Why use the Qualifying Time in the elimination rounds?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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....

[Jack Smith]

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.

[Pat Chewning]

What if two or more losing racers DQ on both their runs in a heat, within the same round? How would you place them? Do they tie? Are they given that dreaded "equal placing"?

-->First they end up last among those who lost this round, then we use their respective qual times to separate them. I think everybody finds that fair. The idea is to get rid of "equal placing" as much as possible.

/Jani

Yes, Jack, that is a disadvantage of Method D when compared to Method E.

Jani: You are describing a new Method F where you use first the results in the current head-to-head round, then use Qual time as a tie breaker.

-- Pat

[Jani Soderhall]

What if two or more losing racers DQ on both their runs in a heat, within the same round? How would you place them? Do they tie? Are they given that dreaded "equal placing"?

-->First they end up last among those who lost this round, then we use their respective qual times to separate them. I think everybody finds that fair. The idea is to get rid of "equal placing" as much as possible.

/Jani

[Jack Smith]

Method D uses the times received in the current round of head-to-head to sort the "equal losers" in that round. (Does not use qualifying times at all, does not use prior rounds where the racer advanced).

What if two or more losing racers DQ on both their runs in a heat, within the same round? How would you place them? Do they tie? Are they given that dreaded "equal placing"?

[Pat Chewning]

I can't see the difference between method D and E.

Method D uses the times received in the current round of head-to-head to sort the "equal losers" in that round. (Does not use qualifying times at all, does not use prior rounds where the racer advanced).

Method E uses the best time achieved by the racer during ANY racing (Qualification or head-to-head) to sort racers within a group of "equal losers".

OK?

[Wesley Tucker]

Well,

I've read all this and it's great to think about rankings and such, but what I had to deal with is PRIZES. You can't give everybody who places 5th the same prize. That's four prizes. 5th place gets a prize, 6th place gets a prize not as nice and so on down the line.

At the Dixie Cup I had about 20 minutes to figure something out. There was so much swag that everyone was going to get something, but just telling all eight racers tied for 16th to come up and grab something wasn't going to work. So, I did what I thought was the easiest and most appropriate.

1-4 was easy. 5-8 were four guys eliminated in the round of 8. 5th had the fastest adjusted time in the round, 8th had the slowest. In the round of 16 eight racers were eliminated. Same routine: 9th was the fastest guy eliminated and 16th was the slowest guy in the round of 16 eliminated. So, with my system it was imperative to record every racer's adjusted time. Time differences between two skaters in the same bracket accomplished nothing in solving the dilemma of who gets the new Pocket Pistol and who got a t-shirt.

Now, there was some controversey after the race. I screwed up. There were some skaters who had faster times who got placed lower. My mistake. The theory though was sound. I had to find 16 skaters from top to botton and 12 of those never raced each other. I did this for three brackets and it worked.

So, when you have 4 racers tie for 5th and 8 guys tie for 9th, who gets the swag? And in what order?

[Hans Koraeus]

I can't see the difference between method D and E. Anyway these methods have been discussed heavily before as options but they were losing out to the method B by an inch. The reason is mainly because of what Jack is saying. In qualification you are racing the course to get a good time. In head to head you are racing another person and the goal is only to beat him. Not to get the best time possible. Two completely different minds of racing. So it seemed better only taking into account the qualification where it is clear what you have to do. Make the best time possible to get the best seeding possible in the head to head finals.

[Vincent Berruchon]

Whats about "Method D"?
Its like Method B but with placing the "loosers" with their very best time (quali/h2h).

No Stefan,
If you're talking about Pat's definitions in the poll topics, the one you're thinking about is probably the "Method E": Place racers losing within a round by best time ever (Qual or Head-to-Head).
D is really different and I think we cannot use it. (Place racers losing within a round by best time in that round)

[Jack Smith]

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.

[Stefan Bölsterli]

Whats about "Method D"?
Its like Method B but with placing the "loosers" with their very best time (quali/h2h).

Just wondering, because im writing a racemanager, and untill now looser places are
calculated with "Method B".

Btw im now typing all results from 2005 into my db and then i will do some statistics,
to compare if the ranking would look quite different with "Method D".

I can't support using "Method A" or "Method C".

[Pat Chewning]

Corky and Pat,

Maybe I didn't explain it correctly. If Jack (#3 qualifier) is eliminated in the round of 16 and JG (#14 qualifier) is eliminated in the round of 8, using the qualifying time plcement system, both would be placed by their respective qualifying times amongst racers not placing in 1-4.

JS places higher than JG, even though JG advanced further in the head to head racing.

Let's call this (above example) "Method A" of using qualifying times to sort racers who do not advance to places 1-4 in the head-to-head.

Corky and I seem to agree this "Method A" is wrong.

