-of-touch sometimes.)

We are at a stage that we reluctantly fill the "old quota" in the U.S., but not the new quota of 3×USA + 3×CAN + 3×(USA/CAN/Barbados, Cuba, others)/year. The Canadians are doing a great job, but it is sometimes very hard to persuade U.S. A meet organizers to hold a WRE. "Award" isn't the proper verb as much as "cajole".

In 2012 I think we will have all 9. The US Champs (3), NAOC (3), and 3 for almost sure in Canada (COCs)

That's the U.S. Individual Orienteering Championships.

Example 1

Why WRE formula is not good.

TG beated Peter Öberg in MiddleF by 2:21 and gets 1458 points (IP 1.1)
http://iof.6prog.org/WR_Event.aspx?EID=1876

Peter Öberg beated TG in MiddleQ by 0:56 and gets 1480 points (IP 1.05)
http://iof.6prog.org/WR_Event.aspx?eid=1889&hi=FRA...

In total Peter Öberg beated TG by 9 points.

Don't you think that beating Thierry is worth more points than beating Peter O?

It will get even worse in future as the IP factor for "special" races is going to be removed

Yes, Oberg has deserved it :) but this is not what WRE is meant to be.

So what is the point to have a WRE with none one really takes care besides publishing the results and a small face lifting issues each year? Is this with IP factor officially or not? I mean, I hear this for the first time. A lot of countries and organizers don't have the same interest to host WRE as in the past. That is reality. I suppose that something must be changed in the future so we will all have much more interest in WRE as today. It should be more publicity around Rankings as it is now. We must find a way to give more credit to WRE.

After all that thing with IP is not bad in my opinion. They just need to come with a better ranking system. Would be good to know which sports use the combined calculation for Rankings (event status and athlete performance).

Samo, I wouldn't judge the Rankings too harshly on a couple of races. The Middle Final spread the runners out a lot, so the standard deviation was large, so it's harder to get lots of points at the top end.

Edit: Note also Peeter Pihl got 965 points, despite being nearly 30 minutes behind TG.

WRE says Thierry is best in the world, Hubmann second, Lundanes third. That's close enough to correct for me.

Scrapping IP seems like a terrible idea.

I haven’t played with statistics for quite a long time so I may be wrong. Correct me if I am wrong. What I see as a problem is MP/SP and not the time spread itself. You can't influence on time of the runners, but you can on MP/SP with appropriate definition of R runners. In Qualification and at small WRE races (more runners) SP is always higher due to the weaker R runners. If you than get also a good spread of runners than you have potential to gain a lot of WRE points because MP/SP is more important than MT/ST combination. And that was happened in Qualification.

Even if the WRE standing is good enough, (I agree) this is bad for promotion of WRE. It is just not right that WRE is more about how many "poor runners" you can beat and not how many good runners you can beat.

To add to comments by AZ and Tundra/Desert about using our full quota of WREs. There are 5 IOF licenced Event Advisors in North America and 4 of those are in the far west--BC, Alberta, and California. If COF and O USA want WREs, more EAs will need to be licenced. There are many people in NA with the skill set to do the job but they need to be recruited, trained, and licenced.

Example 2

I went through the WRE Guidelines 2011 to look what ranked runner means. I didn't find anything. Also I didn’t find anything in IOF Foot Orienteering Competition Rules or in World Cup 2011 Special Rules.

It seems that some parts of Specification for World Ranking Events in 2001 are still valid but I couldn't find it under valid Foot O Rules. So, is this document from 2001 officialy still valid explanation or it is just that some parts are missing in WRE 2011 guidelines?

In 2.3 I found explanation what ranked runners are. For middleF points calculation they use this 3rd criteria: "and who finishes within the winner's time plus 50%." So, only 41 runners were used for calculation instead of 45. All runners were ranked - R - before the event and I always thought that all ranked runners are in the equation but that they can't get points if their time is more than 50% winner's time.

It is strange that we have official WRanking were runners are ranked (R) but this R could have more meanings. We set border at 600 points for R status and 50% time criteria should not influence on the final score of other runners in this way.

So if everybody beside TG would get lost (or just max. 1 of them inside of 50% winner's time) than also TG would not get any WRE points. It is strange, very strange logic.

Runners should be included as they are good runners but without their times...but this might solve only one part of the formula and would still be impossible to calculate the points in such a case as you can't calculate the mean points MP because they are over 50%).

12.9.11
To use unranked runners is far better approach if such a case happen with R runners. Look in the next posts.

Example 3

Nordic Orienteering Tour, part 2
Nordic Orienteering Tour, part 3

Both events are listed in the World Events Diary but with the World Cup 2011 Special Rules they were excluded from WRanking. And to be meticulous if Specification for World Ranking Events in 2001 is somehow still valid that this is not true for 1.2 anymore - All World Cup individual races count towards the World Ranking lists.

If we want to have WRanking than excluding the races from WRanking is very bad idea. Race format have priority over W Ranking. Not good at all.

A big confusion about something that should be clear from the Rules 100% and also from WRanking, WRdiary, .....

One of the issues with the IP system as it stands is that it's very difficult to get high scores in anything other than WOC, World Cup and a few other specific races - this becomes a problem if individual world rankings are used for WOC qualification (although that doesn't look like happening) as it makes it a 'closed shop'.

I had a look at which races in 2010 produced individual scores above 1300 (men) or 1250 (women), which is about what you need to average to be in the top 40. Something like 81% of the 400-odd scores of that level were achieved in WOC or World Cup races, and most of the rest came in either Nordic elite races or the early-season Portugal/Spain events that get a lot of internationals. A grand total of 9 scores above the threshold came from anywhere else, and 3 of those were from Simone Niggli in Swiss national events.

The logic of using IP it seems to me justified (to give more credit to high profile events) but it was mainly introduced in a wrong way and because of a wrong reason (to cover the statistics anomaly of the formula when it comes to not normal distribution of R runners or their times).

So if you compare high score races without IP you would get a totally different picture. --- I mean not in general but among them, like example between middleQ winners (A/1384; B/1331; C/1410) and MiddleF(1325) at WOC 2011.

I don't think that even higher IP for Final WOC races is the right solution.

Example 4

Alic: And then 2.10 is just about the actual world ranking list, which is the sum of best 4 in previous 12 months?

When I was watching at today WRE list, I saw Simone on first place with 3th best result achieved 1 year and 1 day ago. It also stated: FootO World Ranking
as at last event on Sat 20 Aug 2011. So we don't have WRE Ranking valid for the last 12 months as we don't have valid WRE for all days in a year. We have valid WRE for 12 months from the last completed event which could be more than 12 months.

Analogy is valid also for 18+ months average that goes into the points calculation for the race. So this might cause a problem with average points when such a runner takes part at first next race in WRE Calendar after this kind of situation.

