Use qualifying times or times in Head-to-Head for placement

[Pat Chewning]

This is a follow-on poll for the topic: "Why use the Qualifying Time in the elimination rounds?"

5 methods for determining the final placement in a race are described. The race example consists of a qualification round, a round of 32, a round of 16, a round of 8, a semifinal round of 4, a consolation round (for 3rd & 4th place), and a final round (for 1st and 2nd place). Vote for one method you would like to see used.

In all of the following methods, racers not qualifying into head-to-head are sorted by qualification times. (Placings 33 on down).

Method A: Racers 1-4 are placed as usual by advancing to the final rounds. Racers 5-32 are placed according to order of qualification times regardless of how far they may have advanced during the rounds of 32, 16, 8.

Method B: Racers 1-4 are placed as usual by advancing to the final rounds. Racers losing in each round are placed in order of qualification times only in relation to other racers losing in the same round. Losers in the round of 32 receive places 17-32 according to qualification time, losers in the round of 16 receive places 9-16 according to qualification time, losers in the round of 8 receive places 5-8 according to qualification time.

Method C: Racers 1-4 are placed as usual by advancing to the final rounds. Racers losing in each round receive "Equal Nth" place where N=(Round of X/2)+1 . Losers in the round of 32 receive "Equal 17th". Losers in the round of 16 receive "Equal 9th". Losers in the round of 8 receive "Equal 5th".

Method D: Racers 1-4 are placed as usual by advancing to the final rounds. Racers losing in each round are placed in order of times in the current round in relation to other racers losing in the same round. Losers in the round of 32 receive places 17-32 according to times received in the round of 32, losers in the round of 16 receive places 9-16 according to times received in the round of 16, losers in the round of 8 receive places 5-8 according to times achieved in the round of 8.

Method E: Racers 1-4 are placed as usual by advancing to the final rounds. Racers losing in each round are placed in order of best time ever (Qualification or head-to-head) in relation to other racers losing in the same round. Losers in the round of 32 receive places 17-32 according to the best time in Qualifying or in the round of 32. Losers in the round of 16 receive places 9-16 according to the best time in Qualifying or in the round of 32, or in the round of 16. Losers in the round of 8 receive places 5-8 according to the best time in Qualifying or in the round of 32, or in the round of 16, or in the round of 8.

[Pat Chewning]

I favor method B with Method E a close 2nd.

Method A: Does not reward advancement in the head to head
Method B: Rewards advancement in head to head. Each racer gets unique placing. Racers only compared with Qual times. Simple to administer.
Method C: Too many ties.
Method D: Too many ties. (Lower qualifying racers DQ'ing in the round of 32)
Method E: Rewards advancement in head to head. Each racer gets unique placing. More difficult to administer.

[Donald Campbell]

thanks for running a poll pat.
i am still thinking about this touchy subject to make my race in brixlegg fair and efficient. let's see what the racers say and think.

[Jack Smith]

Thanks for the poll, Pat.

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.

[Vincent Berruchon]

but remember again that anonymous forum polls mean quite nothing...

[Vincent Berruchon]

I think exactly like Pat

I favor method B with Method E a close 2nd.
..

but as the E method give perhaps too much importance to times from head to head
Qualifications are the moment to get a time. Head to head moment to beat the opponent.

- Method A: Just forget it , good only for 4 racers race. Does not reward advancement in the head to head
- Method B: Simple and logic : Rewards advancement in head to head. Each racer gets unique placing. Racers only compared with Qual times. Simple to administer.
- Method C: Too many ties.
17th = 32nd, why not a free session without timing system?
- Method D: Forget this one too. Way too much importance to times from head to head. It means nothing. Too many ties. (Lower qualifying racers DQ'ing in the round of 32)
Method E: Rewards advancement in head to head. Each racer gets unique placing. More difficult to administer and is head to head the moment to get a time or beat your opponent?

[Ramón Königshausen]

To not to be anonymous: I took my vote on Method E.

rmn

[Claude Regnier]

Jack there was no grumbling because we had no choice. I'm sure most of us would prefer to see our times just to see if we are getting any faster as the day progresses.

Maybe a poll on how Morro Bay played out would be good too.

Don't get me wrong it was fun. I don't regret going and will do it again for sure. It's just not the funnest method for the competitors. No records of the racing followed either. Left a kind of hollow feeling personnaly.

