Discussion: IOF ranking gone?

Haha that's a nice swipe at the IOF!

Oops...?

Can someone more knowledgeble than I explain the background and practical implications to this?

The background is that the person responsible for maintaining the site withdrew his services because he disagreed with the decisions which were made last year on changes to the World Ranking. I don't know at this stage what plans there are for an alternative site (but am following up).

Sorry, the WRE scoring calculation was changed to only include podium finishers at WOC and World Cup? Where is that published? (And how the heck did I miss that news...)

I think it's more that podium finishers will get lots more points than others; see

http://orienteering.org/orienteering-world-ranking...

I think I actually read that, but did not really consider the meaning...

Ray Barnes says: "IOF Council have made changes to the scheme that removes any statistical basis from the leading rankings."

The IOF note says: "The basic scoring algorithm for calculating scores as it currently exists will be retained."

But then later says: "Winners of WOC Finals will get 1500 ranking points. Winners of World Cup events, The World Games, Regional Championships (World Cup status) get 1450 ranking points."

So what does this exactly mean? That the WOC winner gets 1500 points is clear, but what about 2nd place, 6th place, 31st place? Do they all get a score based on the actual statistical calculation?

The way it works is that first the scores are calculated according to the existing algorithm, then all scores are multiplied by X to give the winner the relevant score (so, if the algorithm gives a winning score of 1364, all scores are multiplied by 1.1).

A different algorithm will be used for events with not enough ranked runners for a conventional score (previously these points got no points at all).

All the gory details should be on the IOF site if one looks in the right places.

A different algorithm will be used for events with not enough ranked runners for a conventional score (previously these got no points at all).

That's a biggie on this continent (North America) -- especially for the women.

Is there any wider explanation why IOF decided to use some kind of "IP factor" again? I hardly believe that FOC proposed these changes which are totally opposite from what they proposed and implemented 2 years ago.
http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12...

" totally opposite from what they proposed and implemented 2 years ago. "
Indeed, that is a good question! 2 years ago the conclusion was that it was unfair for a multitude of reasons to give subjective "bonus points" to the participants in certain "high-level" events. Why has the IOF council changed course 180 degrees on this issue now???

While there seem to bee some reasonable changes in the proposed new system, like having a separate ranking for Sprint events and counting events up to 18 months (instead of only 12 now), there are also some changes that makes the system significantly more complex to maintain, like potentially counting points from regional championships for more than 18 months if they are still the most recent regional champs, if the participant is a citizen of that region. To me that sounds like something it will take serious manual efforts to keep track of.

Finally, a fun fact from the final ranking with the old system: http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01... The Ukrainian O-couple Kratov/Volynska are both at spot 10 in the men's and women's rankings respectively, and they have almost the same points.

Scrolling through the latest FOC minutes. It seems that FOC members (excluding David May), said yes to the new WRE scheme.
"DM could not support a second key point related to the scoring system, that fixed scores would be allocated to the winners of top IOF events such as WOC and World Cup."

I have the same feeling. Other changes such as 6x WRE events per country, including Juniors events, max. two WOC final scores can be counted in a person’s individual ranking, all competitors get WRE points) are very good.

When it comes to Points calculation and ROCs it would be good to have a wider discussion and opinions about the basic principles.

POINTS CALCULATION
IOF said: "the distribution of points be related to the value of the event".
The "Value" of the event could be interpreted differently from the perspective of competitors, organizers, media or IOF. I believe that organizers should have some benefits and have some power on how WRE scheme is running. Council decided to give more points only to the events which are higher in the IOF event structure (pay higher event fee). Elite competitors run also other WRE events (part of training camp, prize money events, high quality local/regional competitions) and I believe that also normal WRE event with strong competitive field, adequate prize money awards or let's say more than X competitors (big events) should have same possibility to achieve TOP points like WOC events if we want to support second part of the WRE scheme "World Ranking List should serve as a tool for promotion"

ROCs
"The most recent “home” IOF Regional Championships can be counted in the ranking score, even if they were more than 18 months ago, where the competitor is a citizen of a nation in that Region. The 4 best scores subject to the above provision are counted for a person’s total ranking score in each ranking list."

