2008 ISSA Rules Update -- Section 10 (Racer Classification)

[Pat Chewning]

Put Comments on Section 10 here.

You may view the draft rules here in 3 forms:

As a WORD document: http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... -DRAFT.doc

As a PDF document:http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... FT-0_2.pdf

As a Webpage:http://www.slalomskateboarder.com/ISSA/ ... -DRAFT.htm

10. Racer Classifications, Racer Groupings, Awards, AND Overall Winner
10.1. Racer Classifications
The following racer classifications are recognized. Not every contest will award points, prizes, and medals to every one of these classifications. A racer must race in one and only one classification for each race.

· Open: Every racer may race in the “open” classification.

· Skill level (self declared grouping):

o Pro / Amateur

· Gender

o Female / Male

· Age:

o Juniors: (17 and under) those racers who’s age will not reach 18 in the current year.

o Teens: (14 and under) those racers who’s age will not reach 15 in the current year.

o Kids: (11 and under) those racers who’s age will not reach 12 in the current year.

o Masters: Those racers who’s age is 45 years or older.

10.2. Racer Groupings
The race organizer will decide which racer classifications will be run independently, and which ones grouped together under the “open” classification. It is suggested that racer groupings only be implemented if there are more than 8 racers in the group. The race organizer may choose to use different courses for different racer groups. (e.g. A less challenging “Kids” race.) The groupings can use the various logical combinations of racer classifications above (e.g. Amateur-Female-Kids group).

10.3. Prizes and awards
Award of prizes, points, and other items may be made into the various Racer Classifications even if the race is not separately grouped in that manner. (e.g. Giving the top Female finishers an award in a race with all racers in a single “Open” grouping.)

10.4. Overall Winner
An event with several races may give awards for the overall winner. The method of calculating the overall winner shall be:

· Only racers who enter all events are eligible.

· One event is declared the “tie breaker” before the competition begins.

· Racers receive points in each race equal to their placing. (3rd place = 3 points)

· Racers are sorted from lowest to highest sum of total points over all events.

· Ties are broken by comparing racer placing in the “tie breaking” event.

OFFICIAL VOTE FOR THIS SECTION 10 (Racer Classification)

The quoted text box above is the "draft proposal". In this area, we capture all of the requested changes in the form of a vote. Then the section will be changed as dictated by the outcome of the vote.

Please make comments as to whether the voting completely encompasses all alternatives, and without bias. The expected date of this vote will be Nov 15-Nov30

Vote Question #10.1
What shall be the method of determining the overall winner in a contest with several events?:

A) Lowest points wins method:
· Only racers who enter all events are eligible.
· One event is declared the “tie breaker” before the competition begins.
· Racers receive points in each race equal to their placing. (3rd place = 3 points)
· Racers are sorted from lowest to highest sum of total points over all events.
· Ties are broken by comparing racer placing in the “tie breaking” event.

B) Highest points wins method:
· Racers may enter as many events as desired.
· One event is declared the “tie breaker” before the competition begins.
· Racers receive points in each race according to the chart.
· Racers are sorted from highest to lowest sum of total points over all events.
· Ties are broken by comparing racer placing in the “tie breaking” event.

Points chart:
1st place = 100 points 16th place = 15 points
2nd place = 80 points 17th place = 14 points
3rd place = 60 points 18th place = 13 points
4th place = 50 points 19th place = 12 points
5th place = 45 points 20th place = 11 points
6th place = 40 points 21st place = 10 points
7th place = 36 points 22nd place = 9 points
8th place = 32 points 23rd place = 8 points
9th place = 29 points 24th place = 7 points
10th place = 26 points 25th place = 6 points
11th place = 24 points 26th place = 5 points
12th place = 22 points 27th place = 4 points
13th place = 20 points 28th place = 3 points
14th place = 18 points 29th place = 2 points
15th place = 16 points 30th place = 1 point

[Hans Koraeus]

10.4. OVERALL WINNER
There have been many variations of how to calculate overall results and it would be good to have a fixed way of doing it. But I would prefer another way of calculating it. I think there should be a point advantage when winning.

Now the proposal is
1:st 1 point
2:nd 2 point
3:rd 3 point
...

Old rules
1:st 25
2:nd 20
2:rd 17
...

The old rules had the disadvantage of giving to many racers 1 point towards the end.