2.3 becomes: A ranked runner is defined as one who has scored World Ranking points in the 18 months before the event and whose average points score is greater than or equal to 600 and who finishes within the winner's time plus 50%

AZ: Where is that new text in the Rules? I couldn't be able to find it.

Example 5

I was thinking about the last part of definition how the ranked runner is defined.

"R" runner is.....who finishes within the winner's time plus 50%.

Any ordinary logic explanation would help but I didn't find anything useful. I am wondering what kind of statistical logic is behind it to justified this border/definition. How accurate or important this border in fact is or why this 50% border doesn't shift over years? Which situations might have good/bad influences on point calculation and on R/unranked runners points?

In normal distribution with ideal sample where all the runners in the race are R runners you could have Mean time=median=50% of population/sample but their times could be distributed on time interval very randomly - winner's time +30%, +50%, +100%, +300%,.... Probably after experimental year 1998, they decided that R runners should be inside Winner's time+50% as this was at that time probably very close or identical to interval of 2 standard deviations (2SDs) which respond to 95,4% of all runners. I must check oneday. Focus was on these runners inside of this interval as they were good representatives of all runners at TOP LEVEL. 2SDs from mean = 600 points = point border for R runners.

Rule 2.12
At the end of each year, both groups of ranked runners (i.e. men and women separately) shall have the points of each runner re-based so that their average points have an overall mean of 1000 and standard deviation of 200.

For example; In a race where you let say have 20 runners all of them are R runners with 600 points you get mean points (MP)=600 points. Let say that all of them have also a) same race time 30min=(MT) or b) very close to it. In this case a) all runners are obove mean time = 600 points and get/keep R status and b) some of them will get lower than 600 points. Eventually these R runners under mean time could lose their R status. In any kind of different distribution of R runners points and times at least all R runners above mean time will get more than 600 points!

So in any case (ideal) we want to give R status to the runners who can be among 50% of R runners/all runners in the race, above mean time of R runners and to most/all runners who are inside of time interval +2SDs away from mean time with max. race time of winner's time+50%.

Border of 2SDs probably varies around 50% of winner's time during the year. It might but I must check! At small races more than at more important races. Because of that we make adjustment in points with normalization of overall mean and standard deviation at the end of each year. But we keep the 50% border although R runners are probably on time interval Winner+2SDs more homogeneous than 12 years ago. That tells me that 50% border was probably introduced because we wanted to have in MP/SP only runners who could do performances on this time interval. Arbitrary desicion and not statistical. Probably still good because for runners over 50% you never know why they did so bad (injury, large mistakes-jog, etc...). This mean that some R runners at some races even if they could be inside of winner's time+50% they are outside of 2SDs. (WOC 2011 MiddleF)

They have influence on point calculation but in theory we don't want that. Take into account also their times it give us different mean time which means that more runners could/probably get at least 600 points - R status. Only R runners inside of 2SDs should be suitable for point calculation at each race. Because of more homogeneous group time border should have been shifted over the years which might be additional required task for Rule 2.12. New time border might be calculated as average of all top races in previous year (WOC, WC,...) as winner's time+2SDs time. Probably we would get lower time border (bacause of more homogeneous group of today TOP runners) than 50% which could have good implication on point calculation. In this way you could exclude from the point calculation all runners outside of 2SDs and probably some runners inside of 2SDs. This might result that MP will be higher but also MT. Should be interesting to see WOC 2011 MiddleF and MiddleQ point calculation on this basis.

Intention behind this is that we want from all runners (new and old) to be at the level where are 95,4% (+/-2SDs) of all runners competing at WOC, WC and other major races. For ilustratrion, maybe at the start in 1998 this was winner's time+50%, today winner's+45,3% and in future winner's time+25,04%. Who knows? but we must accept this level which can be achieved by 95,4% of all TOP runners!

So in most high level races where only good R runners run (WOC MiddleF) we have higher final distribution of times on left side of mean and on races with more unranked runners on right side of mean (WOC middleQ and small WRE races).

Problem from my point of view is:
At small or even relatively large WRE races as it was Lipica OPEN 2006 you have also a lot of good unranked runners (juniors in Elite class, previous R runners without R status because of a different reasons - birth, injuries, pausing). Some of them always achieve good results as it is expected but their times are not used for the calculation. At Lipica three of them achieved time which was better than mean time of R runners. Their results were achieved among many (more than 6) R runners! Formula CALCULATES average time ONLY for the ranked runners in (before) the race and this is controversial for me!

WOC MiddleF calculation shows us that 50% winner's time include into calculation also 1 runner (Johan Runesson/SWE) who is outside interval of two standard deviations. For this specific race we could say that this runner is not anymore very good representative of the sample. For R status runner should be inside of 2SDs regardless of the quality of R runner or how many strong runners are in the race! He is allowed to have a bad day but not worse than +2SDs. In this case these five runners are in some way "outliers" and nobody should be included into calculation regardless to be inside of 50% winner's time. This is my reason why time border should be shifting over years!

So we have a situation when R runner outside of 2SDs was included in calculation but runners above the mean time of R runners were not! Logically I would be expected that final points for Lipica 2006 or any similar race should be recalculated. In Lipica case with 3 runners more: Ferenc Lévai, Igor Vuković and Jonas Rass. This might also solve the problem as it is presented in Example 2.

Definition of "R" runners shouldn't be closed as it is now. New Runners should have a chance to influence on point calculation regardless of their unranked status before the event! Runner's times which are better then mean time of R runners should be recognized as - R status! I am more and more convinced that definition of R runners should be changed.

Probably I forgot something or I don't understand WRE logic correctly but it looks wrong to me. It is just a quick shot so I hope that anyone could add something or correct me.

I finally finish my poem and I hope it is readable....for a few O' geeks.

Let me try to define where I think the text for the rules comes from ;-)

First, it is not really "rules", but is in the "Specification for World Ranking Events in 2001" document. I think this is a document created by the advocates of World Ranking events to describe precisely the formula(s) used. My guess is that this document is updated from time to time, but that the web version is not always kept up to date. The only place I know to find this document is here, which you can get to by going to the IOF's World Ranking page, scrolling to the bottom of the page and pressing "Information", and then pressing "Technical Details".

How do I know that 2.3 and 2.10 have been changed? I was told in a personal email when I inquired about the change from 12-month to 18-month base for the calculation. Helpful?

At the Foot-O Commission meeting during WOC 2011, there was a discussion about changing the calculation to be 18-months duration. I was sad to hear that this was not accepted. The only reason I have heard for keeping the 12 months is a concern that runners (in Europe I suppose) won't have to go to as many WRE races to keep good points if there is an 18 month expiration.

