ISSA - International Slalom Skateboarding Association

28. POINTS

Points given for overall results:

1. 25 points
2. 20
3. 17
4. 15
5. 13
6. 11
7. 10
8. 9
9. 8
10. 7
11. 6
12. 5
13. 4
14. 3
15. 2
16. 1
DQ 1

Skaters from 16:th place and down will receive one point each for participation. Skaters disqualified also receive one point. If two slalomers gets the same place, and can not be separated by taking into account their second best runs, both get the points for that place, a shared first place will for example give both slalomers 25 points.

Points are awarded per the World Ranking system. Not by this system. Get rid of this rule.

Pat, I guess this rule is an instrument to define overall winners of a competition and is not connected to a ranking system.

Does the points weighting of this need to be revised..Where did this weighting originate from- what sport?

John Gilmour wrote:Does the points weighting of this need to be revised..Where did this weighting originate from- what sport?

It was definitely taken, or adapted, from some other sport, but I don't recall which. It suited the approximate number of participants (and skill level) we had at the time. I don't think it's especially appropriate today, other than to determine the top placings.

The world ranking only uses two events to determine the overall ranking during an event. The event organizer would need to take into account every event, if it should be a real overall score. So I guess we need a rule and a definition of how it's done.

The World ranking assigns quite high points for just participation, and surely also for last place which is not always appropriate. For example you have Luca who just enters two events, wins both, but still end up in 11th in the overall ranking. I just wanted to mention it as this is something we may need to consider before steaming ahead. I recall Corky comparing different systems this year, so he may have a solution cooking.

/Jani

Yes, I agrre we need some form of calculation for organizers that award overall winner/prizes for their event. Just for consistency.

Probably something that goes to 36 or 64. We need to allow some room for growth in each field, maybe 100. No sense putting ourselves in a corner. I know we likely may not need something that high but we are trying to make the sport grow and also we don't really want to keep ratifying rules either.

It needs to be fair regardless.

It is a hard thing- to rank people properly.

Too bad we don't know anyone who could do statistical analysis of the racers. Figure for each event-who statistically is likely to beat another based on past performance- perhaps weighting current races more .

In end you should get something that for sigma shows that x racer will beat y racer 68% of the time. (it may be less or more)

So from there you enter the races and a program figures out how to score each placing for points.

It sounds like a backwards way to work it out-
But I think it could work.

I think it would be an excellent thing for a Graduate statistics class to take on as a class project.

For instance lets say historically for GS we find Fluitt beats Pirnack 70% of the time. then Fluitt would rank above Pirnack- and lets say Pirnack almost always beats Vlad in GS then an order starts to formualte based on contest info- there have been so many contests that we could likely make some sense of the data.

Then the program figures out- how the placings of a contest should be weighted to arrive at the same ordering as statistics derived.

Then we use that model for the next 2 years for weighting contests until we have more data to process to refine it.

Eventually - we should get a pretty good model.

If things seem really out of a statistical range in the model...then we toss out that pair(s).

Just an idea...but soemone has a way to do this- and it probably evolved on paper by hand this way- but by compter we could get a very accurate way to do this and it would give us the flexability to change the model more easily as the numbers of participants increase.
[/i]