Why use the Qualifying Time in the elimination rounds?

[Pat Chewning]

The idea is to get rid of "equal placing" as much as possible.

Why? It is the fairest of all the systems offered.

In my opinion, and you know the old saying about opinions, any place earned by using qualifying times and/or loser heat times from the head to head to portion of the race, are false placings.

Head to head is just that, you advance by defeating another racer. Your placing is determined by how long you keep winning.

Racers who advance further in the competition should place higher than those who don't. A racer should not place higher than another racer who was elminated in the same round.

Have fun, with whatever unfair (my opinion) system you decide upon.

Jack, let's be careful with the word "unfair". In my opinion, each of the methods described is equally "Fair". By this I mean that it gives no advantage to one racer over another.

True, the various methods give varying degrees of emphasis on QUAL times vs times in head-to-head, vs outcome (who beat who) in head-to-head. But I cannot say any are unfair.

I think organizers of races should be able to use any method they wish as long as it is clear to the racers what will be used for the final placings....

[Jani Soderhall]

Jack,

It kind of amuses me because all your arguments seems so obvious to you you're prepared to call other methods wrong.

I feel exactly the same thing with my arguments. To me it was obvious that everybody would agree with my opinions. Only when this whole discussion started did I start to realize that there were so many different opinions.

At this time I just wanted to express my preferred method (like everybody else). I don't want to impose it on anyone and I'm not even sure I will impose it in my own event (I haven't so far). I guess my best hope was that somebody (well, many) would actually agree with me and therefore we could see a change.

So far, we seem to have almost as many preferred methods as there are participants in the discussion, so I guess this won't lead us anywhere.

/Jani

[Jack Smith]

Pat, you are correct. "Unfair" is not the proper word.

Maybe I'm too much of a purist, I think the "equal placing" method is the truest to the spirit of head to head racing.

Here's my dilemma; As a race organizer, I choose to use the "equal placing" method for final placement. I announce this before my event. The race is run, places are awarded and then the "rankings" organization ignores the places that were awarded to the racers at my event and replaces them with their own.

Also, as I have mentioned I plan on using differential timing at my events, so there will be no "elapsed times" for the head to heat heats.

Jani, to me, they do seem wrong. As I have stated before, I will continue to run my events using the "equal placement" system. Does this make me right? No. It just means I choose something different.

[Jani Soderhall]

Jani, to me, they do seem wrong.

That's exactly what I meant too, no matter how hard I think about you're method it still seems "wrong" to me. It's not critique or anything, we're just at different wave lengths on this one.

/Jani

[Chris Barker]

In true head to head racing, only the difference between the two racers crossing the finish line is timed. We did this at Morro this year, with very little grumbling from the racers. I plan to use this method from now on in any event I organize. So there would be no "head to head" times to use.

Jack, I know you are in love with eliminating elapsed times, but I think you are in a small minority. Nobody bitched because they were afraid of your wrath. How about another poll on whether to gather elapsed times or just differential? I'm curious who agrees with you. I didn't hear a single racer say they liked only having differential times at Worlds.

[Jack Smith]

ahhh...the "Wrath of Jack".

Yes Chris, it seems that I am in a very small minority on this subject. Poll away!

For my events I won't be swayed by a poll. Other organizers, of course, can run their events in any manner they choose.

Will my position reduce the numbers of entries in my events? Possibly.

[Pat Chewning]

I understand Jack's dillema WRT the World Ranking system. If Jack runs a major contest with placings being 1,2,3,4,5,5,5,5,9,9,9,9,9,9,..... and this is how the racer's use their strategy in the final rounds, then it is "unfair" to then take those results and apply a new placement system after the race.

I admire Jack's persistence and desire to run a "pure" head-to-head race, even going so far as to only time the difference between two racers.

Unfortunately, I believe that most of the customers (the racers) would rather have a system that:

1) Works hand-in-hand with the World Ranking system
2) Gives unique placings to each racer
3) Allows racers to compare race results, over the course of the day, and beyond head-to-head differential.

Jack, you ought to advertise this and promote it more: "TRUE, PURE, RAW HEAD-TO-HEAD RACING"

I don't think adhering to a "PURE" head-to-head system detracts much from one of Jack's races. The racers are going to come because of the venue, the promotion, the organization, the prize money, the level of competition, etc.