This was sad for me, because I would have hoped the primary consideration is to get the rankings to be a reasonable reflection of the talents of the runners. This is important if the WRE standings are to be used for selection - or even for seeding - for important races. It seems to me that there are at least some days on which the WRE provides very strange ordering for runners who have less than four runs.

The FootO Commission did not feel that having North American runners ranked in the proper order was important enough a concern to change the calculations.

Just to explain the previous post a bit - immediately before WOC the Canadian men were ranked: Will C., Jon T., Patrick G.. This is because Will C and Jon T were the only two with four races counting (Patrick had only 3). No disrespect to the legendary JT, but this is not the correct ordering, and if WOC entry were based on WRE, well obviously it would not be okay.

Simone with points from one year and one day ago? I think the online ranking must not be updated daily. Seems like a bug

It isn't. It's a manual update when Ray the number cruncher gets to do it. He keeps very weird hours (for someone in Europe) on the days of North American events, so we sometimes get an illusion that the update is almost instantaneous after we post the results on the event website.

Right. I got the dates backwards in Kofols' post. It is just a matter that the calculation isn't run every day, which it would need to be to expire points each day.

Simone's points are still (27th Aug) the same as they were at 22th of August. It is not very, very important issue, BUT still this is the only WRanking we have and it is not just a local thing so it is sad that IOF just stand by and do nothing about it so long. This should be resolved as the Rules says.

We all know that some organizers don't send results soon after the event or next day as they are busy, IT problems and so on.....! WRankings should be up to date and this kind of problems (I am sure that they know about it for a very long time) should be first alarm for Foot O to do a quick respond. I have in mind just a precise rule.... Rankings update is one day before each event! I am sure that this task could be programmed but in intermediate time that should be done manually. If organizer is not able to send it before update, results must be discarded. Database should be rerun at least one day before each WRE event and organizers should know when expire their deadline to send the results.

And we have sometimes also a problem with delays because of the holidays..... Is WRanking just a hobby for someone wheh he/she have a time for it?

Interesting. In the WRE Guidelines it says that the elite start lists should be seeded according to WRE, but as of what date? I guess the idea is that the WRE should be stable, but this expiration of results (among other things) is creating a bit of a problem.

To be fair to the guys running the WRE scoring, yes, it is not a full time job for them. It is done on a volunteer basis and they are even struggling with some lack of support from within some areas of the IOF. Personally I have high hopes for a strong World Ranking system,and I appreciate the work and leadership these volunteers are contributing. I wish all the IOF were behind the WRE system.

Is WRanking just a hobby

The results processing is done by a paid part-time contractor. The decisions (about how the system works) are made by the volunteer-composed Foot-O Commission.

From an athlete and national federation point of view (maybe also from media position) it is just a matter of principles. Can we run WRanking as we agreed on (by the Rules) no matter who is in charge and who get paid.

I hope that they will fix it as soon as it will be possible. IT solution for this mini problem should be very easy. They don't need official order from Foot O Commission to do it. Especially not for something which is already within the Rules.

You can just ask... ray at 6prog dot org

Maybe, but from a person representing national federation would be more polite. More officially.

About 2.3 definition

Regina Bertoti (HUN) was 17th in WOC 2011 - middle Q (women C) on 14th of August. Results shows that she was inside winner's time+50%. By definition she could be without R status because of: average 18 months points score is lower than 600.

But she fulfilled this reason for R status one day before at LongQ where she got 609 points.

She didn't get R status because WRE LongQ points were not used in determination who is R runners. For R runner status only unweighted points are important as says rule 2.4. That is O.K. but both definitions should be clearer and more precise about that - 18 months and average unweighted (i.e. for IP=1.00) ranking points.

AZ: It will get even worse in future as the IP factor for "special" races is going to be removed

Rule 2.9: IP is a factor which depends on the status of the event. It normally equals 1.00. For WOC individual race Finals, IP is raised to 1.05.

In one of previous post I wrote:
The logic of using IP it seems to me justified (to give more credit to high profile events) but it was mainly introduced in a wrong way and because of a wrong reason (to cover the statistics anomaly of the formula when it comes to not normal distribution of R runners or their times).

Example 6
Only avg. R runners points and R runners times are not enough, because statistical formula gives in not normal distribution of R runners points and times very bad results. It should be important also how many R runners and how strong R runners you can beat.

I make an example how to change IP factor to Ranking points! Here is an example for WOC2011 MiddleQ/C MEN and for WOC2011 FINAL MEN

So, if you beat R runner who came in the race with more than 1200 avg. 18 months points you get additional 6 points, etc. I put more rank points to runners who have higher 18 months avg. score as it is in most cases logically that it is harder to beat these runners than R runners with lower avg. points, e.g. 700 points.

Rank points scale:
over 1200/6 points
over 1000/4 points
over 800/2 points
over 600/1 point

In Qualifications you have more weaker runners than in the Final so additional Ranking points would give credit to runners final Rank no matter if you beat your rival only for 1''. As formula stands now you get the same additional IP points if you beat 15 runners by 30'' or just 1 runner by 30''. It could be only 30'' but it is 15 places higher in the Rank and that should be awarded. At the end of the race only Rank is important and not time and time is already part of the performance part of the formula. Someone could be very good runner and high on WRankings with lots of 4th, 7th or 16th places at WOC,WC but this is quite bad consolation.

In WOC MiddleQ/C two runners were separated only by 1' and in Rankings only by 1 point.
17 Ross Morrison NZL 31:32 1102
18 Rob Preston AUS 31:33 1101

With this formula and Ranking points the spread would be 3 points. Ross gets additional 2 points because he beats Rob (R runner) who came in the race with 2 Rank points for his 18 months avg.score 971,67 points.

When you compare Ranking points for Qual and Final it is evident that winner in Final gets more ranking points (206 points) than winner in Qual (107 points). Also winner in Final gets absolute more points than winner in Qual. Final points spread among all runners is greater and it is easier to achive this with Ranking points as with IP.

DIFFERENCES - IP or RANKING POINTS approach
in 3th last column in Middle F jpeg shows differences in points between IP and Ranking points where both are fixed at 10% for Winner. It clearly shows how IP gives more points than Ranking points for each runner. IP gives too much points for bad performance for low rank compare to Ranking points. For example; (Johan Runesson/SWE) gets 109 points more with IP than with Ranking points system. Also Peeter Pihl would get 88 points less with Ranking points as he didn't beat none one of R runners.

It is logically because runner in Final must beats more R runners and more stronger R runners that in Qualifications. Today we can't achieve this with IP factor as we don't give credit for each place in the Rankings. It would be easier with Ranking points as it is more flexible tool.

Spread among the runners depends how you create the Ranking scale (not to low/not to high) and how many/how strong R runners are in the race. It is a good way to give additional points only to runners higher in the Rank (who beats R runners) and not as today where all runners gets additional IP points. Races with just a few and not so good R runners won't be the same as race with many/strong R runners. Each WRE race should be unique as every race gather different runners. Ranking points should be seen as competitiveness points regardless of the event status. Same system for all WRE races.