This rule is not clear enough. On one hand this rule support local/regional competitors who have lower possibilities to participate on WRE events, so region could maintain local competitor base of "R" runners (OK) but on other hand I believe that any ROC result over 18 months should count for person’s individual ranking only if runner don't have 4 valid WRE results within 18 months period. In this case his/her ROCs result should be excluded.

The objective of the ROC rule is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to count exactly one set of ROCs in their score - otherwise, what would happen is that, for example, a lot of North Americans would have their scores drop sharply in the 6-month window before the NAOC. This provision (and analogous ones for WOC) are also intended to stop anomalies which might arise if, for example, WOC shifts a bit in the year and there are two WOCs, or none, in a 12-month window.

I'm talking about a slightly different example where you have a runner with let say 5x valid results; 4x normal WRE results within 18 months and 1x ROC result which is over 18 months. If ROC shifts a bit in the year this change shouldn't have any influence on this runner because he/she would have max. number of WRE results within 18 months, no matter if ROC result is his/her best or worse of 5x results. In case ROC result is the worse result among 5x results it will not be included among 4 best scores anyway so I believe the same rule should apply in case ROC is the best result among 5 results.

If ROC result (over 18 months) would count only in case that is among 4x best results than this could be discriminating to some runners. Also the average points would be higher and all athletes would gain more points and a chance to gain better points on any future local WRE events. It would be nice to have an additional explanation because I think your explanation covers only one scenario; if runner has max. 3x valid WRE results within 18 months and 1x ROC result over 18 months. It seems fair in this case that ROC result would count among 4x best results.

Update from the IOF site:

http://orienteering.org/iof-world-ranking-system/

So here's the IOF's own analysis of the effect the changes will have (see kofols link). Perhaps Blair can illuminate us on why its a good idea?


The weighting factors of 1.05 and 1.10 are arbitrary and cannot be logically justified.

Good (largely European) runners know they will get their best points from WCup/WOC races (because of the weighting) so there is little incentive to run well at, or even enter WREs.

If a country has, say, 6 runners who regularly compete at WCup/WOC, then they all benefit from weighted points at the expense of the number 7 runner. There is then an artificially wide gap between the 6 the and 7 the runner in that country in the World Rankings which does not correctly reflect his/her standing.

Good runners who, for geographic reasons compete rarely (if at all) at WCup/WOC races, have little chance of high World Rankings places as they receive little or no “boost” from the weightings.

For example...

I'm coordinating three world ranking events this year. Now that the IOF have decided these events shouldn't be a priority for elites, obviously I wont do anything that stupid again.

Maybe I'm such an annoying person that they want rid of me?

why its a good idea?
I have a feeling that IOF is trying to copy other federations an IOC rules to be inline with some trends on many issues. We are behind indeed, and we need to copy something but not all. They don't understand the nature of local WREs and motivation behind it. They're always talking that IOF Council members must be able to see the problems from many angles. Really?

They can't provide nothing to organizers (news, media, diplomas, importance within event structure...) and to runners (points, motivation, promotion,...) but they in the same time expect that we have to pay for this s...y product. They even didn't try it in the last 13 years. I suppose WRE and local success is just not so important for them. It is strange that we have 18p long WRE guidelines (it is a technical guide only) and we as organizers were not able to say to IOF what they need to do for us (media, marketing, wider promotion... )

@greame
I think IOF has a rule that people working for IOF shouldn't comment IOF's decision in public before it is offcial. Decision was taken, so I assume that there are nothing to comment because there are no analysis. If I am wrong, than I would be glad to read it.

I wonder how the organizers of the first WRE events of the year feel? They have to pay a sanction fee to the IOF, yet the IOF cannot even provide a WRE score anymore.

If anyone had doubts that the thing is dead, by now they shouldn't. Move on, nothing to see here.

This is all a little overly dramatic. The thing is not dead at all. The IOF will get someone to calculate the scores using the updated formulas. The WRE participants will all score their appropriate scores. The WR will continue to evolve. In fact, there are even some good aspects to the new system, especially for "remote" countries.

How can I take part in one?

WRE is not dead. That's the whole problem. Up till now most elites couldn't care about World Ranking Lists.
But now it determines the start list for WOC.
And with the shortened start intervals, WOC is all about how good the people you get to run round with are, which depends on your start time, which depends on your WR.
So anyone who cares about doing well at WOC needs to care about WR.

Maybe the easier path is to find out how to completely kill it, rather than try to fix it.

