Any Consideration to a "Flat" Point System?

[Stephen Lavin]

I have seen posts and grumblings of all sort since Corky and all got the 2009 rankings updated; it was much work I know. It is cool to see how you do with others but can be hard to scope-in on skill set or skill level at times with individuals. Not sure it even matters but the ranking system and the race classifications (point weight) provides a ranking base line that factors in race day (number of events) volumes as well as race point values (Prime, vs Main, etc.), and the class you race in right?

Maybe this applies more to AMs than other classes.

This is just an open comment and/or question that came to mind reading a ranking post on another forum. I was also thinking about the "pro" threads getting kicked around last couple of weeks here... and have come back to center.

Why don't we just have a flat point system? You go to a race, race in a discipline TS, GS, whatever and get the same point whether it's a Main or Prime based upon your finish placement? If race format and cones placement guidelines are followed then why would this not be done as best determination of skill (well in the rankings anyway)?

There could also be a ranking on disciplines too TS, GS, etc. There is much merit to the theory and thinking that went into the points and ranking system - I am not knocking that at all. Gotta have something and the reasoning was pretty sound.

It is pretty clear who goes to more races than others right? Just throwing it out there, really not sure if it's easier or not but would offer a better "metric" on skill in the rankings I think. The person with the most points is not always the most skilled skater and the person with the lowest points is not always the least skilled skater. Anyway no matter.

[Rick Floyd]

SL - I have discussed something very similar with others recently. The problem comes when somebody goes to a very local race and wins, against not much competition, and gets first place points...in a flat system that would be same as the points that, let's say, George gets for winning a race at the Worlds. You see my point. I think that is why we need race status'. I don't think there is anything wrong with having to go to the big races if you want to rank. That was my plan this year, to hit all the Mains and Major, and I had to miss other races I wanted to go to, like Ditch Slap and Johnny Miller's events, becuase of time-off and financial constraints. There are plenty of sports where highly qualified athletes who just may kick the butts of top-ranked athletes in their sport cannot, for some reason - finances, injury, desire, whatever - make all the big events. That's just sport IMO. There are rules and guidelines and we compete within them. We all know who can kick butt, and who maybe got a higher ranking because some people didn't race, but I feel strongly that is not a reason to say the people who made the commitment to race according to the set rules and system don't deserve their placings. I know plenty of snowboarders who could kick some serious a## on the race scene, but don't want to or can't afford to - and nobody is taking medals away from those who went to the races and won. You can't win if you aren't in the race is my rhetorical take on it.

However, a system where racers have to declare their division for the year when they pay their ISSA yearly dues, and then can ONLY earn points in that division during the year, is in the works. This would eliminate the, at least for me, embarassment of being the 5th ranked Master in the world, when I never once entered a masters class in any race. Separate rankings for the discliplines, a la FIS ski racing, is a GREAT idea too. I've always thought that should be the case, in addition to the overalls.

-RF

[Pierre Gravel]

Well when i go to our very local races, i still have to beat Louis, Seb, Rookie, Mig, Claude and you... LOL

There should be a formula to allow point in relation to the ranking of who you beat in every race, but that gotta be a mathematical nightmare.

Even the status of races could be calculated by the average ranking point of the registered racers.

[Fabian Bjornstjerna]

think www.worlcupranking.com works in the way you deskribe.

/ F

[Fabian Bjornstjerna]

sorry missed a "d"

www.worldcupranking.com

/F

[Wesley Tucker]

Points for flat racing might make it Europe but I doubt there'd be much enthusiasm for it over here.

[Hans Koraeus]

That system you are all talking about is what was used a long time ago and the idea was to get away from it. Because it is not fair that you get a lot of points just beacuse you happen to live nearby where there are a lot of skilled racers. And it skews even more that those racers then never need to travel. Only those who are in less developed regions need to do all the travel.

The idea was to set up a limited number of races spread out geographically. Everybody need to travel somewhat equally. Everybody then know what races that counts and what races you should try and get to. And thus trying to make as many as possible of the good racers come together at least a couple of times each year.

And you should also always know what event status you are traveling to. If you put money into travel far and plan travel far ahead you want to be sure the points are there. And if people don't show up don't punish the ones who did the effort of traveling to a race. Punish instead those who stayed at home.

In Germany they could put up races each weekend getting some really high standard. But who could afford getting to Germany each weekend but the Germans themselves? The system is now set up so that you need to enter 4 events as pro, everybody else 3 events. Anybody wanting to do well in a world ranking must afford this to maximize his/her chances, and its not too much demanded I think.

A ranking can never be 100% fair but I think the current system is as fair as it gets. A ranking never shows who is the fastest racer. It shows who is the fastest racer of those who competed. And did well in those events who counted high.

Another idea with the ranking was to give advantage for those who do travel to competitions because they are the ones keeping the slalom race scene alive. But only to a certain limit of course why there is a minimum limit needed. It should not only be bacuse you traveled the most. As it should not either be because you won 1 or 2 events and did nothing more.