[Jack Smith]

Good point Claude. And if I would have opened it up to discussion we would probably still be debating it, wait a minute...we are. Just kidding.

In head to head racing it doesn't matter if you are getting faster as the day progesses. The only thing that matters is whether you win or lose your heat.

This poll is a good thing. However, as I stated before, any "head to head" race that I organize will use differential timing and award equal placings beyond the 1-4 finishers.

For World Rankings, the administrators, of course, can use whatever method they choose to.

Racing is racing...Qualifying is qualifying.

[Jani Soderhall]

I'm really convinced that Method D is the most accurate, informational, most-fun-for-all, method.

My logic is that as a potential looser you're only thinking about going fast. Nothing else counts. If this statement is true, which I believe, then it's logical to compare the times to others.

For me it's very important to see the time from each race. We're all anxious to improve as the day goes on, and we often do. If there is no way to confirm that we'll sadly miss it. Even if you loose against your head-to-head partner, at least you compare your time to others, including both those who advance and those who fall out. Like that we can sit for hours with the spreadsheets in our hands and dream of situations that could have happened and create statistics to talk about. That's part of the fun.

I strongly disagree with the idea of just taking the difference between the two runs.

- For the ranking it's good if we use the same system / final placing order as in the event.
- Wesleys idea on knowing who gets to pick a prize first, or who gets which trophy/medal/cash cheque is most valid too.
- I still recall my disappointment from being equal 17:th (should I tell friends and family I was among the 17 best, 20 best or 32 best?). I would have preferred the exact position, let's say 26th. We have the times, we can make this sport exact.

/Jani

[Stefan Bölsterli]

For me it seems that we have a certain need for regualtions in how to generate a rankinglist.

It can't be that riders get a different place and points, just because we do not have
a overall valid procedure on how to build a rankinglist.

It seems that the most races use "Method D", which is used in the spreadsheets from dan gesmer.
We (Grüningen) used untill now "Method D" too, but we consider if we use Method E
in our 5 coming contests 2006. For me it depends on what here is going on.
Currently we are typing in all results from 2005 in my racemanager. When this is done
I'll do an investigation if we had big changes in the ranking when "Method E" is used.

[Jack Smith]

Jani,

I find it hard to believe that you would have preferred 26th position to equal 17th.

The "equal system" would have no effect on the overall rankings as racers do not finish the same at each race, this along with scaled points being awarded at different status races would eliminate the ties so many seem to be concerned about.

It doesn't matter if you improve your time all day long, if your opponent improves his a little more you still lose.

Improve your skating in practice.

There is no problem awarding prizes. It is done all the time in sports just as, or more "exact" as ours.

[Jani Soderhall]

It doesn't matter if you improve your time all day long, if your opponent improves his a little more you still lose.

Jack,

Maybe there are misunderstandings in this discussion after all? Obviously the racing part is there and the best racer will always win. My contribution to this discussion has only been, what do we do with the once who loose. Maybe I haven't read all of this topic well enough.

I lost to against a better opponent. That's obvious, but the system I'm trying to defend gives a bit of meaning to those who looses out. I'm trying to motivate why it's worth doing a bit of statistics to help them get a placing too.

No harsh feelings though. I've been reading this topic half-heartedly and haven't taken the time to be creative and come up with something new.

/Jani

[Jani Soderhall]

It seems that the most races use "Method D", which is used in the spreadsheets from Dan Gesmer.

Normally it's method B which is used in Dan's spreadsheets. That is the most commonly used method now. It's similar to Method D, but it gives more importance to the performance in the Quals rather than in the current round.

In my opinion the Qual has done what it needed to do: Get people into the bracketing system in the place they deserved based upon those two runs.

Racing in the bracketing system will give you a chance to advance but if you don't you may still have done a really, really good run and I think it would be fair if you could be awarded for it. The only sufferers are those who lost with a lousy run. Method B still gives them credit though because they did a good qual time. (but they've already been awarded for that once, isn't that enough?)

/Jani

[Joe Iacovelli]

I voted B because it discourages sandbagging. You should also not have to go all out during your rounds. I witnessed Luca at Paris in 2004. He put forth just enough effort on each run to beat his opponent by a comfortable margin, but not by a "mile", thus consering energy for hharder rounds.

D & E would necessitate going all out on every run.