[Jonathan Harms]

Wow, you guys are way ahead of me. Like Cbark, I like having actual "absolute" times available, if not at the race, at least afterwards. I didn't know if such a request belonged in this topic, so before I had seen Barker's and Chewning's posts, I started a new topic at viewtopic.php?t=3365

Moderator(s), please feel free to move or reassign that post if need be.

[Jonathan Harms]

In one sense this whole discussion seems to center on issues of fairness and/or accuracy in answering the question: Who really raced better?

I have competed in events that have used both of the "main" methods mentioned so far, i.e. the qualifying times method and the equal-placing method. I think both are fair as long as it's made clear ahead of time which method will be used. And it appears from the discussion so far that neither method has a clear majority of support or supporters.

I think a lot of this depends on how seriously you take your placing in a race, and how much you want that placing to matter in, for example, some sort of ranking system. Now, some people care a lot about their ranking or placing, and some others don't. For those that do, this discussion would be more important.

Here's my dilemma; As a race organizer, I choose to use the "equal placing" method for final placement. I announce this before my event. The race is run, places are awarded and then the "rankings" organization ignores the places that were awarded to the racers at my event and replaces them with their own.

Since the current world ranking system weighs some events more heavily than others, this can make a significant difference; the higher the status, the more this issue matters (again, mainly to those who care about rankings).

Am I way off base, or doesn't the "equal placing" method (for those who lost in head-to-head racing) seem to "elevate" rankings a bit? Example: For 5th through 8th places, everyone gets a 5th instead of the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th they'd get by the "qualifying times" method (or any other method that purposely assigns a separate placing to each racer). Four 5th places add up to 20, whereas 5th-8th places add up to 26. Likewise for 9th-16th places: eight equal 9th places add up to 72, whereas separate 9th-16th places add up to 100, and so on. Unless I'm completely misunderstanding the issue and the numbers, it's something like a 30% difference between the two placement systems.

Would any difference significantly affect someone's ranking? Let's say, hypothetically, that the USA and Canada ranked every race by the "equal placing" method, while Europe and the UK (no snide comments, please, about that!) use the "everyone gets a unique placing" method. Wouldn't the North Americans' rankings be inflated somewhat?

[Jonathan Harms]

And as long as I'm at it:

How do they treat this issue in other sports that use a head-to-head bracketed system? Is there something comparable to what we as slalomers are doing? Obviously tennis has a head-to-head format. But they don't really "place" the participants from 1st through 16th (etc.), do they? They just say, "Roger Federer won the tournament," and maybe that Lleyton Hewitt was the runner-up--but they don't even bother with placing the rest, do they? Is there a comparable RACING sport that we can look to for a better comparison?

[Hans Koraeus]

Jonathan,

You have understood perfectly why the World Rankings are forcing results into unique places. This may result in events placement that does not correspond to the placement used in the World Ranking. But would it have been better to force all event organicers to use unique placings? And to disqualify them if not using unique placings? I think the current rule is fair:

All event organizers decide whatever format they want to run and whatever result listings they want to do. The World Ranking "office" will then try to place racers with unique placements as long as it is possible. If not possible then at least making sure that an event does not gain points by the equal placements format.

In other sports all events normally are using the same event formats. So then the format does not become an issue. But sometimes when using head to head format an equal 5:th is not equal to equal 5:th in another event because they are often counting money not points. So if the sum of the pricemoney is bigger in one event a fifth place will also be worth more. How fair is that.

As I have said before, there is no system out there that is perfect. So dont get too chocked when finding out your own system is not perfect. At some time we just have to start living with a system knowing its pros and cons and start concentrating on the racing itself.

[John Gilmour]

"Example:

16 racer final

JG qualifies 14th he beats JS, the 3rd fastest qualifier in round 1.
(JS now can place no better than 9th because he did not make it to the round of 8)
JS is done for the day. JG is now in the round of eight. He races in the round of eight and loses.
(I can place no better than 5th because I did not make it to the round of 4)

He has now advanced further than the #3 qualifier who he eliminated in the first round.

(Yes I did advance further. I beat him under equal conditions. Even more equal conditions than during the long round of qualifying- where course conditions can change- wind direction, pavement temp, knowledge learned from watching others people set ups and changing accordingly from analyzing the data/times as it comes in ie...don't run the 78a duros...no one is placing a good time on them*oops trade secret blown*.