In WOC races you have limited number of runners so it would be good to fix number of used max. R runners for calculation of Ranking points also for other WRE events where you could have 100 or more R runners in the race. Maybe 44 as this is the max. R runners that you could beat in the WOC Final.

IP factor

I still believe that IP factor could be part of the formula but we should include it in a different way. Today rule says that IP depends on the status of the event. I don't think that is the correct interpretation of the rule. IP acts more or less as bad copy of Ranking points which I described and not as additional IP points for event status.

I see points for event status as fixed concept and not as today where each runner gets different additional IP points on different WOC races for same final place. Additional IP points (status of the event) should not be depended on runners time performance base. Only final rank should count. Like for example (1st place - 50 points, 2nd - 45 points, etc). At lower level of WRE races (1st place - 25 points, 2nd - 30 points, etc) or same points for all Runners at one level as this could be even better approach. Event points should not overlap with Ranking points. Meaning and goals why to use them both should be different. Both tools should be able to achieve different goals for all runners in the race. I see 3-4 levels of Event points for WRE races.

IP factor should be fixed for different level of WRE events. On TOP should be WOC, WC races but also races with prize money awards. Level of the race should be based more or less on prize money awards for elite runners! Logic of this system is to have same event points also for some races out of WOC, WC. We would just need to make an agreement about required min. SUM of prize money awards for races which want to have same event status as WOC, WC. Similar system like in Tennis. Runners should also know financial aspect of the race by the IP factor. We want to be more professional sport so we must give to the best athletes info. which races are prominent races beside WOC, WC... At which races organizers want to see strong field and can be simultaneously also appropriate high level races for runners to finance their professional sport careers. To stimulate athletes to come to the event and also to win more WRE points. What is the point to have World champions and orienteering stars who have more interest to train than interest to compete on WRE races?

On bottom I see WRE events which are held basically to promote Elite orienteering. Probably without or with just a few additional Ranking points, no money awards and no IOF fee for countries without less than 6 R runners at the end of the year. Eventually this would give also better overview to the media how elite events are structured.

WRE formula as: Event points+Performance points+Ranking points

I have made some more tests and found a few mistakes in my early assumptions. Things that could be good and should work well I included in proposed WRE Formula. Also Results and theoretical explanations are better than I thought they would be.

WHAT ARE WE SEARCHING?
With new formula we should try to find fair tools to correct final output of statistical formula. Formula should be able to better reward the best performances and to punish the bad performances in any odd cases of distribution of R runners 18 months avg. points score and their race times as today. We need both approaches to be sure that final Points interval is not too much squeezed or too much stretched at the TOP and at the BOTTOM.

In theory we can’t avoid problems when comes to not normal distribution of R runners points and their times. We have invented IP factor and 50% time border as the only two corrections for the R runners and final points. It looks that is not working correctly (very well) in all cases and not fair enough at top and at bottom of the point interval.

I tried to use different approaches to deal with these problems.

RANKING POINTS

WOC2011 FINAL MEN
- All runners above R runners mean time are R runners
- 41 R runners in the race (212 Ranking points)
- MP=1209.9193
- SP=61.8207
.......................................................................
- All Ranking points = 264 points (6*44)
- Ranking points depends (how many/strong R runners are in the race)
- Ranking points award Rank and competitiveness of any runner who beats R runner in the race
- Events points (status of the event)

WOC2011 MiddleQ/C MEN
- All runners above R runners mean time are R runners
- 29 R runners in the race (113 Ranking points)
- MP=1091.3048
- SP=152.554

In both races were many strong runners (MP) so also runners with bad performances could got very high final point score. Ranking points award good performances and punish (or not award) bad performances better than IP factor. Also head to head performances are better awarded. Runners in Final get more Ranking points than in Qualification which is good correction to the bad statistical performance points. Event points are second correction to Final points score.

RANKING POINTS & UNRANKED RUNNERS

Portugal O Metting 2011 SUPERELITE
84 R runners in the race – 45 used - 220 Ranking points

POM 2011 SuperElite race has been one of the strongest races so far this year. Also Ranking points comparision with WOC2011 Middle Final shows that. Ranking points act very well as its task are to stretch the Points from BOTTOM to the TOP of the point interval. Only first 45 R runners were included in Ranking points. This is fair as it is the same number of R runners as it is in WOC Finals.

Portugal O Metting 2011 ELITE
26 R runners in the race – Only 46 Ranking points
45 used for 2nd MT/ST calculation

In Elite class very unusual case. Many unranked runners achieved very good results and some R runners very bad results (start of the season, new good runners, comeback of some runners, etc). A lot of unranked runners performed better than MEAN TIME of R runners so I used them all for 2nd calculation of MT/ST. MP/SP stays the same as it is. I got a tinny correction to the Unweighted points at the TOP. In most cases this approach give more stretched point interval start from TOP to the BOTTOM of the point interval. Runners with bad performances could get lower points score than today. Bacause only 26 R Runners were in the race all R Runners were included in Ranking points. It seems to me very good correction as also some runners with bad performances can get some Ranking points with beating R Runners.

The whole point of both approaches is to stretching the Points on point interval.

Winner in SUPERELITE should got more points because of more stronger runners in the race - influence of Ranking points - (1640>1426) than in ELITE (1321>1271). We don't know how good are unranked runners before the race but we must use their times when they perform better than MEAN TIME of R RUNNERS. As Formula stands today R runners (also others) are not punished enough for bad performances. Because they are R runners they have influence on performance points and lower points score also for winner.

In theory winner would get more points if he perform with the same time but other R runners would perform better. Winner is punished because other R Runners perform worse and bad results of R runners are awarded because they raced with some good R runners (high MP) who perform very good! That explanation is valid only for time component.

So, transfering their Ranking points to better runners in the final rank it seems to me justified and fair correction. Also the few last runners in the Ranking nearly got 600 points. With this approach, e.g. JUAN MANUEL MERIDA would got 590 instead of 671 points for his 51th place. Also this seems to me very reasonable correction. With more bad performances like this he would be out of R status (18months avg. points score) sooner than today. That is good for the whole system because with today formula he could maintain R status very long, long time and with racing only at very strong WRE races even for ever.

Comparing both races with (old vs. new formula) we can see that new formula give us better (fairer) Final point score results at TOP and at BOTTOM of point interval.

WOC2011 SprintQ/C WOMEN
Only one runner finished above Mean Time of R runners. It clearly shows how many points each runner gain or lose with this approach compare to Unweighted WRE Points when using the unranked runners for 2nd calculation.