[Stefan Bölsterli]

Sorry guys, i wrote Method D and meant Method B ;(.

[Jani Soderhall]

You should also not have to go all out during your rounds. I witnessed Luca at Paris in 2004. He put forth just enough effort on each run to beat his opponent by a comfortable margin, but not by a "mile", thus consering energy for harder rounds.

Of course! if you are the faster rider.

The whole discussion is what to do with the slower riders. I can't see them applying any other strategy than going as fast as possible (plus a little bit of playing with scaring the racers if there's a chance for that).

/Jani

[John Gilmour]

I voted B because it discourages sandbagging. You should also not have to go all out during your rounds. I witnessed Luca at Paris in 2004. He put forth just enough effort on each run to beat his opponent by a comfortable margin, but not by a "mile", thus consering energy for hharder rounds.

D & E would necessitate going all out on every run.

Well two things..

Pat- In D there are nearly no ties because we revert to qualifiers in the event of a DQ. And if two people had the same qualifing times... well to the 1/1000th of a second...I certainly think it is fair to award a TIE! If you didn't want to award a tie for fastest single qualifier you could do combined qualification times...I seriously doubt then there would ever be a tie.

JOE- D does not necessitate that you go all out in every run..If you are faster...you can safely pace your opponent. You are not reseeded in every round (only losers are "reseeded" *read...receive their exact FINAL placing early, game over*.

If total reseeding every round were the case (far too complicated)....we could nearly eliminate qualifiers completely without changing the results much. Every round would be a re-qualification round. That is not what I had intended. The qualification times should matter.

What if it is going to rain? Well if you are willing to bet that the race will be called off shortly after qualifiers........post your fastest qualifier ever. Get out those Ceramic bearings- put on your fastest wheels- start taping those laces and think about qualifying in lycra.

Qualification times - are valid times... In some cases they are the ONLY times we may have to rank people in a race called due to weather- or the looming outlaw BUST. Good racers will recognize that and prepare for qualifications like they are the only race.

You race hard in qualifiers to get either the top 1 or top 2 seeds so you can sandbag all the way to the later round of 16. You stay fresh to prevent upsets. That is the reward for qualifying well. This reward prevents top racers from running the wrong wheels intentionally to confuse competitors for instance.... (yes...it's been done).

There is just enough weight to make a good qualifing time worth doing and not too much weight that it detracts from head to head placing. Head to head placing is most heavily weighted for racers at the top 4 positions. For each bracket below the round of 4 the head to head racing has less significance because you don't get to race EVERYONE in your bracket. The goal is to ideally weight it properly for those that are eliminated and to reward them for proving that they could get so far their exit times seed their places. In racing there is a single winner- ALL the rest are losers....so we had better pay attention to putting the losers in the right order or we won't have much attendance in future races (Unless there are killer after parties).

In the round of 32 you only race 1/31st of all the possible racers in that bracket. So why weight head to head racing so strongly? Certainly your qualifaction times (Which incidentally happen close to your bracket where you are eliminated if you go out in the round of 32) are very accurate in ranking you against others.

In the round of 16 you race 1/15th of the possible racers (you can't race yourself) so head to head should be almost twice as valuable...but again in that round looking at the exit times wil seed you most accurately amongst the racers that lost that round. The further along you go- the more accurate it becomes.....until the point where sandbagging gives no advantage- and Head to head results take precedence. In the round of 4 to the finish here is a list of who each racer races.

1 races 2 and 4
2 races 3 and 1
3 races 2 and 4
4 races 1 and 3

so the results are near perfect head to head results. For perfect head to head results for top 4-

1 would race 3 and win
2 would race 4 and win

Then everyone in the top 4 would have raced everyone else...

But we don't go there for fear of an upset...lol...

We need times and placings...Sometimes...you don't ever get to race someone. I for instance have NEVER faced Ransom Head to Head. Nor I think, have I ever raced Chicken Head to head. So it is nice to see where you could stand in every race.

But Joe....if you think you could lose in a given bracket... then you have to go all out in every run. I've watched you get faster- taking cleaner lines, eliminating the foot dragging between cones-. you are getting faster and..... For a while you could sandbag.



But now that you won the B-class..that is a thing of the past for you. You start all over again struggling not to get eliminated (screw American Idol- and Reality TV- we are the real elimination game) Isn't racing fun?


One other benefit.