What I have used myself at many events is to use the World Ranking point system. Then everybody gets a unique point in a race. And often when adding several events as well.

And I think that you should not DQ anyone from the overall only beacuse theymiss one event.

If an event have more than three races I think still only the best 3 should count in the overall.

[Pat Chewning]

10.4. OVERALL WINNER
There have been many variations of how to calculate overall results and it would be good to have a fixed way of doing it. But I would prefer another way of calculating it. I think there should be a point advantage when winning.

Now the proposal is
1:st 1 point
2:nd 2 point
3:rd 3 point
...

Old rules
1:st 25
2:nd 20
2:rd 17
...

The old rules had the disadvantage of giving to many racers 1 point towards the end.

What I have used myself at many events is to use the World Ranking point system. Then everybody gets a unique point in a race. And often when adding several events as well.

I was outlining basically the exact method used in the latest World Championships.

Question then for ISSA members:

Which do you prefer:
A) Non-linear points for placing -- giving proportionately more for 1st place (per Corky's suggestion above)
B) Linear points from 1st to last. (Per 2008 Draft Rules Update)

[Pat Chewning]

10.4. OVERALL WINNER
And I think that you should not DQ anyone from the overall only beacuse they miss one event.

If an event have more than three races I think still only the best 3 should count in the overall.

I think the definition of "Overall" means just that -- the racer who entered "All" and came out "Over" everyone else. Just like in Gymnastics -- you gotta do all the events to be the "Overall" winner. No skipping the highbar ......

I think you are suggesting that the best 3 events count, regardless of the # of events available?

What is the reasoning you would want someone who only did the Super GS, the GS, and the Hybrid to win -- while skipping the Slalom Parallel (SP), and the Tight Slalom (TS) ?

What do the members think? Should the overall winner need to enter all available events?

[Ramón Königshausen]

It depends. As we all know there are specialists for GS (Jason Mitchell for example) as well as Specialists for TS (Janis Kuzmins f.e.) out there and I think their real goal is it to be good in the Overall too. Especially when there is prizemoney only for the Overall (which shouldn't!)

At this year's World Championship we had three different World Champions in each discipline but none of them won the Overall Competition. It takes real effort and the ability to be good at every discipline to get the extra money from the Overall Ranking. - You shouldn't be able to "skip" the disciplines you're not good at and still win the overall.

rmn

[Jani Soderhall]

I think there is no reason to exclude anyone not participating in all three events from the overall restuls. With a good points table, even a poor position in the third event should be more worth than not participating. It's easy to achieve with a points table that gives more points to higher placers.

It is also important to determine if DQ counts as participation (for me that is obvious). DQ is definitely better than not participating at all, so they need some kind of points for that.

Probably the use of the World Ranking points is the most appropriate we have and already use, but it's a bit complicated to use. So maybe Dan should incorporate the points into his spreadsheet so that we can all just read it off the spreadsheet when we sit down to compile the overall results.


For the history books:
----------------------------
At this years worlds I talked to Marion about the overall results and due to the points system used (points equal to place, ie least number of points wins) it was difficult to know what to do with those who only participated in two (or even one) events. Marion finally decided to create three groups:

Those who participated in three events are sorted first, getting the top spots.
Those who participated in two events are sorted thereafter.
Those who participated in one event are sorted thereafter.

That was probably OK for this years worlds, but let's move away from that system. For example it's probably not fair if Luca for example only raced two events and won both and ended up worse than many others in the overall ranking only because he never got a third result as he had to catch an early flight back home. Also DQ's didn't give any points this year and thus counted as not even having participated.

/Jani

[Claude Regnier]

If the World Championships were viewed as one event scored on the basis of participation and scoring of placings in the 3 events then it should not matter wether or not you participated in 1 or 3.

If you received Zero points for event 2 but your good placings in the other 2 events scored you higher then you deserve the finish. If a person has obligations or is injured his or her overall results should not suffer because he missed and event. It doesn't matter.

[Jani Soderhall]

Here's an example of the way the overall results were calculated at the Worlds 2007:

If you received Zero points for event 2 but your good placings in the other 2 events scored you higher then you deserve the finish.