DEFINITION OF R RUNNER
Event points and Ranking points have no influence on 18months avg. points score but UNRANKED RUNNERS should have as this would lead to desire/fairer corrections of final points score for each runner in the race and to fairer, better, quicker and more significant changes of runners 18months avg. points score which defines who should maintain R status.

Today we have a system where some R runners are generally good (with high 18moths avg.) and we don't allowed them to be R runners with bad performances (under winner's time+50%). We should adopt the same system also for unranked runners so they could get the R status when they perform very good (above Mean time of R Runners in the race)! This would give more fairer WRE Rankings and unweighted 18months avg. points score.

Also in theory each runner who finishes above MEAN TIME OF RANKED RUNNERS would get more or equal to 600 points no matter how many/strong runners are in the race and no matter how their times are distributed on time interval. So, times of these runners should be used for 2nd calculation of MT/ST as this would lead to better (fairer) distribution of points on point interval.

The problem is MP/SP and not the time spread itself. We can't directly influence on racing times of the R runners and consequently on number of R runners differently as today (winner's time+50% for R runners time border) but we can influence on MP/SP with better/appropriate definition who is R runner which would lead also to corrections of MT/ST (2nd MT/ST) for some races and final WRE points for each runner.

At WOC Qualifications and at WRE races (more runners) SP is always higher due to the many weaker R runners. If you than have also a good spread of R runners time (small spread - this could happen more easier when you have easy courses because also weaker R runners can perform very good) than you have potential to gain a lot of WRE points because MP/SP is more important than MT/ST in whole WRE equation.

Final WRE points score can be more fair with using (unranked runners above mean time-2nd calculation of MT/ST) to correct points mainly at the BOTTOM of the point interval and changing IP factor into two tools (Ranking points and Event points) to correct points mainly at the TOP of the point interval.

RANKING POINTS points should be seen as competitiveness points regardless of the event status. Same system for all WRE races.

EVENT POINTS are additional correction and it is very good approach where you have two equal strong races POM=WOC2011 MiddleF. Event points are good to give credit to more prominent races.

In my opinion both approaches would be very good and fair corrections to FINAL WRE POINTS and UNWEIGHTED 18MONTHS AVG. POINTS SCORE.

Minutes FOC april 2011 - reasons for removal of IP factor
FOC decided that the weightings currently applied to World Rankings points at World Cup, World Games and World Championships should be removed completely. FOC proposes that this be done with effect from 1st January 2012.

Its good proposal/solution but solves only half of the problem. Instead of IP I would still like to see a solution with Ranking points system as it is neutral to runners and races, fair, logical and good for overall final points because it is a very good way to correct statistical points. It should be important also how many R runners and how strong R runners you can actually beat.

Someone says, Statistic is like a bikini. It shows a lot but never shows all.

Interesting document.

"The weighting factors of 1.05 and 1.10 are arbitrary and cannot be logically justified"
was a peach of a statement.

I'm sure the Russians, Ukrainians, North Americans, Antipodeans and all the other worthless people will love the WRL 'solution'.

From the document: "Qualification based on WRL is fair in that it allows “new” federations to get slots if their runners improve substantially, although they did not have a chance to compete in a previous WOC." Yeah right. Makes you sick to see how out of touch the FOC is with the other side of the world.

But in the Council's proposal, presented at the IOF President's Conference a couple of weeks ago in France, the final decision seems to favor past WOC results:

http://orienteering.org/foot-orienteering/woc-in-t...

See the power point presentation link at the top.

@pi
I also noticed this discrepancy. But also something else is more important. It is not directly in context with WRL but still. In WOC week...in the future we were also talking about what should be the maximum number of Long Final participants. From document it seems that each IOF member federation should have one start place in the Long distance Final and consequently about 100 participants in the Final which was also my view and what could be a compromise good for all. "FOC believes that this is acceptable."

But in this WIF President's Conference document they also changed COUNTRY to REGION. That was my fear that some smart guys would come to this sick idea. Excluding "worthless countries and runners" - thanks Neil - from the most important Final event is the way they want to go. I think this is not what lesser O countries want from new WOC schedule. If we lose the Queen discipline than it is all over.

What they believe and what they are suggesting is like a day and night. Hope that in the next months we will get better solution on the table about WRL and WIF. What is wrong with FOC/IOF?

I can't see why WRL or previous WOC is better WOC qualification method than having a qualification race. Having one qual race is far more fair and it takes just one day after all.

@Jagge
If you look only from techical side of Q race and what that is mean to runners than you are right. Qualification race is the most fair method. But it will not change much as we will still keep 2 out of 3 qualification races. SprintQ and Middle prologue.

But if you look also from course setting guidelines, organizers work, IT & TV requirements, sponsors & media interest than benefits are too small. I would say it is all about money. If we would be a rich sport than I suppose qualifiers would stay as we could afford them.

I somehow understand why they want to keep SprintQ as nobody wouldn't stand +2hrs at the town square to finally see the best orienteers. But I can't understand that for Long Final. You don't need to have TV, GPS, commentary, etc for runners after 45-60 runners. But they should have a chance to experience the course. Like in many other sports.

What is wrong with IOF/FOC?

I heard that one problem is that FOC is big fan of WRE, IOF council is not. There seems to be a struggle within, and the pro-WRE side seems to be losing. The way things are going could be bad (I am fan of WRE).

Side note: Sad to see how out of touch FOC is...

Not only FOC IMHO ;-) At the "Out of Europe Countries" meeting at the last WOC I half-jokingly proposed that all IOF committee members must go orienteering outside of Europe at some time during their term. And if they come to Canada, then they have to go to events hosted by two different clubs - and drive between ;-)

So, IOF council want to say: Look WRE is not working so it is time to rid off.

What are the reasons that Council think differently than FOC? They should present their reasons for this to us (member countries) or they just don't need to do that. Do they have in mind to introduce any other system or they just can't see the benefits of the WRL? Is this the reason why they favor past WOC results and not WRL for Long Final? Hard to believe.

In all multilevel decision organizations is clear rule that you must support what is valid or make a proposal why something is not good and need to be replaced. If workers do what they want to do and not what they should do they would get fired.

I was playing with numbers and different formulas and here is also my theoretical approach scheme and example for WOC2011 SprintQ/C Women. Check the point intervals only for performance points. Ranking and events points are additional corrections.

I can say that Formula 13 is my favorite WRE Formula for now.

Can Charm write IOF a nice letter? These seem to work.

Example 7

At Portugal "O" Summer were only 3 R runners in Women category enough for WRE points.

I thought that at least 4 R runners are needed to get WRE points. It is very important information for organizers and I don't know why they can't publish the revised document.

Specification for World Ranking Events in 2001
2.2 There must be at least 4 ranked runners in order for the race to qualify for the World Ranking scheme.

