Inter regional Results

[HaRVey]

Ermmmm.... has anyone else noticed some very dodgy scoring system being used for this, I'll be sorry to see the trophy go from my house I've just polished it up, so the Winners can have it. See my facebook wall for what it looks like. pretty good in the sun...
But.... Maybe next year we'll publish a scoring system before the event, rather than making one up to get any old result afterwards.

Still it makes for a good laugh when you just change miss out points on the way down a category, or suggest that coming last in one category is the same as coming about 8th out of 67 paddlers in the other... either all the points are singlularly spaced, or there is a drop off that benefits winning, like selection points (why these weren't used is beyond me).

I'm certain, with West Mids winning every catergory bar C2, having a second paddler in the top 3 in every category bar the C1's, there shouldn't have been too much to have worked out... but seeing as we now have Inter-regional MEN/WOMEN C1's, I think there might just be a bigger issue, here.

With this logic, Why weren't the K1Women put in with the K1Men. Or Why were the K1M Juniors separate from the K1M Seniors, and the same in K1W? (When C1 juniors and Seniors are together as well as men/women). Why weren't c2 put in with the C1's if you are mixing up the Canadians because the numbers are too small in those categories?...
So many questions...

Really, really not a good scoring system.
If you applied the same scoring system to the K1M as has been used in the K1W, West Mids would win. If you used the same scoring system for the K1w, as has been used in the C1's, WM would win. If you used the same scoring system as has been used in the C2's WM would have double the points of every other team.... If you used the Selection Points system... WM would win... Has this scoring system been found by trial and error, in order to make the results look close and or just to not let WM win?
I just don't get it....

When i worked out the points last week. 1 point per place. (Either, 1 point for only those that entered the Inter regional)
The results are:
WM 103
NW 152
EM 175
YO 188
NE 207
SE 223
EA 234

This is using the same way that Interclubs is scored.

(or points based on places out of the whole event: not sure why you would do this except its the simplest addition of results, you add the final position of each paddler, and is the truest reflection of the race Teams without a category result are awarded the points of total number of entrants in catergory +1)
The results were
WM 174
NW 288
EM 297
YO 321
SE 383
NE 392
EA 397

This is based on how good people are including all the other paddlers that could have been entered by a region and were not. Joe Morley for instance was 2nd, and not a member of the YO team? but it works out as better for EM, YO and SE, but not for WM, NW or NE.

Lets definitely get a simpler points system, with all categories separate, and every region understanding how many people for each category, and what points they get for not filling their team.

[BaldockBabe]

Not sure how your results were calculated in the two examples shown - do they ensure that every paddler's run counts and that teams are penalised for not having a full team?

I think devising a new system/ clarifying the exisiting system is fine but we do need to ensure that:

1. Every paddler's run counts
2. Teams are penalised for not having a full team
3. DNF's get credit for tying

The reason for this? I think it is important (particularly in the regions that may not be as strong) that everyone that participates is of value whether it be a Prem paddler or a Div 4 paddler in a C2 with a friend.

Although complicated the above system does deal with those points.

I also think that, like the Interclubs, it is time to give the C1W their own category... There are enough ranked C1W to make it worthwhile. Perhaps rather than two C1 categories (S/ J) we should have C1M and C1W... That means we have the right numbers for team runs too...

[John Sturgess]

Robin

1) Not as you seem to suggest a new system invented to produce a particular result - that is how the system worked back in the early 90's when I first became involved in the Inter-Regionals

2) Each category winner gets 30 points - last one in each category (when all teams enter) gets almost no points - missing numbers to accommodate the fact that some categories have up to 30 boats, some up to 20 boats, some up to 10 boats. Perceived need to avoid decimal places in scoring.

3) Joe Morley not on the list for Yorkshire because he turned down the original invitation as he was going to be abroad, and didn't let me know of change of plan - I did not think it would be fair to de-select his replacement (or rather his replacement's replacement).

4) It was always the aim to reward Regions that entered full teams: widening participation (and remember that it was traditionally run at Town Falls). West Midlands would have won if they had either nominated a replacement for the originally-entered Jack Weddell, or entered a C2 (in both cases assuming the boat finished). But they did not. Numbers of first places are not really the issue: West Midlands won 3 classes, Yorkshire won 3 classes.

5) C1's all in one category (whether C1Senior, C1Junior, or C1L) because twenty years ago there weren't many Junior C1's, and there was no separate C1L class).

6) An additional straitjacket has always been the need to keep the boats in 3's to accommodate an Inter-Regional Team event which ran as a separate event with a lovely big shield as a prize (I still have a team photo from when Yorkshire won it the first year I managed them - as a clue, Alan Cardy was still a Junior!). So thetems were 3 x KIM Senior; 3 x KIM Junior; 3 x KIL (2 x KIL Senior + 1 x KIL Junior); 3 Canadians (2 x C + 1 x C2).

[Ken Trollope]

In the years that Sue and I ran the Inter-Regionals at Llangollen the points were calculated as follows:-

You could have max 3 K1M Junior, 3 K1M Senior, 1 K1W Junior, 2 K1W Senior, 1 C1M Junior, 1C1M Senior, 1 C2

Making 4 classes per region K1M Junior, K1M Senior, K1W and Canadian. (Juniors could paddle as Senior)

Points awarded 1 for first, 2 for second etc. Place not contended last placed boat score + 2

Ken

[John Sturgess]

Ken

Unfortunately when I decided that my strategic course was run I ditched about half a ton of paper results going back into the 70's.

But I do not remember a system which gave the 5th C2 in a class of max 10 boats the same points as the 5th KIM in a class of max 30 boats (although it seems to have been done that way in 2007).

And I am sure I remember KILJ as a separate category from KILS, and C1 separate from C2, but not divided into Junior & Senior.

[Ken Trollope]

John
Have just e-mailed the 2005 results to you.
Ken

[John Sturgess]

I have just recalculated the 2012 results the way they were calculated in 2008. The point I made above (7th/7 gets the same points as 7th/21) causes problems: but the biggest problem comes with boats not entered: in 2008 they were given number paddled +1 in 10-boat classes, +2 in 20 boat classes, and +3 in 30-boat classes

So in 2008 as there were 5 teams of which only NE entered a C2, the other 4 Regions got the same points for their non-existent C2 as Nathan Stevenson got for finishing 6th in KIMS and Zach Franklin for finishing 6th in KIM Junior.

Similarly in 2012: West Midlands would have got the same points for their non-existent C2 as Richard Ramsdale for finishing 8th in KIM Senior, and Joe Moorhouse for finishing 8th in KIM Junior.

[oldschool]

why not simply say you cant win the trophy if you cant fill the team?

then use whatever point system you like as it is the same for all.

or rank all classes like a normal slalom, most points wins?

[BaldockBabe]

because if you can win the trophy without filling the team you deserve to win it?!?!