In Gesmers method I was rewarded for a good qualifier and it heavily favored people who qualifed
high (places 1-4) and then don't get into the round of 4. It made me put great emphasis on the qualifier, but I did sometimes get lazy in the round of 8 knowing that I had a nearly guaranteed 5th for peaking early.

But with Gesmers method if you know you won't get top 4. You look at the board after qualifiers...and essentially- the race is over. You already know your place. You flew all that way for 2 qualifying runs.

With method D- the race ain't over until it's over.....(well...actually you can determine your place as soon as you are eliminated and your round is finished- now that can get suspenseful. AND you can determine your place quickly because you only have to look at the combined exit times for your round. So if I am eliminated in the round of 8 I look at the exit times of the three other guys in my round to determine my place.

If I am in a big race and lost in the round of 16 I would look at the exit times for 7 other people. Which...come to think of it...is really suspenseful to see if you made "top ten". I could just see 8 guys trying to figure it out after the round of 16... placing bets etc.

You just need a line of code to add up the combined times of the eliminated skaters and order them at the end of the round. It's like a mini awards ceremony over the loudspeaker as placings are awarded as the courses are reset.


nah nah nyhah nyah...I got top ten..you didn't....lol....

2 guys get to say that... and earn it..

The "group hug" of equal 9th...hmmm...not that there is anything wrong with that......, but I prefer not to have ties unless they really ARE ties to the 1/1000th of a second.

As for differential timing.->

I would feel uncomfortable as a time keeper, cone head or offical if some lady came up to me and said

"Who has the fastest time today?" and I had to say

"I have no idea...it doesn't matter."
I continued...

"you see, we do things by a different way called differential timing"

She then asks..

"So the biggest differential is the fastest?"

I reply-
"uuuuh...no. You have to beat your opponent but you don't have to have the fastest times of the day or even the fastest time of your round. We really have no idea of where most racers stand in rank next to each other. We have no complete times, only differentials"

"So how do you keep track of whose winning?"

hmmm I thought... "Well I guess the easiest way is to hover over the timing table- other wise I get lost without constantly updating a bracket sheet myself...... or you can memorize the top 4 fastest qualifiers and watch to see if there is an upset....then try to make a new bracket and figure it out- see all these bracket drawings on my arm..forget the last bracket... I got the racers confused when they ran the consolation rounds in the wrong order."

(In fact this is no different than what happens in head to head but it is just harder to explain and gives racers less info to give value to their racing trip. We want to see our practice pay off- some of us don't have timers and base our improvement solely on our rank against the other racers.) Spectators and especially racers want to know who has posted the fastest times and by how much.

I'll take times, real times thank you.

[Jonathan Harms]

In an ideal world, I'd vote for Method D, because it is the closest to "similar conditions" or however JG put it. In a pinch, I'd vote for Method B, as it seems the simplest way to rank racers based on their actual times.

Method D advantages: *IF* we can revert to qualifying time in the event of a DQ (as JG mentioned), I think Method D most accurately reflects who went fastest under similar conditions. If not, then perhaps there would be "too many DQs" in the round of 32. But otherwise, I think Method D is the most accurate way of determining who (of the losers) went the fastest. Why? Because in effect, it's based on the slower racer in each head-to-head race, and the "usually" slower racer always has the incentive to go as fast as possible.

All that matters in head-to-head is who goes faster overall. If you win, you move on, and you don't get placed yet. So if you know you're likely to be faster than the person you're racing, you give just enough to get the job done. On the flip side, if you know you are likely the slower racer, you go balls-out, because that's the only way you'll win. So the loser has been inspired to give it his/her best shot. In Method D, placings in a particular round are determined by which loser went fastest in that round. It's all based on how much the slower racer "wants it."

Method B advantages: It's well established via Dan's spreadsheet. And it has a certain logic to it: everyone runs the same course under (roughly) the same conditions, and it works even if later rounds get rained out--so at least there's SOMETHING to base results on.

Other observations on Method B, neither positive nor negative (in my opinion): Basing results on qualifying time rewards those who get used to a course quickly--especially if there's not much on-course warm-up or practice (which is why the 2006 Texas Sizzler was kind of cool; it had a separate course set up parallel to the race courses to encourage curious onlookers to try slaloming, and to allow racers to stay loose during down time).