That's weird. I'm pretty sure it's been three for as long as I've been thinking about it. And we think about the number of ranked women a lot in North American.

Example 8

Look at this Israel Open - Day 2 where originally in Women category were only two R runners.

Vauuu... WRE formula already uses unranked runners to calculate WRE points but in a very strange way. Linnea Ivarsson Sandberg (SWE) got her R status officially at Elitserien and her R status and points were used to calculate WRE points for Israel Open - Day 2 which was held 2 months before than Elitserien (to increase number of R runners from 2 to 3 to justify the "new condition" in the "new Rules")! That is funny! :)

How could that be by the rules! Is this official hidden WRE rule (Extended qualifying year forwards to include athletes gaining ranking within next 3 months)?!!

If I analyze only theoretical part of this solution:

1. problem - It is a cirlce where Linnea got R status and WRE points at Elitserien and that was used it backwards for Israel event to calculate Israel event WRE points. But than her points and R status from Israel event were not used for Elitserien once again. It is logical because then it should be recalculated also Elitserien and than also.....

WRE as perpetuum mobile!

2. problem - Also Sofia Adolfsson (SWE) 18 months avg. points score probably not include points from Israel event for Elitserien or maybe this don't apply to her as she already has R status. If not than probably it was included for the next events. A lot of combinations are possible here.

3. problem - I suppose that they put this rule in force only for events without sufficient R runners. If they wanted to be consistent with their principles than that should be valid for all runners/events equally. But that would be impossible as WRE would once again step on perpetuum mobile!

All together it seems that this is a major flaw and not hold the water. It is really a unique example how guys understand statistic. This is statistical arts:) per se!

So they plan to have two qual races (in the post above I thought of having just one). I thought they liked to get rid of those qualification races. Anyway, if we have chase qual (3 runners per nation) and sprint qual (3 per nation), by having those two races (sprint & chase) first we could use those qual results to measure each nation’s strength. And use it to assingning start slots for each nation for the rest of the races. That might(?) be fairer than past WOCs or WRL, no additional quals needed.

But that planned middle prologue sounds mad. How many runners will run the same course, something like 150...200 runners? Middle style course, short legs, there will be huge elephant tracks from control to control, pretty much just a running race for the late starters, at least in soft terrains.

This is part of a different debate.....
In WIF document is stated: Removal of qualification (except sprint)

I see prologue as a qualification race because it is in a way even if they said "except sprint". I can live with 200 hundred people on prologue course as it will be very short and probably mix of forest and urban. I didn't see anywhere what time is proposed for winner but I would say something between 7-10'.

But when it comes to Middle Chase Final I can't understand their logic. For Middle chase Final is OK to have 200 runners but to have 100 runners in the Long Final is not OK. It would be even longer (maybe not but it will be more runners after the winner in the finish) to wait all runners to come to the finish in the Middle Final than in Long Final. Thats way I prefer that each country have assured place for 1 runner in the Long Final (also good for development reasons). Your idea is also good but from my point of view only for 2nd, 3rd, 4th country place in the Long Final. Countries with small teams have no chance if this kind of rule would be valid for all Long Final places. Even if all countries have a strong teams some teams would stay out of Long Final.

If you look from our perspective: Our runner will not run sprint relay and relay because we dont have a team. So after sprintQ he will have another "sprint start"at Middle prologue and after that he will be allowed to jog/run into big groups of runners to the Finish on the Middle Chase Final. Maybe he will take a time to watch Long Final before he will finally decide to go home.

At least 1 place for each country in Long Final is the only solution for me. That would probably be the only reason for our runners to stay in orienteering and reason for many of us to stay in orienteering and trying to develop this sport.

@cjross

You are right. I also found one example with 3 runners among our events already in 2002. I checked this link where are listed all improvements & changes of World Ranking Scheme from 1999 onwards. Condition from 4 to 3 R runners was probably changed in period from 2002-2005 but this part is missing. Eh,..text is also not up to date for this rule.

Example 9
I also went through CAN WREs and found a little deviation from the Rules at Barebones 2010 Whistler. It was not used winner's time+50% but 2nd place+50%.

I wrote something about this in my first post. It is a major obstacle and reason why not to use statistic formula for WRE points. It is a very common problem at WREs in all lesser and new O countries. This problem should be solved if we want to keep statistical formula. I have a few ideas but I don't know yet what will come out.....

I've been reluctant to get involved in public discussion on this because I'm on the FOC (and have done quite a bit of the work on the detail of possible qualification models) and the situation is still pretty fluid.

The basic problem we're dealing with is that if there isn't enough room in the program to run a qualification race for the Long, then there seems to be pretty general agreement in principle that this should be done on the basis of previous WOC results in some way. World Games qualification, for example, is done this way now.

However, it becomes difficult to do this once countries have different numbers of people qualified for WOC - either you have a system where rankings of nations are based on "total points", which disadvantages countries which only get to run 1 or 2 people and creates a "closed shop", or you have an average-points-per-runner system which might create an incentive for countries to only enter their best person and not run a 2nd or 3rd person even if they had qualified. Trying to find a fair way to do this is still an unsolved problem for the moment; the main reason why the WRE-based national rankings are being forward as a serious option at present is that they appear to be fairer (or perhaps less unfair) than any other specific option that is currently on the table.

"total points" at past WOCs seems unworkable and really not worthy of being considered an option. As you say the closed shop would be locked in, and half of the IOF countries would be very unlikely to ever get a runner to the Long Final. Surely that is not what either IOF or member Federations want.

You refer to "WRE-based national rankings" not the IOFs World Ranking. Is there a reason for that?

One big issue about using WRE/IOF rankings is that it should be discipline specific: ie there should be a Long Distance Ranking and a Sprint Distance Ranking etc. That is if you think there really is a difference between the disciplines.

To qualify say 45 from WRE could be done in simple manner - Look at the top 100:
Any country with more than 3 ranked in the top 100 = 3 places
Any country with 3 ranked in the top 100 = 2 places
Any country with 1 or 2 ranked in the top 100 = 1 place
Any left places to go to the countries with the remaining higher ranked runners.

That would give 3 places to SUI, SWE, FIN, DEN, NOR, CZE, GBR, FRA, RUS and ITA. 2 places to AUT, EST, LTU, UKR. 1 place to BUL, HUN, LAT, NZL, POL, SVK. Thats 44 places, next highest inside the top 100 goes to ROU (with the 33rd ranked runner). That is very comparable to this years qualifications - 21 countries represented compared to 22 and all the major countries get their 3 runners.

@O-ing

You are forgetting that IOF also want regional representatives in the Long Final. At least 1 runner also from (Africa, Asia, North America, South America)

IOF/FOC must first define how many runners should be in the Long Final before you look for the best qualification method.