The current World Ranking System was set up in 2002-2003. And it took into account all the knowledge and mistakes from earlier tries of doing World Rankings. Both in the beginning of the 90's and also in the beginning of the 2000's. The problem is that a ranking never can be perfect. That is why it is so easy to think that something is wrong and has to be changed. Whatever ranking that will be done will end up in the same situation. The main problem now is therefor not trying to make those small adjustments but rather get the ranking management to rock n roll. Once up and running smoothly we can start changing and testing new rules and regulations.

[Stephen Lavin]

....

The current World Ranking System was set up in 2002-2003. And it took into account all the knowledge and mistakes from earlier tries of doing World Rankings. Both in the beginning of the 90's and also in the beginning of the 2000's. The problem is that a ranking never can be perfect. That is why it is so easy to think that something is wrong and has to be changed. Whatever ranking that will be done will end up in the same situation. The main problem now is therefor not trying to make those small adjustments but rather get the ranking management to rock n roll. Once up and running smoothly we can start changing and testing new rules and regulations.

I am actually a big fan of the current point system - I do not really see anything "wrong" with it and I play in it just fine. I do realize how much thought and trial and error/history went into it - it is engineered the way it is for a good reason. I think you're right about working to make the rankings "perfect" - ain't gonna' happen. You and others have certainly done the best under the guidelines.

I am searching for another metric (idea) that may better capture skill only and not propose skill via volume of events or status of event - maybe this cannot be achieved or no one wants to. I have always thought whether local or national/internationally there should ALWAYS be a rather strict course guide-line that should be followed for the class-type or skill type. I am thinking about the World's and the complaints bounced around on degree of difficulty etc. Of course no road is the same, no grade equal, etc.

In closing, I have zero issue with the current point system, just working to add value (or argument!) if and where I can.

[Jani Soderhall]

The only thing better than a ranking is to have all the best at the same event, and let them race it out. Unfortunately that rarely happens, although it should come close on the World Championships (and sometimes has) so we're back to having some kind of ranking system where we can compare riders even if they don't meet often.

I think the majority of riders are actually pleased with the system. It's just that you don't often hear from all of them!

/Jani

[Steve Pederson]

[Rick Floyd]

The only change I'd like to see is racers having to register in one division for the season, and only receive a ranking in that division, maybe with the exception of the women (could rank in Womens AND Ams), since there often only a few at a race. It would be easy (especially with assigned racer ID's in a rankings system) to run an event, give out the awards for the classes used in the event, but then break out riders results in their registered classes if the race was run in open format or without certain classes. I am pretty embarassed to have earned a 5th place in ISSA Masters for 2009, when I never once entered a Masters class in the races I attended which used ISSA classes. Doesn't seem right. Even using that system, the Masters results aren't accurate because so many riders don't have their birthdate, or don't have their correct birthdate, in the current rankings system...another problem that will be solved this year when all riders have to pay member dues and register with the ISSa to race. We're getting there!

-RF

[Wesley Tucker]

The only change I'd like to see is racers having to register in one division for the season, and only receive a ranking in that division,

The way Corky used to do it (and I assume still does) is a skater couldn't go back and forth. Once an Am went pro then all the Am points stopped accumulating and the Pro points started. Even if the skater raced Am in another event the points were added to the new Pro total. Several skaters kind of got blitzed in the year-end totals because they had some in one category from the first part of the season and then other points in the pro category the remained.

I don't think any skater has bounced around between Pro and Am in Corky's system. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure it's all or nothing ONCE a skater declares pro status.

As far as the Master's thing is concerned, I will agree that's a work in progress. It just started with either the '08 and '09 rankings and there are still a lot of kinks in it, mainly getting a skater to decide IF he wants to be a Master pro, pro, Master Am or Am.

[Rick Floyd]

Right now a pro is a pro, and you can change UP in mid-season, like KD did - but still get your AM and PRO points separately, plus the "filler" points you get if you don't have the required 6/8/ events. You can also be a PRO and still get MASTERS points and/or enter MASTERS class in one event and get PRO points in another - see Keith Hollien for example. Basically, you get points for whatever "age" groups you qualify for - as long as you supply your correct birth date to Corky directly - and also can earn points in whatever divisions you have entered during the year. Right now, in the same year, you can also enter one event as a MASTER and then another as an AM (see Steve Pederson). You can also be a PRO and still get JUNIORS points (see Joe McLaren). What I am proposing is that you only get points in a declared division that you meet the requirements for. In USASA snowboarding, you can start the year in an age group (we have them all the way up to 70+) and then move UP to OPEN class (the highest), but then not back down during the year. If you do change during the year, you lose any points from the lower division. This is very important since points are used to qualify to race in the Nationals. If you start the year in OPEN, you may not move down until the following year. I'd like to see rankings only for the class a rider competes in during the year - this would also necessitate a birth date rule where a rider has to be "X" years old by "X" date so, for example, a Junior will be a Junior all year or an AM doesn't suddenly become a MASTER during the year. I also would like to see the 4-year ranking go away - while it is cool to look at, and certainly representative of consistent performance by a racer, it doesn't seem that prizes would ever be given out for this ranking...if prizes for season rankings are implemented - currently being discussed as a possibility.