If the start time will become too much important for final WOC ranking than the sport is dead. The purpose of WR should be wider than what the start time could you get at WOC. High WR points will be important only for those with 3 spots, anyway. For rest of us they prepared a sprint challenge and if they expect that we will organize more WREs they are wrong. Reasons to organize it are still very weak as they were before. Maybe they expect that remote and underdeveloped countries will organize more WREs because with new system will be super easy for weak runners to collect minimum WR points and get a chance to compete at WOC on forest races.

The winner at standard World Ranking Event (WRE) has guaranteed at least 800 points so the rule of minimum 600 points will become obsolete. It is a tragic that countries which have no tradition will be able to send runners to compete at forest races on a such low competitive conditions.

graeme has nailed it. This whole thing depends on the introduction of shortened start intervals, and the quite short start blocks, supposedly for Media (Press/TV) reasons. Lengthen both the intervals and start blocks, maybe even run men and women at the same time, and you get a fairer competition with more runners (+countries).

How can I take part in one?

I'm not sure I understand the question - it seems too obvious. There are five WRE opportunities in Canada this year. At the National champs in Whistler this summer the Long and Middle distance races will be outstanding - brand new maps in fabulous terrain in a great resort town. Then in the Fall in Ottawa the North American Regional champs will also be outstanding in terms of technical challenge, map quality, competition, and atmosphere. Add in the US/Canada fight for the BK cup and the six WOC 2015 places up for grabs and this is bound to be a really exciting and fun event. I'd go out on a limb and say these will likely be the five top races in overall quality in Canada this year. I sure hope the WRE isn't dead.

What about last year?

The scheme never had enough interest in North America, neither from the organizers who most often viewed the WRE status as a burden, nor from the athletes. I'm not sure the repeated efforts to revive it are worth the extra effort. The Regional Championships and the national Championships should be of superior quality regardless of whether they are WREs. For events that aren't Championships, over a decade of experience has shown that WRE status makes very little difference in terms of attendance despite the added quality.

If people want these things, they should show up. I think the attendance at Championship events has been and will be the same regardless of whether they are WREs, and I don't think more people than one or two extra will show up at non-Championship events just because of WRE status.

What about last year? Same thing - the Nationals were exceptional quality.
The year before perhaps you'd like to ask about next? Well that was especially exceptional quality with the NAOCs. I would in fact claim that WRE events in North America have been consistently of the highest standards.

"If people want these things, they should show up". I think they are.

They are showing up because of Championship status. Put on a naked WRE and they don't, and I agree with you that there has been an increase in standard whether it's a Championship or just a WRE over the quality that would have otherwise been.

So the same number of people get to enjoy a better event for a non-negligible increase in cost and complexity to the organizers. Bottom line for most organizers? not worth it. I applaud the efforts of the few Canadian clubs and DVOA, but that's not a large support base for the scheme.

So if the standard is increasing anyway, what its the increased complexity that comes from WRE status? . I ask this as an event adviser for the first day of the Australian Easter carnival. The event was made into a WRE. The only differences in organisation that I saw were an extra person checking all the control sites once (accredited IOF adviser) and complications matching the start draw rules with two sets of rules. [I suspect the solution to the second problem is changing our national rules to say IOF rules take precedence in WRE events]. Being a WRE event didn't make any difference to the standard of the courses because a heap of work was required anyway. eg https://sites.google.com/site/yorkshirehill/

There is not much real increased complexity, but the perceived increase is significant and is enough to turn off all but the most devoted U.S. organizers.

So I am not sure what the point is in claiming its too hard.

I've been course-setter for one major event. It was both a championship and a WRE. The event benefitted significantly from the assistance of the WRE controller who did an outstanding job*. The quality most definitely would not have been as high without WRE status.

Ps. Tundra/Desert ... you might even know who the controller was :-).

So one advantage of a WRE is a formalised structure for passing on skills. This might spread the work around a little further by building the pool of competence?

Technical aspects of the WRE status are just one part of the story. In earlier years it was great to have it as many organizers use it to lift the event quality. Now we have many very skillful organizers and national rules become the same standard as WRE guidelines. Organizing WRE to ensure the higher quality of the event it is not so important anymore. Days when technical stuff were the main reason to apply for WRE are gone. Maybe this is still important for new organizer or countries where competitions and competitors need to understand what mean international standard of the event.