If you use the "qualifying time" system of placing racers the 3rd place qualifier will be placed ahead of JG even though he did not defeat anyone in the head to head racing. He would be placed ahead of JG even though JG defeated him. "

(No the 3rd ranked seed will not be placed higher. He can not get better than 9th. His combined time in the round he went out in will determine his placing within that round) *Exit times take precendence over Qualification times for the round of 16 and further (If it is a small group of say 20 racers you would use the round of 8 not 16) . Only in the event of a DQ will we revert to qualification times.

So what happened to the number 3 qualifier???? Why did he lose to me? Did I sandbag...maybe...to save energy?...maybe to use those runs for experimentation with gear? Or quite possibly- like Jani does...I'm just warming up for the big show- the round of 8 and think I can definitely make it there...so I'm saving a little energy.

So why did JS place high in qualifications and not make it to the finals? Any number of factors... but when it came time for the round of 16 under the same racing conditions he could not post a fast enough time. Some possible reasons. He did not have harder wheels for the round of 16 (Hey happened to me once at 2001 Morro bay race- in the round of 8). JS might not have thought he could make it to the round of 8 so he uses his best strategy to SECURE 9th. He peaks in his run times during qualifying- a smart move indeed if you don't think you'll survive the round of 16. Or there could be a huge tail wind for some racers that skewed the qualifiers - and this type of ranking according to exit times helps reduce these errrors in the final results.

I think we can all agree that the shorter the span of time for a race the more consistent the conditions are likely to be. So each round is in effect "a shorter span of time to hold a race". So placings within those rounds are more accurate- especially amongst those who are eliminated because....they had better be fighting for their lives to survive in the round where they are eliminated. There is a near guarantee that they are not sandbagging and are truly trying to put in their fastest run.

This system also makes the racer think carefully (or the lesson is learned the hard way in the result placings)->

The racer must try to put in his fastest run WITHOUT DQ'ing or likely he will fall to one of the lowest available placings for that round (that could mean the difference between 9th or 16th ie..."top ten" or "not top ten").

We should get less cone splatter- because NOT DQ'ing when you are eliminated in the 2nd run actually has a value to place you higher.

In the even placing scheme..hell you might want to pump alongside your opponent and try to knock a few cones into his lane to force a DQ (one of my Favorite of Fluitts runs at 'Da farm- truly brilliant- and on tape)
Definitely the strategy that could work if you had the lead on the first run, or if the courses were uneven and you happened to get the faster course the first run...but really was the slower racer. Why not? Under Method A that would be your best strategy. It creates a placing distortion.

I say- if you got to the round...you earned no lower than the lowest place of that round. (Agrees with Method A)

If you lose in a round under my my method, you were likely trying your hardest not to DQ and to post your fastest possible time against a nice fast rabbit in the other lane (It definitely should not be your slowest run of the day, and you should really be going for it because....HEY THIS IS IT...These TWO RUNS will decide your FINAL placing! It makes a difference. So If I face Luca and he takes off 3 cones ahead of me ...I don't give up...Instead I try to put on my best possible run- try to not DQ and go as fast as I can,,,,not just pull out and settle for Equal 9th...because as soon as I see that I have certainly lost to my opponent in that race....the race changes! I am now racing the others in my bracket...I am no longer racing LUCA, instead I am struggling to not end up on the bottom of the exiting times!
____________________________________

Under the equal placing method...My best strategy is to just pump as fast as I can without caring if I DQ...because I already have equal placing and have lost to my opponent. When I see that I have almost certainly lost my second run should either be->



a. Victory by way of an unbelievelably lucky run against Luca where I took ridiculous risk racing way beyond my ability level , nearly wiping/skidding out, and by sheer luck not hitting too many cones while Luca for some strange reason actually hits cones.


Or-

B. Lose in my second run by DQ or wipeout. Because I was racing above my ability level because there was no value in my time...only value in beating Luca.

Or-

C. Watch Luca turn on the afterburners as I relax and cruise to the finish posting a lousy time.


So in short.
A. I win by luck
B. Possible Trip to Medical tent- or cone spray for cone girls.
C. Lame run for me and spectators

Racing and placing in the late rounds by exit times gives the most even placing conditions for that round. Encourages fast clean racing without ridiculous risk. Makes the race exciting....EVEN if you are certain to LOSE...because you are now racing against the others for your rank.

It is the system I think as a racer who can make it to the later rounds would give the most accurate placing for my fellow racers in those rounds. And if you look at my racing in past races...it would likely negatively affect my placings because I tend to put in better qualifiers. I think Exit times under these rules are the most accurate.