We all know that fixed regional representatives in the Long Final are good for global image of the sport and this is also the best way to support IOF's goal to get orienteering into Olympics. Like a WG.

So we small and lesser O countries in Europe (BEL, BLR, CRO, CYP, ESP, GEO, GER, GRE, IRL, ISR, LAT, LIE, MDA, MKD, MNE, NED, POR, SRB, SLO, TUR) need to establish a new IOF region to get at least 1 runner into the Long Final! That is funny! Maybe it is better for us to simply go out of IOF and try to have fun in orienteering as we already have.

So we are good for IOF when they count how many countries they need for Olympic criteria but when it comes to support our development we should be glad to have a sprint races on the menu. It is obviously that without qualification races some countries will get short stick. Who and how that we should just wait and see.

Why IOF act with that indifference to our runners? These runners (the best ones) are between 150-250 place on World Rankings and worth less than any new runner from these "Olympic" Regions.

Qualification method based on WR is at the moment also unfair for at least half of the countries because WR is not working properly but it is still the best one. I would like to see that WR works before you are starting to make any conlusions who deserves to be in the Long Final and who doesn't.

That is very comparable to this years qualifications - 21 countries represented compared to 22 and all the major countries get their 3 runners.

No, it is not. With qualfication race we still have had a chance to qualify for the Final but with all other qualification methods we won't have any chances.

I hard to say what should be good and to some extent fair method for us that in same time will not have any affect on Long Final places of big countries. Maybe qualification method at European champs and best 7 countries out of Long Final get 1 runner for WOC Long Final. Because at EOC is stronger field than at WOC I would prefer this option with maybe a small correction. 1/3 of best countries out of Long EOC Final will get 1 place for WOC Long Final. In odd years 1 or 2 WC Long races (held in Europe) in previous year or before WOC count as qualification races for remaining places for WOC Long Final. To support good performances at EOC it could be valid also additional rule: Countries with runner in the EOC Final are allowed to have at least 1 runner in WOC Long Final in two successive years.

That would be very similar to IOF regional representatives if you compare how many countries would race for these 7 remaining places in Europe or how many countries would race if you by analogy use the same system also in other Regions.

Are 55-65 runners in Long Final too much to have a fair race, to achieve IOF goals and to give a fair chance to lesser O countries to qualify for the Final?

Argh, this is all so frustrating. I was 33rd in the long this year and with any of these qualification schemes, I would never have run.

One cause winning the Canadian championships sprint, which was easily as good a race for me as my WOC long, is worth is worth 800 and something points. So to do well at WOC, instead of doing what I did this year and living in France training in relevant terrain, I have to prioritize POM and some other high points WRE. Yay for flying to Europe a couple more times a year.

Two, even if Canada qualified for a spot, I would never have got it. Absolutely everyone would pick Louise over me in a long. All these systems completely eliminate the possibility that someone could shine during the week and perform better than average.

Guess I better start working on my sprinting speed.

Completely agree with Carol. Maybe you should also consider to come to OO.cup because we have had each year very strong M/W elite. I would just need to convince organizers that it is worth to spend money to stage a WRE. In last three years they thought it is not worth but Elite runners came anyway because of a great terrains.

In my calculation (also size of a country should play a significant factor) I come to this max. additional regional slots - Europe (6-7), Africa (1), Asia (3-4), South America (3) North America (3), Oceania (2). That would be (44 - World Rankings) + World champion + 20 (max.) regional slots = 65 or a few less.

It would seems appropriate if there were no qualification races that there would be a greater number of athletes who get to run the final, rather than 45 perhaps 50 or 60?

What does need to be considered though is not just how the qualification scheme would work now, but also how it would work in the future.

O-ing's scheme is quite good for this as the result of a greater amount of diversity in the top 100 ranked runners would result in fewer countries having 3 runners in the final and a greater number of countries having 1 or 2 runners in the final. Maybe there needs to be some tweaking of the numbers but the process is a pretty good one.

I can understand Carol's frustration that in her case she would not have had an opportunity this year to run the long, however once the scheme is in place it would give a clear aim for the Canadian Elite programme if they wanted to have more runners at WOC, and they could aim in the longer term (2-3-4 years) to improve the World Ranking of their runners and gain extra spots. It would certainly encourage greater coordination and cooperation between neighbouring countries (ie Australia and New Zealand, or Canada and USA) to make sure that the most runners possible from both countries attend all WREs and also place greater importance and emphasis on Regional Championships which are also WREs.

For the runners from smaller European countries it is certainly tough, but at least they can make a plan for what they need to do if they want to qualify for the WOC long, have at least a year of concentrating on getting good results at WREs to qualify for the following years World Championships. Also sounds like a good way to prepare for your first world championships to me.

Candyman, for the NA athletes for example, that would be asking for at least four or five of them to make multiple trips to Europe each year... on top of flying around their own continent for racing. It isn't financially credible.
Edit: You say it would encourage cooperation - It would encourage gaming the system. Much cheaper to fly ten top-ranked athletes over, get them horrendously drunk and beat them handily...

I don't see what is especially wrong with the current system, but still, if you have to add new formats, Sprint and Forest WOC in alternate years seems like a way better way to go.

For the runners from smaller European countries it is certainly tough, but at least they can make a plan....

SWE, NOR, FIN,.... will also make a plan how to get enough WRE points to hold theirs 3 places. So you think that we could do a better plan than these countries? The only solution for us is to have an extra runner who can do better than 90% of the rest of the runners. We can't afford to have a large team but we could help 1 or 2 to train and try to sneak into Final. With WRE based on national rankings that would mean to have 10-15 strong runners. But this is more than 10 years of working for us to find/have this kind of a runners. In other words thanks for your suggestion but our plan is not planning but try to find those extra runners. With qualification race we could be lucky but with this selection method plan and luck is not enough.

I refer mainly to the point that WOC is WOC and SWE, SUI, FIN, NOR, CZE, GBR, DEN, FRA, RUS shouldn't be angry if some worse runners than their 50th or 100th runner appears at the start of the Long Final. It will happen anyway so way bother with 15 more in the first start package. That could be a good entertainment before real race start.

>Sprint and Forest WOC in alternate years seems like a way better way to go.

Like.
Still the best solution (for so many reasons) in my opinion.

+2
what ndobbs said. It fixes almost everything.

Btw, Thanks Blair for your comment, interesting to get one from someone actually involved at the IOF level. There is the thread about influencing the format that could do with your input too!

AZ: The only way to tell if they are ranked is by the "R" beside their name (or to do the calculation yourself).

I apologize to be so active in this thread but I am a big fan of WR sheme. So it is really nice to see some progress at WRL. I have tried to calculate this 18 months avg. but it was not possible. Now it is able to see unweighted rebased score also for whole 18months period but to have a chance to see unweighted rebased score for all races would be even better as than I could do some calculations on my own. Very nice.