Well, the way it was calculated was that you added your places together. Ie you won 2 events and you got 5th in the third you got 1 + 1 + 5 = 7 points. Someone who got second in two events, then left, would have gotten 2 + 2 = 4 and thus have been better placed. It was solved and had no bad consequences because all of the better guys ran all events. If there were any issues they were probably way down the list. I only used this as an example to suggest we change the calculation method to a system where the winner gets many points (rather than 1 in the above method).

/Jani

[Pat Chewning]

OK, I understand the flaws inherent in the system where the winner of an event gets 1 point, 2nd place=2, etc....

This type of system then requires that the overall winner attend all events.

====================================

Alternative proposal:

Each person gets (N - P) +1 points where N is the # of participants, P is the placing

So 1st place in a 100-person event gets 100 points
Last place gets 1 point.

1st place in a 50-person event gets 50 points
Last place gets 1 point.

Add up the points from all events -- the biggest number wins.

Miss an event or two -- miss out on points.

Number of points from one event to another will change based on # of participants -- as it probably should.

I officially withdraw this as a proposed solution

[Jani Soderhall]

Number of points from one event to another will change based on # of participants -- as it probably should.

Is this system "safe" enough? The number of points you get will be affected by last minute drop outs, or some more racers jumping in last minute. If we apply this system, we'll have to use the number of registered racers, or the total number in the whole event, something that cannot be modified once the race is on.

However I would favour a system where the points are static so that they can be programmed into a system and also described in a document. It's also clearer in a results document if the winners gets a 100, the next gets 90 or whatever. There must be a system out there that we can copy. Or use the world ranking points. That system should be appropriately calibrated for the number of participants we typically have. The old 1990's ISSA system was calibrated towards a smaller number of participants and only aimed at determining the top placings. Now we need a system that is accurate all the way down the result list.

/Jani

[Pat Chewning]

250 points for 1st
249 for 2nd..... etc
0 for not entering, not racing

Add up each event

All events equal in value.

System works until we get races with more than 250 participants....

I officially withdraw this as a proposed solution.

[Wesley Tucker]

Yes, but look at it this way:

The award goes to the OverALL winner.

Not overSOME.

If there is a big race with three major events, should someone compete for the overall who picks and chooses what events to enter?

I think not.

There was a mention somewhere of how someone would miss out on the overall award if work, illness or injury interfered with participating in all three evetns.

That, my friends, is called "the breaks."

I'm a firm believer that at some time this sport of slalom skateboarding is going to have to realize this is RACING. It's about winning and losing. It's about being there, getting a time and doing as well as possible. Sometimes competitors will fail and as such some will get their feelings hurt. Oh, well. That's the breaks.

Someone not there, not getting a time and not getting anything at all is therefore far from an "overall competitor" no matter what the reason.

The "golf scoring" as I call it where the low score wins with appropriate tie breakers is more than adequate to assure a fair distribution of the awards. And just like in golf, it takes 18 holes to complete a scorecard . . . not the 13 or 14 holes someone feels good about or felt well enough to play on tournament day.

[Jani Soderhall]

Wesley,

It's probably not so easy. But let's hear if from other guys.
So you think it's more important to enter a third discipline, just to be eligible for the overall?

Do you really consider a double DQ, or a mediocre place (pretty low) so much more worth than DNR (did not race)?

Part of me agrees with you, part not. If you win 2 events and don't enter the third, I think you should still be able to win the overall title. At least so if you don't have someone with a triple 2:nd or something really good.



Pat,

Probably we need bigger differential. The top slots should get you more points than just one more than the next lower placing. Otherwise pure participation gives too much. And there's a great difference between 1 and 10 for example. It all needs to be calibrated also to the approximate number of participants we typically have. No need to go up to 250. We could certainly end a 100 and just say everyone gets 1 point each at the level, but the more important part is what happens up at the top.
I think we need someone to take a serious look at this. Maybe Marcus Rietema already has some good points scale that we can inherit from IGSA?