If WRE want to be more than technical "cooking book" we need to feel it. Like when you attend at National championship and the runners are proud to fight for medals and get it. And what you get from IOF when you win WRE? It could be done much more to promote organizers, runners and the status of the event. We need to have somebody within IOF to be responsible for this, like EA is responsible for technical aspects of the WRE.

I organized a sprint WRE with Prize money, stage,... a few years ago and I very much missed the support from the IOF (awards, promotional stuff or let say at least better web and technical promotion on IOF webpage - data set which goes along with the WRE event promotion, like name of the course setter, able to put map with route choices on IOF page, short video link, publish official news about the event, ....). In short, I would be glad to print WRE diplomas or similar if they were existed. WRE status should give some real advantage to organizers compare to national events so organizers would have interest to organize event with international status.

The quality most definitely would not have been as high without WRE status.

I wholeheartedly and immodestly agree. But, I bet the status didn't make any difference as to the attendance, and MNOC is an exception rather than the rule among organizers as to seeing value to the increased quality at no increase in attendance.

As registrar for several major championship events that included WREs, I'd say that WRE races *do* matter to a subset of our attendees. They enter their age group for the non-WRE races but they enter a younger age group for the WRE races. If courses change after their initial registration, I've received urgent and sometimes "passionate" requests to switch people over to the WRE course, regardless of whether the change deadline has passed. I can't say that WREs have increased our numbers since we've usually had an attendance cap but they certainly matter to some of our participants.

I agree with kofols that the IOF could do some relatively simple things in terms of providing recognition of winners of WRE races. Even providing an IOF diploma that we print ourselves would be a great step forward. And IOF medals for regional champions. (I did pass on this comment about medals to the IOF prior to NAOC 2012 and hope it was passed on to an appropriate person)

WRE is a great plus for NAOC 2014. With having 3 WRE events we have been able to attract David Rosen from the UK as our WRE Advisor (no offense to NorAM WRE advisors) but this has enabled us to get IOF funding to present a WRE Event Advisor Clinic in April and also receive some top notch feedback on how we can raise the game. Without WRE we would just be another championship event. With it we can use the NAOC 2014 as a major boost to the sport in North America.

GO WRE!!!!

WRE races 2014
http://orienteering.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01...

Probably only a draft, not final list
No standard WRE races in many countries: SWE, NOR, FRA, SVK,....
From latest IOF members only 1 race in MNE and MKD.
WOC, WC races not included yet.

It is only a draft.

They changed the rules so each country can now have six WREs. There are already up to 6 races on the same weekend in different countries.

We're applying for another Sprint distance race in Stirling in October 12th.

Did anyone manage to find the algorithm which upset 6prog so much? Last I heard was that a group had been sent away to come up with a scheme which would produce the predetermined scores...

It's hard to know for sure, but I believe some, if not most, of our overseas attendance at NAOC 2012 was spurred by the WRE's. I thought having an IOF event advisor was good and the extra input improved things. I never once thought that it was additional work or hassle.

I am most certainly more attracted to a WRE event than a non-WRE, and might travel to an event that is a WRE that I would not otherwise consider attending.

The 6prog has started its own page. I'm curious what could be the interest to run a site and maintain it. How unofficial ranking can attract organizers and have a value for the athletes?

@acjospe
I would love if you can share your thoughts.
I also like the WREs, probably from the same reasons as you but this is one sided perception - athlete perception. WREs live because organizers are willing to organize high quality events and willing to pay sanction fees to IOF. So organizers and athlete participation should be our first concern and dealing with both parties with the same sense of respect.

I would be glad if you can describe in more detail what exactly you consider to be your "perceived value of WRE" separated to technical, marketing and personal athlete point of view. How would you rate a WRE label if you would attend a WRE race which would not be sanctioned as NAOC or WOC. Do WRE rank/points give you as an athlete more satisfaction than National championship medal, because you get a visible rank on international ranking?
http://osport.6prog.org/WR_Athlete.aspx?how=F&aid=...

I got a feeling that most amateur Elite athletes are satisfied to quick with "ONLY" a good organization, an interesting terrain and a good map and don't really ask for more. When you compare to other Elite sports what you see that should be a priority for IOF to lift the WRE status for all stakeholders?

