Claude Regnier wrote:Corky, if you can't improve, why bother! No benefit, simply added cost.
But did you not read my answer above? Read it again.
Even if you have have two 1:st places in one Major it's still an advantage going to the second one. It is true that your own point can not be increased but by taking high points in the second Major you stop your opponents from getting high points and that is as much worth pointwise as adding point to your own score. It's not just about increasing you own score. It's also about decreasing other racers score.
So the system is doing exactly what you want but by saying that it does not you are actually working against what you want to achieve. By telling everyone that it does not improve anything to go to a second major people might believe you and stay at home when that in fact is not true.
Claude Regnier wrote:Another fact is the system does not even count the two best major results. It's count 2 races at one major. This system is not your best 8 races of the yeaIt personally won't matter to me in the future but it certainly will affect racers and racing in the future.
This is true if you count Major point disciplines. All other discipline results does count your best discilpine result points of the year.
The reason to only count max 2 point results per event is to motivate travel. To get 6 Main points for the ranking you have to got to 3 events (3x2 best event points). Otherwise you could have traveled to only two and get 3 discipline points. The max 2 points/event in the current system promotes travel.
Imagine these results: First Major event 1:st and 6:th place. And the second Major event 1:st and 7:th.
With the current system you will be counted Major points for 1:st and 6:th place. You are pointing out another version that you would take Major points for the two 1:st places instead. This is an interesting thought. It would increase you chance of getting higher Major points with this system. The question I guess is how much an advantage do you want to give to the pure fact of entering the 2 Majors instead of one. Taking into consideration that most will not be able to do that trip because of primarily money constraints.
Major points is suposed to be the ultimate divider. If you make it easier to get higher Major points for everybody you also decrease the value of them at the same time. But this is an interesting point you made but I can't decide if I think it is better in the end than the current system or not. I think it boils down to "how much an advantage do you want to give to the pure fact of entering the 2 Majors instead of one".
In the perfect world we would have only one Major "The Worlds" but we might not be ready for that yet.
Claude Regnier wrote:Why would Luca have gone to the worlds in 2007 after winning two of the 3 events in Hanover?
See answer above
Claude Regnier wrote:Luca lost money just going to Hanover as the payout turned out to very little but at leats DEte did put some money in the pot after the Top 3 riders complained. There was no mention of no money in theprize purse beforehand. Rightfully so the racers were upset at this.
As Luca said at the time he could have chosen to go to Paris for the chance at the prize money there rather then none in Hanover.
Poor Luca. He lost money going to a competition. Well, welcome to the world 99,9% of all of us are living in. Sure it is good to have prizemoney but we can't squeeze it out of our wheels. And it affects a very few even though an important part because they are the better slalomers out there. But if you go to slalom races to only win money it's not the right sport for the moment. Right now most of the PRO purse is taken from the riders themselves with the PRO fee (and in some case also from the AM fee). If you have good (money) sponsors then set up a good prize purse. If not is it worth increasing the purse for the pros? Is that good for the sport. Many are already complaining about too high (PRO) entry fees. It's easy to decrease it but then you also decrase the money for Luca and the likes you want at your event. It's a balance. The dream solution is having same fee for Pro and Am and take all prize purse money from sponsors. The second best is what? Low Pro entry fee and low/no purse? High Pro entry fee and high purse for the top guys?
That about money. Then we have the World Ranking points. This is also a motivation and something all events can afford. Because they are free. (Maybe time to set a price on them? More on this below) Luca selected the high World Ranking points instead of the high money purse. It's not really selecting between pest and colera. It would be a nice choice for whoever of us who was in that situation.
Claude Regnier wrote:I know there was more to Luca not attending the Wolrds but if you attend Major events you need to get points. As it stand now you are getting 2 values out of 6 races, if each event hold 3 races.
No, you get 4 values of your 6 discipline races. 2 from each event as explained why above. 2 Major points and 2 Main points.
Claude Regnier wrote:Perhaps the Worlds need to stand on their own seperate point system Higher (then Major) and hold a major on each continent as well. Tehn start in witht he mains. I'm not sure but this present system does need changes or modifications.
This would be ok if we were in the situation were all the best could make it to one international World Championship. That has not been the case yet and is why the ranking has this solution with 1 Major on each side of the Atlantic. This could very well change in the future when we think the slalom scene is ready for one
Claude Regnier wrote:I know we had this discusion a long time ago and we put it on hold to focus on ISSA. Maybe now is the time to look closely at J-rads system and combine it with this one and make a new formula to encourage participation.
Sure. Just don't forget to look closely also on the current World Ranking system.
Claude Regnier wrote:
Any comments towards some kind of money being pooled from races included in the points system and the Season Overall winner gets a cash prize? That may also get some new things hapening.
This is a good idea that have been around but when events have a hard time getting their own economy together it has been hard to even propose such an idea. You could imagine theere was a pricetag for a World Ranking status that goes to ISSA that sets up a purse for the World Ranking. You could also imagine getting general sponsors to ISSA/World Ranking putting down money for it. That has been the whole idea for me with trying to build up the scene around an International body (ISSA) with slalom rules and a World Ranking (www.slalomranking.com
). With this functioning we could be a very interesting "prospect" for a sponsor to invest in.
We did a small try with ConeRacing sponsring the Rookie rankings with money and products. It was suposed to be a teaser to others but noone took the hook. :-| But I don't blame them. You need someone who can sell the idea and talk to sponsors and so own. This is one of the most important posts in an event management company. ISSA would need such a person. Anyone up for it?
Pat Chewning wrote:
Eventually, as the season progresses the best team will have the most points.
Notice that in week 1, the WORST team COULD possibly be in 1st place. It is unstable. Everyone realizes that. You cannot know who is the best at the beginning of the season. That is the reason for having the contests over the season. If you already knew who was the best at the beginning, then why hold the contests?
My answer is as before. You want a World Series or a World Cup. But in a World Ranking you should always see who is the "best" whenever you look at it. Two different things for me. Why make the viewer/media/sponsor have to realize if the ranking is stable or not? They won't realize this at all. They will only see who is no 1 of the ranking and be happy with that.
Ramón Königshausen wrote:
The points are awarded according to who you were racing.
This is exactly what the current World Ranking do not want. If an organizer sets up an event and gets a high status and green light from the ISSA/Contest coordinators then if some good racers decide not to come then don't punish those who made the efffort to travel and come to the event. Punish those who did not come. Again a motivation for travel.
It's always easy with this "award according to who are there" idea when you live in an area with a lot of events and good slalomers. But what about the other good slalomers in areas where the slalom scene is not so big. The current system encourage all
people to travel far once in a while and thus spreading the sport also to the areas with less of a slalom scene.