/Jani

[Pat Chewning]

From the FIS World Cup Points System

Individual Competitions
1st place = 100 points 16th place = 15 points
2nd place = 80 points 17th place = 14 points
3rd place = 60 points 18th place = 13 points
4th place = 50 points 19th place = 12 points
5th place = 45 points 20th place = 11 points
6th place = 40 points 21st place = 10 points
7th place = 36 points 22nd place = 9 points
8th place = 32 points 23rd place = 8 points
9th place = 29 points 24th place = 7 points
10th place = 26 points 25th place = 6 points
11th place = 24 points 26th place = 5 points
12th place = 22 points 27th place = 4 points
13th place = 20 points 28th place = 3 points
14th place = 18 points 29th place = 2 points
15th place = 16 points 30th place = 1 point

It rewards more points proportionately for winning.
It would not require everyone to enter each event.
It only gives points down to 30th place -- but do we really care after that?
It has been working in ski racing unaltered for the last 15 years (since 1992)

[Wesley Tucker]

Do you really consider a double DQ, or a mediocre place (pretty low) so much more worth than DNR (did not race)?

Someone who performed this poorly did at least perform. The racer who DNR can hardly be called any sort of a performer.

Yes, I honestly believe "DNF" or "DQ" is vastly superior to someone who "DNR."

Hypothetical conversation:

"What did you do at the race this weekend?"

"Well, I tried to qualify on this incredibly tight course on some slick asphalt on a road that was like skating down a paved cliff. What did you do?"

"I didn't race."

[Jani Soderhall]

WT,

I agree with you. I must have used a bad example in my argument. But I still think that two good results are better than three poor.


I think the FIS system solves it all!
Good job Pat.

/Jani

[Claude Regnier]

If racer A gets 0 points for missing an event and still manages enough points to beat one or any of the riders that received points from the same system for the events then he deserves his higher placing.

Anything else is ?????????????????? Not real, nor valid.

[Ramón Königshausen]

The following discussion has occured on another topic and I think it belongs in here:

We should get rid of the Pro/Am thing too, times should decide at each race who’s in the A, B etc… My 2 cents.

No. Because of difficulty of courses. You can't have the same TS for Pro and Am. Believe me or not, but that just doesn't work.

my 2 Swiss Rapps

rmn

I did not say same courses for everyone, just separate who's faster this given day by it's qualif time, it could work.

You can't compare the times if you run two different courses. How are you going to determine who runs which course?

Possible solution: Look at the results of previous races. Those rankings could determine. So once you do good results in the Amateur's category you'll have to climb up (using a point system would be useful maybe

Anyway, that is not part of this topic I think and should be discussed in the rules topic. I'll try to repost this post in a suiting topic.

rmn

rmn

[Marcus Seyffarth]

FIS is good, its known its been used for some time. It should probably be used for ranking purposes as well. Best part is that you don't get a million points for just showing up to a major race and hardly making it down the startramp, ending up at 37:th place.

But then again, it just the overall. You're not really good at anything, so you got the overall. Why bother with it, lets celebrate the real heros, the ones who really made an effort and won some (probably tight) races.

Skip the sad overall title and divide the money and fame into three.

[Martin Drayton]

The following discussion has occured on another topic and I think it belongs in here:

I did not say same courses for everyone, just separate who's faster this given day by it's qualif time, it could work.

You can't compare the times if you run two different courses. How are you going to determine who runs which course?

Possible solution: Look at the results of previous races. Those rankings could determine. So once you do good results in the Amateur's category you'll have to climb up (using a point system would be useful maybe

Anyway, that is not part of this topic I think and should be discussed in the rules topic. I'll try to repost this post in a suiting topic.

rmn

rmn

This one too!
I don't think the difference between Pro and Am should just be speed...it should be skill too! The current system in Europe has meant different courses for the two groups, this means that the pros need to be able to negotiate more technical courses. In TS/Special this means tighter, more rhythm breaks, more offsets etc, in GS this means more high speed turns that test traction for Pros, more open flowing courses for Ams...
How many times have their been complaints about courses? Too easy, too tight, felt like a Downhill etc....This, I feel, is happening because we are trying to set comprimise courses that suit everyone and thats almost impossible to do.
How can you have, for example, a TS race where you are trying to suit people just coming into racing and you don't want to put them off yet at the same time making it a challenge for riders like Cbark and Ramon who excel at the REALLY tight stuff?
Whats the point of Donald or the guys at Radikal developing new tighter turning trucks if the courses are 6-8ft so that everyone can do them?

I hear what Justin says too, as an Am its cool to check your times against the Pros, it gives you a benchmark. but in Germany they had some spare time and let the Pros and Ams loose on a "Pro" Course....the result? The top Ams struggled on a course that the Pros were negotiating without any trouble.