@kofols I still think the scheme can work, there are lots of options, make the maximum from each country 2, or make the level much higher for a country to qualify 3 (ie 3 in the top 10 or 20? of WR).

Certainly lobby for no change but if the decision is made to make the change to no qualification (or pre-qualification) why not look for a scheme that works better than using last year's WOC results.

In many sports athletes have to reach a particular standard to be allowed to compete in the World Championships, why should orienteering be any different? Should 3 people from every federation be guaranteed a start in the long at the World Championships regardless of standard? What other way do we have of measuring standards than the WR scheme?

Personally I would prefer to see something like alternating sprint and forest WOCs but realistically this aint going to happen and changes are going to be made to the current WOC schedule so I think it is worth considering how to get the best result.

but realistically this aint going to happen

Why? If a proposal is put forward by an IOF Member Federation, and the majority of the Federations turn out to be behind it, I can't see how it won't happen. Has there been a formal proposal?

see pi's comment on the other thread.

I was first talking about 1 per country (100 runners) and then come to 55-65 runners so I dont know where you got 3 per country.

In many sports athletes have to reach a particular standard to be allowed to compete in the World Championships...
I agree but than please tell me your opinion about fixed regional representatives and why nobody argue about Middle chase Final and 200 runners on the course? Is it too harsh to say that this is allowed just from one reason - that each runner would get a valid result in a common Final. I don't know if this is true and why that should be so important to have so many runners in the Final. Maybe another Olympic goal....

WOC Long Final would remain the only forest competition with individual start. Because of that it is worth to think why people around the world like orienteering and why they practice this sport individualy. I still hope that they will find a solution but if not than please bring us qualifications back.

Do you think that we have a good decision-making process? Because we have very different views about so many solutions and we probably won't get any closer than this I would expect from FOC to prepare two different solutions for qualification method which should be used for WOC Long Final. It is not very democratic to bring only one solution (as I understood from the article in Ozine) to the meeting and to give people a chance to say just Yes or No. I think the new WOC programme should get support from all and not just with lobbying for Council's solution.

We have talked only about Long. My strong statement is based on the fact that in the first WOC draft made by WIF project group we had also MiddleF (1 person per nation) and now after reducing Final events from 6 to 5 we lost MiddleF and our chances to have an individual (forest) Final event. That is why we want/need to have a few places in the LongF because we need 1 forest event/individual start (Middle or Long) to keep Orienteering alive.

I made in this context a few replies on Jan's article WOC proposal ready: Chasing start and sprint relay. He very well described what could happen! I think he didn't overestimate that problem. I can't say differently than the Council is still blind after half of year and many discussions, meetings, etc. I assume that FOC reviewed the federations' feedback and not the Council but as candyman said: decision was made. And this last decision was made by the Council. I seriously doubt that Council asked small O federations and athletes for the second time what they think about that. It may look as a very transparent process but I doubt that they asked federations and not one has argued about this. It is logical that when we had also a middleF we were happy with the proposal and solution also for LongF. So this was trick how to get a support and continue with the process. In such an important issues Council should have been taken more time to find a better solution.

Maybe athletes from new federations will be glad to have a sprint races and Middle chase but athletes from 20-25 federations will probably loose motivation for orienteering.

But that is just my opinion. Whole decision (removal of MiddleF, LongF / qual on previous three WOCs and introducing regional representatives instead of 1 place for each country) is very bad for the Sport.

Many small O federations (including my federation) don't send representative to the WOC to attend the IOF's meetings. I would like to ask openly if we (small O federations) can authorized someone else to submit a vote on our behalf at next IOF General Assembly? Is this possible by the IOF statutes and GA rules?

I agree. A big change was introduced (removing individual start Middle) without asking for feedback. So it's probably time to write some new letters!

Several top athletes seem to openly support the idea of Sprint and Forest WOC in alternate years, like Daniel H, Mats H.

Anyway here is one modified version of the single woc proposal.

Day    Event
1    Prologue/Qualification + Chasing start
2    Sprint relay (mixed teams)
3    --Rest day--
4    Middle individual
5    Sprint individual (qualification+final)
6    --Rest day--
7    Relay
8    Long individual

Prologue/Qualification:
- 30min, 7 runners per country, 4 heats/courses.
- used as qualification for long and middle
- LONG Q: personal slots, about 45 best (12 from each heat) gets to the long final. No limits for runners per naion.
- MIDDLE Q: about 45 places, national slots, max 3 per nation. (Each nation earns finals slots in qual race and can select who ever they want, not necessarily the runner who earned the slot.)

Chase:
- about 20...25min
- 2 loops, forking with at least 8 alternatives
- heat winners start together or (alternatively haet times are compared using average time of best 5 times of each heat).
- W+M makes one hour TV show

Like this elite athletes does not have to chase wre points around the world (and get runners from same country to do the same even if those are not aiming for WOC). Not too many runners in heats/finals, shorter days, less elephant tracks. Fair qualification race instead of something skewed - anyone has chance to get to finals. Runner from a small nation get to run prologue, chase, sprint qual and if he runs well he gets to middle final, long final and sprint final and he has team mates he gets to sprint relay and classic relay. And flied at long final becomes strong like this, more runners from a strong country and no need to save strength for coming races.

Chase final becomes weird circus, big luck factor because qual race is not common. Big deal? And having single bad run at prologue/qual may ruin someones chase, middle and long final dreams with one strike. But also one geat run may do the opposite.

That is the first proposal including sprint relay and chasing start that looks somewhat reasonable. I still don't see any point to chasing start, and mixed sprint relay still seems artificial.

But not reasoanble at all from TV crew's point of view. Just count how many times TV gear needs to be taken from forest to city and back and test everything works, usually needs to be done in one night. That's why they have sprint block, rest day for taking TV and other gear to second stadion, and then foret event "blocks".

From TV's point of view it would be so much better to have separate sprint woc and forest woc. You set up TV gear once, shoot some races and you are done. Maybe move them just a little, to other side of the road or something, without having to set up all cables and everything again.

Expiration of results - 2nd part

Between World cup races in CZE and SUI I checked how works 18 months average score. I have assumed that 18 months average score has the same problem as it is in the case of expiration of results in Rankings.

But I was wrong. 18 months average score works fine.

Example
Because it is not possible to check the average score of any runner in the past I found interesting time period to check this for the future event. After the CZE world cup races (24-25.9.2011) I recorded the 18 months average score for runners who raced at Spring cup on 27 March 2010. It was interesting to see how the system works. Before points for SUI PostFinance (middle) race have been calculated the database was rerun and runners (Hubmann, Rollier, Lundanes, Alm) got correct 18 months average score (without Spring cup 2010 points). To see the difference here is the average 18 months score which was still valid on 30.9.2011.