[Jani Soderhall]

Thank's John for bringing some light to this discussion again. You post is too long to quote, so I'm quoting from Jonathan instead:

If you win, you move on, and you don't get placed yet. So if you know you're likely to be faster than the person you're racing, you give just enough to get the job done. On the flip side, if you know you are likely the slower racer, you go balls-out, because that's the only way you'll win. So the loser has been inspired to give it his/her best shot.

Thank you. I have tried to explain this so many times.

I just don't agree with Jonathan that we should revert to qual time in case of a DQ. There's no need for that. Obviously a DQ is slower than the slowest time in that round. If there are more than one DQ, we'd just use the "second" run (as we always do two runs each in each round). If there's still a tie, we can use the qual time, ok.

/Jani

[Jonathan Harms]

I just don't agree with Jonathan that we should revert to qual time in case of a DQ. There's no need for that. Obviously a DQ is slower than the slowest time in that round. If there are more than one DQ, we'd just use the "second" run (as we always do two runs each in each round). If there's still a tie, we can use the qual time, ok.

I see what you're saying, Jani. But if we were to use Method D, would we only count each loser's faster run to determine placings? What if one course is consistently, say, 1 second faster than the other? (It has happened.) If Racer A posts a 21.5 on the "slow" course but blows out and DQs on the "fast" course and loses to Racer B, while Racer C posts a 21.0 on the fast course and a 22.5 on the slow course but still loses to Racer D--which loser should be placed higher? On the same course (slow, in this example), Racer A was a full second faster than Racer C. Do we go by combined time or best-run time?

[Jani Soderhall]

Of course combined times, as we do all the time. My explanations were only to solve the situation where you have one (or more) DQs.

Method D is easy to handle and most importantly gives every racer THE reason to go as fast as they can, even if they know they are going to loose.

/Jani

[Pat Chewning]

Of course combined times, as we do all the time. My explanations were only to solve the situation where you have one (or more) DQs.

The original definition of Method D was to use the racer's single fastest time in that round. After reading the discussion above, I believe Method D should be the combined time for that round. But still, if more than 1 person double-DQ's then you need to revert back to something else (Qual times perhaps).

After programming a spreadsheet for this, I can tell you that it is not easy to do all of these IF/THEN scenarios ..... Very hard to keep track.

-- Pat

[Jonathan Harms]

After programming a spreadsheet for this, I can tell you that it is not easy to do all of these IF/THEN scenarios ..... Very hard to keep track.

Hence my "in a pinch" endorsement of Method B. It ain't perfect, but it does, as I said, have a certain consistency to it.

[John Gilmour]

Of course combined times, as we do all the time. My explanations were only to solve the situation where you have one (or more) DQs.

The original definition of Method D was to use the racer's single fastest time in that round. After reading the discussion above, I believe Method D should be the combined time for that round. But still, if more than 1 person double-DQ's then you need to revert back to something else (Qual times perhaps).


After programming a spreadsheet for this, I can tell you that it is not easy to do all of these IF/THEN scenarios ..... Very hard to keep track.

-- Pat

Yes it should always be combined times. Wind could have an effect as well- you could have a gusty headwind in your fast lane run for instance. The only reason why it makes sense to take the fastest time of two runs in qualifications is that racers who are not sure what gear to run have these 2 runs to try a different set up and measure the time difference. So one of the qualifying times gets tossed out.

All this talk of Dq's in early rounds.

Lets look at this again carefully.

if I DQ in the round of 8 and I was really the fastest loser in that round (And it has happened to me) under Dan's rules I am very happy to keep my 5th place qualifier. However if I DQ under Method D I stand a good chance of being stuck with 8th place.

Now instead of being in the top 5 , I'm in the top 10. I drop 3 places. So Under Method D- If I DQ it will cost me 3 placings.

Let's compare... A loss in a different bracket. For a newbie , I'm new to racing. I tend to hit a lot of cones when I race above my ability level. I manage to qualify in 25th place.

I'm going to race one of the top 8 racers (likely only about .2 sec slower than the eventual winner).

Do I stand a chance of winning....NO.
Will I lose, almost certainly.

Under Dan's method, the temptation is to just try and Keep up with number 8 on my second run, go for total broke and try to keep within range strategically criddling all the hard cones in an effort to stay up with him and remove difficulty from the course. I'll try to keep the number of cones down, but the only thing to "win" is this run against this opponent- so even if I hit 1 less cone than a DQ and finish, that's good. If I DQ, so what- I still get 25th.