As an ex-WRE organizer I would like to see in the future a clear guideline of a key potential benefits I could gain as an organizer so I could have a good reason to support the sport, motivate local runners, ...through a WRE race. There are other ways to support elite orienteering and WRE is just one of them. I am aware that WREs are now important for IOF because of WOC starting list but do they care how should WRE look like beyond that? I don't know for other organizers but I was not able to attract any additional sponsors because of WRE status. Why not asking IOF to sell the WRE brand to one sponsor which will be able to be present at all WREs. You have 120 WREs around the world annually so in theory this should be interesting to someone, at least to some outdoor companies? Is IOF able to do that and also share the profit with organizers?

The ranking list rolls happily on, including the first WRE of 2014.
http://osport.6prog.org/WR_Home.aspx

@kofols describe in more detail what exactly you consider to be your "perceived value of WRE" separated to technical, marketing and personal athlete point of view.
I've done a few WREs on both sides...

Technically, there's not much benefit. Excellent technical guidelines are published online - you don't need to be WRE to read them. You get an extra controller, but normally you have to find&fund them yourself, so again you could just ask someone you respect to cast an eye over things.

Marketing: I think it's very valuable. There are only 3 per country, and often those go to National Champs of famous multi-days which people do anyway. So a standalone WRE event really stands out from the crowd - you're making a strong statement "This event will be good". Your federation backs that statement. Foreigners who think "I'd like to visit Scotland - when is there an event" will recognise this as the event of choice. And non-elite people recognise that WRE usually means better event for everyone.

As an athlete, (of sorts)
I take WRE as a promise of event quality, and that special efforts have been made to make the elite course good. So I'm more inclined to go to an event if it's WRE, and if I do go, then I'm more likely to run the WRE course.

Looked at the points from this past weekend, and the context... wow. What's the point of a non-RC WRE, again?

Can you post a link to the points, please?

Edited, above

To me, those points look completely in line with the other points earned by athletes in the race fields.

Wouldn't you note that there is a substantial difference between points scored at the 2012 NAOC and points scored elsewhere, for just about anyone from North America? If so, is it really true that just about everyone has their best performances at a NAOC, not at the WOC, World Games, or national Champs?

It seems that ...

7.3.3 Official IOF Regional Championships (non-World Cup status):
Winner scores a minimum of 1100 and a maximum of 1400

... is a good reason to be racing this coming weekend!

And, to answer Tundra/Desert's question, I guess the point of non-RC WRE events (e.g., US or Canadian Champs) is that there aren't that many RC-WRE events to choose from (e.g., 1 Middle + 1 Long + 1 Sprint every 2 years). Hard to get a decent World Ranking without the other events (even if they usually generate lower scores).

You can't get a really high ranking without going to WOC. Essentially, nobody who didn't go to last year's WOC will be in the televised "red" group this year. As we saw in Italy, this may include the race winner (Miranova).

The new WRE system is full of random numbers, like Kseniya's 800 points for winning regardless of performance (she could have run 2 mins faster or slower and got the same score). No American/Canadian man has a 1100 score - but someone will get one in a points bonanza this weekend! And who will be responsible for all these great scores? Whoever put on a big event keep the elites in Europe! Step forward, er, me.

Whether its the TV coverage of losers, or random Scotsmen delivering points bonanzas to Americans, WR is looking increasingly silly.

We Canadians are hoping a random Scotsman will deliver points bonanzas to Canadians (not just Americans) too, Graeme. Though that will be difficult with our two top women skipping this year's NorAms.

Hammer, American is a broad term that encompasses Canadian. Luckily you still get to refer to graeme as English. Why didn't they vote yes?

Thanks to Neil from the British Isles for clarifying that one ;)

The Celtic Isles? http://archive.archaeology.org/0107/abstracts/scot...

WR is looking increasingly silly.

From last FOC's meeting.
"There will be a post-season review of the World Ranking. It is also expected that there will be a need for a detailed proposal on rebasing of points."

It looks like that WR has become an annual "trail and error" on-going project and WR doesn't look just silly, it looks dead. I also miss a detailed point calculation and statistics.

P.S.
Simone was able to stay Nr.1 through the whole 2014 season but on 3. december she will step down from the WR throne. If we'd have same statistics as Tennis - how long was her dominance as Nr.1 in weeks? Bring statistics back!