I suppose it depends what area of skills we are trying to develop in our sport, are we just deciding that speed is the difference or speed plus technical ability?

[Steve Hinzen]

then again, it just the overall. You're not really good at anything, so you got the overall. Why bother with it, lets celebrate the real heros, the ones who really made an effort and won some (probably tight) races. Skip the sad overall title and divide the money and fame into three.

Some good words from Marcus.

Especially when there is prizemoney only for the Overall (which shouldn't!)

same for Ramon.

I totally agree on that.

To me the overall thing is bullshit and should be of minor interest.

If you want to have a good show you better present the (true) winners of each race in the best way you can,
immediately after the race, and give them money in their hands ...if there's a budget.

-
back to the topic:
I am not to much a fan of the pro/am system and I would like to test that A,B,... bracket system one day. Especially at small regional races I see no reason for dividing.

-

[Martin Drayton]

then again, it just the overall. You're not really good at anything, so you got the overall. Why bother with it, lets celebrate the real heros, the ones who really made an effort and won some (probably tight) races. Skip the sad overall title and divide the money and fame into three.

Some good words from Marcus.

Especially when there is prizemoney only for the Overall (which shouldn't!)

same for Ramon.

I totally agree on that.

To me the overall thing is bullshit and should be of minor interest.

-

I agree too...we are basically rewarding the "jack-of-all-trades, master of none". Lets reward the specialist, after all look at the 2 extremes how often does the TS winner also win the GS at big events? It seems unfair to win an Overall title without winning an event outright either. Maybe give them the title and a trophy but no cash?

[Wesley Tucker]

So,

Racer #1 gets 2nd, 2nd, 2nd. - 6 points (Low score is best as in Golf)

Racer #2 gets 1st, 5th, 8th - 14 points

Racer #3 gets 7th, 1st, 9th - 17 points

Racer #4 gets 5th, 4th, 1st. - 10 points

And Racer #1 is not even considered for the overall?

It has to be one of the guys who won but possibly sucked out loud the rest of the weekend with only one of the three getting to the final four again once? That's an "overall" winner?

[Pat Chewning]

The choice of whether or not to reward the overall winner is a choice of the contest organizer.

The ISSA rules merely state HOW to calculate the overall winner, if the organizer wishes to calculate this and reward it.

The ISSA ranking gives points only for the results of each race, it does not give any more or less points for winning the OVERALL at a particular contest.

The discussion here should be HOW to calculate the overall winner. The discussion about whether or not to recognize and reward the winner really does not belong in the rules discussion.

[Steve Hinzen]

I am not talking rules here, just a suggestion for organizers...

The discussion about whether or not to recognize and reward the winner really does not belong in the rules discussion.

so maybe it should in a way or another. Something like "if there's a budget for prize money it should be divided among the true winners."
It's definitely the best way to motivate the best of each discipline to participate in a competition.

[Hans Koraeus]

The reason I like to use the World Ranking points is that it is the points I get automatically from the ranking system. They are after all used to add up results for all event disicplines in the ranking anyway. So why not use the same points for the overall as well.

The World Ranking "overall" is only counting who gained the most points towards the world ranking at the event. You can only count two best results from an event for the world ranking. So no true "overall" there if more than 2 events.

I don't think nessesarily all events have to be in the overall. But it should be announced beforeway what events that are included. Sometimes there are som fun events or extra events that should be excluded. So the overall is all events said to be inlcuded in the overall. Not all events for the event weekend.

And out of topic:
- I think overall champ makes a skill also. Same level as individual discipline skills. They should be awarded equally.
- I don't like when only overall is used to distribute money.

[Pat Chewning]

Wasn't the idea to get rid of the 1-pointers? 30:th places is not enough for getting 1 point...

Moved here from the VOTING FORUM

[Neil Orta]

Overall should mean Overall- as by a pre-determined number of competitions within the event. There should be a minimum percentage of events determined by the ISSA that are to be included in the Overall. If the events runs SGS, GS, HS, TS and SS and the requirement is 60% then the organizer must choose three of the events being run and announce those that are being included for the “OVERALL”.