My only hope is that my opponent will hit as many or more cones than me...I won't catch him on speed, but I have to try and keep pressure on him. So I have to race out of my comfort zone- for a very slim chance of ANY benefit.

NOW Under Method D. I look over at Chris Chaput. I realize my chances of beating him are likely less than 1 in 20 runs. So I race with my head, not over it. My goal changes from risk wiping out to beat Chaput to......Lets improve my 25th place to 17th place...and not be stupid and plow cones or DQ and end up with 32nd place ...7 spots worse than where I qualified.


If I were the 16th fastest qualifier I could fall 16 spots and end up 32nd with a DQ....UGGGH!

Think that's bad?

Chaput decides to loan out some rare new wheel formual to a friend racer and put slower wheels on his board- figuring it won't matter. He forgets to tighten a wheel and it pops off and he Dq's. Chaput's place which was 8th is now 32!

Now I know what you are thinking....what is the incentive for the number 28,29,30,31,32, racers to race with their head? They have little to lose. The most they can drop is a few spots.

But there are 32 racers in this bracket. There could be a few DQ's out of 32 racers. So number 28 could end up in the top 25.

So under Method D. there would likely be fewer Dq's , fewer wipeouts, less cone carnage.

Again..I personally will suffer under D. With fewer cone hits by opponents I can't criddle as much as I would like to. I can't toss down a risky run. I Also can't wildly experiment IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RACE with gear like I tend to because it will affect my combined time (likely negatively on the slower set up) Under Dan's rule I won't get less than 5th if I qualify 5th or higher.

As for tallying D.

You don't have to grab a qualification sheet with 48 names on it and try to find the racer's name. The times are right in front of you ready to be tallied or already tallied by computer. (Ideal and easy).

Every round ends with suspense waiting to hear your placing.

So out of curiousity...is anyone willing to take some old race results and retally under D?

Take up one of Dan's PDF's and see how things would have shaken out.

Of course there will likely be more DQ's much more negatively affecting people's placings. So ideally select a race PDF that does not have a lot of DQ's. Under Method D where racers are penalized in placing within their bracket for a DQ racers ...particularly in the round of 16 would be very careful not to dq. (It could cost you 8 spaces).

For instance: A really bad race to select would a La Costa race with many DQ's. The worst choice? The first Cambria tight course where nearly 1/2 dq'ed over an overly tight course for the ability level present.

***realistically though- I think it is pretty harsh to have a racer drop 16 or more places. I don't think Luca- if he were to slip off his board or have a back spasm should have his 1st place qualifier completely tossed out and get 32nd place. For that reason I think a moderate use of exit times is the round of 8. And a moderate/severe use of exit times would be the round of 16. I would not ever suggest using it for the round of 32. (mostly because the 16 vs 17 and 15 vs 18 and 14 vs 19 pairs risk losing heavily if one should dq- and racing is intense between these pairs to make it to the next round !)



I'm guessing that if you look at things you'll see a lot of "go for broke Dq's" happening in the round of 16 at larger races under Dan's system.

I do believe that using the exit times will very very accurately rank racers 5-8.

Racers 9-16 will also be more accurately ranked...but not with the accuracy of racers 5-8. Which makes sense because rank can only be off by 3 places in the round of 8 if there is a freak screw up. In the round of 16 ranks could be messed up by say 8 places if your foot slips off your board.
----
implementation->
Let's try it in the round of 8 first. It seems a shame to have racers going into the round of 8 already knowing that have raced all those brackets likely without being able to affect their placing. Under Dan's rule it reverts to qualifiers . Watch method "D" burn my ass in my past results.

[Jonathan Harms]

Um, John...could you repeat that?

[John Gilmour]

well that is what gets typed with to little sleep.





The long and short of it. use Exit times for the round of 8. If it is a really large field you could use exit times for the round of 16.

Don't use them for the round of 32 because the penalty of a DQ is far too harsh on final placings.

So take your risks...until the round of 8 or 16.

We should have some clean good looking runs on film for finals then.

[Jonathan Harms]

Merci beaucoup.

[John Gilmour]

The funny thing is...even though I'm saying that we should use "d" . as a racer who puts down some erratic times...I'm secretly (greedily) hoping that E will win...because that would really help my placings!

IF you look way back to the first La Costa revival race, how would "d" or "e" have affected placings?

There was a controversy over Don O'Shei's qualifing time. He posted the fastest qualifier but did not win the first round of 32- losing to the 32nd racer.

Under Dan's system Don would have gotten 5th place and if we assume that Don's time was erroneous based upon his other runs that means that every finisher after Don would have had his points affected negatively.

If we used "d" with the round of 16 for exit times...then Don would have been awarded 17th place and only finishers after 18th place would have been affected. With such a large field for that race (Was it 69 racers?) using the round of 16 could be justified for exit times.

It wouldn't be too bad of an effect since those placings (#17 and onward) don't get many points anyhow. It might just be a point or so difference. Korky? What is it?

If you used "d" exit times for the round of 8 Don would have goten 9th place....again not as bad with points (better than pushing the entire bottom half of the top ten down in placing and points). Don makes top 10. and the real ten is bumped out of the top ten.

If you used "e" Don would have gotten the same place he would get under Dan's system...5th place. And really affected the points of those immediately under him.

Because the points drop off so rapidly as we move from the first place finisher...it really does make a difference.

Timing errors can (will) happen- and "d" helps to reduce the effects of previous timing errors. I think we have fewer timing errors in the later rounds than in qualifiing.

(Ahem...except for Jason Mitchell "losing" to Mollica and having to switch crocks later after the farm race) lol... even then...at least the error was eventually caught and fixed...which likely would not happen if it was a qualifing time.

Nit picking...yes. helps me?Definitely no (VOTE "E".....LOL), but "D" will really help those skaters in the # 20-#8 positions. Those skaters can evenutally make it to #1.

[Chris Barker]

Under Dan's system Don would have gotten 5th place

What's all this talk about "Dan's System"? Dan's System is closest to "B" in the poll and DonO would have gotten 17th place for being the high qualifier that lost in round of 32. He would not have gotten 5th place, nor would he have gotten 5th place points in Corky's system. Jack Smith tried to convince me that was how it works, but it doesn't, at least not since I have been racing. Perhaps it did at that race, but I have not seen that ordering used since I started racing.

If someone has info that contradicts it, post it up. If you get knocked out in round of 32, you will finish no higher than 17th place.

Go to the rankings site and check for yourself. Here is a snippet from a note I sent Jack last fall.

I am not sure about your slalomranking comments. If you look at Athens Special, they used the GS results for the quals in Special. Mitchell was #2 qual, but lost to Oles (#15) in the round of 16. Oles lost to me in the round of 8. Oles (lowest qualifier to get knocked in round of 8) got points for 8th. Mitchell (highest qualifier to get knocked out in round of 16) got points for 9th.

Similar thing in Paris tight, Fluitt qualified 13th, Strobel 4th. Fluitt upset him in the round of 16. Strobel got points for 9th place, not 5th place as you were suggesting. Fluitt went on to get 4th place points, but even if he was eliminated in the round of 8, he would have gotten 8th place points ahead of Strobel to reward his upset.

[John Gilmour]

cBark True- at Jacks races...Everyone got equal 5th or 9th, or 16 of they were knocked out before the round of 4.

We are just trying to get the most accurate ranking for those skaters that did not make it to the round of 4.

So many different things are going on at qualifying (like gear changes) and qualifying takes a longer time so course conditions would change more in a long qualifying round than a in the rapid round of 8.

Using "exit times" to order the losers is the question as opposed to reverting to qualifying times. Or everyone tieing. IMHO I think if it is possible to show racers where they rank against one another we should.

I suppose we could also leave this to the racers to figure out for themselves and award equal placing- but I think it is more fun for everyone to hear annoucing of the placings of the skaters that just got knocked out....mostly because that is the point where the crowd just followed their progress the most closely.

[John Gilmour]

snipped

Similar thing in Paris tight, Fluitt qualified 13th, Strobel 4th. Fluitt upset him in the round of 16. Strobel got points for 9th place, not 5th place as you were suggesting. Fluitt went on to get 4th place points, but even if he was eliminated in the round of 8, he would have gotten 8th place points ahead of Strobel to reward his upset.

Yes I understand what you are saying. I am sure I have got Dan's system wrong at this point. Sorry guys.

Even if Fluitt lost in the round of 8 he would have to place higher than Strobel since he beat him in the head to head. I totally agree.