Additionally why would anyone who does NOT race all events be included in the OVERALL category, how is it fair that anyone racing in two of three events place higher than a rider competing in all three. You should not be given “credit” if you win two of three and then leave or do not compete in the third, same for someone being injured, you should get points for your placing in the race. It is sad when a rider gets injured in the race and CANNOT FINISH but I have never seen someone be awarded a podium spot because he/she would have placed that way had they not been injured or had to leave, why think this way towards an “overall” title?

Just my two cents

[Martin Drayton]

Additionally why would anyone who does NOT race all events be included in the OVERALL category, how is it fair that anyone racing in two of three events place higher than a rider competing in all three.
Just my two cents

But you could think of it as rewarding someone with more skill...they must be a better rider if they can beat the 3 event rider by just doing two events? Surely...
Just my two cents...

[Neil Orta]

Rewarding them for what? If every rider follows the same rules and faces the same points accumulation tables how could someone who completes three events be bettered by someone who only completes two? Look at the scenario as a "distance" race, you must complete all three legs to get from start to finish, you are saying that some should be allowed to skip a section because they possess more skill and still be counted when crossing the finish. That makes real sense.

[Claude Regnier]

This is not a triatlhon or biathlon. It's a skateboard event. High placings in any of the weekend events will garner that person points.

If people manage to compete in all events good for them and the organiser. If they don't total enouh points to better someone in an Overall points race because he wasn't good enough that person needs to work harder or like most people not oory about it.

When it gets really big we can worry about it a little more. For now it's not very important in the scheme of things.

[Hans Koraeus]

The overall get important when money is distributed towards it. That's why this is worth discussing.

In general I think it is wrong when only the overall is used. You should distribute money for each discipline. Where the overall in my view very well could be one "virtual" discipline.

I.e.
TS rank
SS rank
GS rank
Overall rank (optional)

Each of the disicplines get money distributed according to placings.

People tend to want to use the overall because it makes the cash prize look bigger. But if you only mention the total cash for the whole event it would not change.

It would be good if there where some rules of how to distribute the money. Now there are different rules for each event. How big is the total cash prize for the event? What disciplines will have cash prizes? How many places get money? How much for each place? Overall only, individual disciplines only or both? Pro only? Women?

Maybe it is complex to make rules about this but maybe it's time to make some sort of a guideline.

[Neil Orta]

I agree with some of what you are saying Claude as well as Hans. In my posts I was reffering to "overall" as ANOTHER class offered during an event which in a way IS a triathalon or biathalon in a sense. Racers must race well in each to place high in the overall.

Though I agree that the "show" is the entire event and that is where a fair amount of any prize money should be put so that those whose strong point is one or two can compete for their share of any money prize and those who are better suited for higher placing in many can also go for theirs.

"When it gets really big we can worry about it a little more."

Don't you think that would be a little to late? Enter the discussions now and take the time to put together some really good guidelines for say 2009, 2010?

[Martin Drayton]

Neil,
If you don't force people to enter a specific number of events to 'qualify' for Overall consideration then....

.

... that is where a fair amount of any prize money should be put so that those whose strong point is one or two can compete for their share of any money prize and those who are better suited for higher placing in many can also go for theirs.

Corky is right though, when promoting an event 'Total Prize purse' does get attention. Now if it is for one 'event' ie Overall, then it does make the event LOOK bigger. Personally i think we should reward the specialists with cash rather than those 'pretty good' at everything. I don't think its as impressive to have an Overall Champ who, for the sake of argument, didn't win a single event. I don't think its fair for him/her to win the cash...

Your argument that it should be a seperate cash award would be great if we were getting large amounts of money put up for prizes, but that is not going to happen anytime soon and until that point would merely detract from and reduce the amounts awarded for the seperate events. Many Pro racers do ask beforehand how the money is split up and due to the high cost of travel etc sadly sometimes are forced to use that to decide whether to compete. A racer that has no suitable hills nearby to train GS, but is outstanding at TS, may then decide they cannot afford to attend a comp at a cost of several thousand with no hope of any prize money to offset it a little.

[Neil Orta]

I agree with you 100% total prize purse is shown on an event it does make the event look bigger and each category in the "pro" divisions should receive a part of that purse. I in no way meant to lead any one should should get more or less merely that it is my belief that each category is a seperate race category whether it be GS, TS, SS, SGS or overall.

I myself am more suitable to TS and HS and would like to think I have a chance at earning some money for high placing in an event even though I could never (at this time) hope for a high placing in overall.