So at what point does Dan's system revert to qualifying times for placing? Which round. Sorry for the confusion- thanks for calling me on it.

JG

[Pat Chewning]

snipped

So at what point does Dan's system revert to qualifying times for placing? Which round.

The Seismic spread-sheet that Dan uses at many races is identical to METHOD B above.

Qualifying times are used to sort all of the exiting people from a round, only in relation to other people exiting that round. Winning in a round guarantees you placing higher than those exiting that round.

-- Pat

[Wesley Tucker]

I'm really disliking the notion of going all the way back to qualifying times to determine placing beyond 1st through 4th. Qualifying is just that: something to use to qualify and set the brackets. Once racing gets under way, the qualifying goes out the window after the first round. People behave differently 1-on-1, equipment set ups change, weather and wind changes during the day, etc. Going back to 10:00 in the morning to decide who got 5th place is irrelative to what happened later in the day.

Placings:

1st
2nd
3rd
4th

Easy

5th (fastest time of eliminated racers in the round of 8)
6th (second fastest)
7th (third)
8th (fourth)

9th -16th place (Fastest to slowest times of eliminated racers in the round of 16)

Mabe early in the sport using the quals as final placings worked best, but with all the new software, spreadsheets and data management resources we have on hand it's not a big deal to make positioning much fairer to all who race.

Oh, one last thing. I haven't been screwed in some way by the qual-time method of placings. I have no axe to grind because of something personal. I'd just like to see a change made soon.

[Ramón Königshausen]

Qualifying is just that: something to use to qualify and set the brackets.

That's only half the truth. In the Qualification you try to get the best time at all so that later on, on your way through the spread sheet and towards the final, you won't have to race against so strong adversaries.
For example: When I only qualified 4th in Grueningen's Special Slalom, I already had to take on Luca in the semi final - if I had qualified 3rd or 2nd I might have met him in the final...

So it is in your interest to do your best in the qualification to avoid meeting your strongest adversaries somewhere else than in the very finals.

rmn

[Karl Floitgraf]

but sometimes it does suck when you screw up in qualifying and you don't get a chance to race head to head. One single small complaint about an otherwise ridiculously good weekend.

[Chris Barker]

Wesley - You are never gonna sell me on this. Quit trying to diminish the importance of qualifying. Ramon makes some good points.

The bottom line is that during qualifying you are trying to get your fastest possible time on a given course. During a H2H heat, you are trying to finish ahead of your opponent. Who cares what the time is? You just need to beat your opponent by a click on the clock.

During qualifying, you are racing against "everyone". During H2H, you are racing a single opponent.

The Q-times are a more accurate assessment of ranking than fastest time during a H2H round.

[Jani Soderhall]

Who cares what the time is? You just need to beat your opponent by a click on the clock.

If you are the faster rider, you don't worry about your time, you just make sure you finish ahead of the other guy.

If you are the slower rider, you fight light crazy to obtain the best time you could.


So, if you are the slower rider and despite trying your bets, you don't win your heat, we should award you for fighting well. That time, even if you lost, is very likely to be better than your qualifying time. Because in this you knew, that you had to give your very, very best, otherwise racing is over for the day.

The cool thing with following this method is that you can actually improve (at least slightly) from a previous qualifying position, even if you don't win a single heat. It'll be rewarding to fight hard! That's what we need.

/Jani

[Chris Barker]

If you are the slower rider, you fight light crazy to obtain the best time you could.
...
That time, even if you lost, is very likely to be better than your qualifying time.

I understand your points, but I like to take that fight like crazy attitude with me on my qualifying runs to help get a good position in the bracket. Just wondering what you are doing in your Q runs that is "very likely" slower than your H2H runs?

[Ramón Königshausen]

A short kind of summary:

In the qualification interests are the same - it doesn't depend on whether you are a fast racer or not, you will give your best to qualify best as possible.

In H2H interests are different: A fast racer does not have to go as fast as possible. So in H2H interests are split up.

Conclusion: The majority's interest is the one that counts.


rmn

[Jani Soderhall]

My idea is that you get faster as they days goes by and as you learn to master the course, that "maximum" speed is more interesting to me than what you did early on in the morning.

The qual result has already been used for it's intended purpose: place riders in the H2H bracket. I think that's already valuable use of those two runs.

/Jani