Using "Method B": JG would be placed in the range of #5 to #8 (depending on qualifying times of other racers eliminated in the round of 8). Jack would be placed in the range of #9 to #16 (depending on qualifying times of other racers eliminated in the round of 16).

JG places higher than JS, appropriately because JG advanced further in the head to head racing.

It is this "Method B" that I think is reasonable, and meets the following criteria:

1) Advancing in the head to head takes precedence over qualifying times.
2) The ONLY comparison between racers who do not go head-to-head is by use of qualifying times.

"Method C" is the "equal placing method" where JS would earn Equal 9th along with all of the other racers eliminated in the round of 16, JG would earn Equal 5th along with all of the other racers eliminated in the round of 8.

Method C gives huge importance to the head-to-head racing and Qualifying times are used merely to seed racers into head-to-head.

Method B gives huge importance to the head-to-head racing, but is modified to sort "equal losers" within a round by their previous qualifying times.

Method B gives the advantage of every racer getting a unique placement in the race.
Method C gives the advantage of purity of "qualifying" being just that: Seeding into the head-to-head only.

I can support using either Method C or Method B, but not Method A.

-- Pat

[Jack Smith]

Corky and Pat,

Maybe I didn't explain it correctly. If Jack (#3 qualifier) is eliminated in the round of 16 and JG (#14 qualifier) is eliminated in the round of 8, using the qualifying time plcement system, both would be placed by their respective qualifying times amongst racers not placing in 1-4.

JS places higher than JG, even though JG advanced further in the head to head racing.

I do not agree with using qualifying times to rank eliminated racers within their round, or to rank racers who place lower than 4th.

Qualifying times are qualifying times, they should have no impact on placing racers who finish lower than 4th.

For racers not making it into the head to head racing, their qualifying times should be used to place them.

[Hans Koraeus]

Jack,

That would not be fair. And luckily that is not how it would end up either.

JG advances into the group of top 8. Then you say he loses. So he will most likley end up with 8:th place (unless qualifier 15 and 16 also advanced). I.e. he will have the slowest qualifying time amongst place 5-8.

JS who lost will stay in the group of 9-16. So he will most likley end up with 9:th place (unless qualifier 1 and 2 also lost). I.e. he will have the best qualifying time amongst place 9-16.

If this was the only abnormal thing happening in this head to head final the difference from the qualification results would be that place 4-8 would gain one position because of JS's loss even though they never did beat him. Place 9-13 would lose one position because of JG's win even though JG never did beat them. JG would gain 6 positions (14 to 8) by beating JS and will also be in front of him in the final results. JS would lose 6 positions (3 to 9) by getting beaten by JG and will also be after him in the final results.

If this is fair enough can always be discussed. But if you don't have time to race head to head against everybody it can't be truly fair anyway. The way of using qualification times to deal with it is fair enough for me.

[Pat Chewning]

So why not use the "equal placing" format?

I know this has been posted before in this forum, please take a moment to read it again.

16 racer final

JG qualifies 14th he beats JS, the 3rd fastest qualifier in round 1. JS is done for the day. JG is now in the round of eight. He races in the round of eight and loses.

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

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.

Is this fair?

OK Jack, I think I understand why you object to ONE way of applying the Qual times to sort the "losing" racers...

But I believe that most people are talking about only applying Qualification-time sorting within the group of "losers" within a single elimination round. This would result in a different outcome than your example (see item 2 below).

That is:
1) Within the round of 32, the 16 "losers" would be sorted by qualifcation time to get places 17-32. (Instead of "Equal 17")
2) Within the round of 16, the 8 "losers" would be sorted by qualification time to get places 9-16. (Instead of "Equal 9") In your example above, JS (being eliminated by JG in this round) would get 9th place -- assuming #1 and #2 qualifiers have not also been upset in this round. JG can do no worse than 8th place in the next round. That makes sense.
3) Within the round of 8, the 4 "losers" would be sorted by qualification time to get places 5-8. (Instead of "Equal 5th").
4) The 4 finalists go on to the semifinals, consolations, and final rounds as usual.

I think this is the method most of us are referring to when we say that "Qualification times" are used to sort those who do not advance in the finals. At least that's what I had in mind.

PS: This is exactly how Dan Gessmer's spreadsheet applies the qualification time sorting algorithm.

-- Pat

[Jack Smith]

So why not use the "equal placing" format?

I know this has been posted before in this forum, please take a moment to read it again.

16 racer final

JG qualifies 14th he beats JS, the 3rd fastest qualifier in round 1. JS is done for the day. JG is now in the round of eight. He races in the round of eight and loses.

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

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.

Is this fair?

[Hans Koraeus]

All event organizers do as they want. For a singel event it is not important.

When trying to collecting results from all kind of events out there like in a world ranking there has to be a balance between all race formats, weather it is a single lane race or a head to head race. This is the reason why qualification results are used in head to head to get a final result that is simular to a result from single lane event.

[alavoine jean paul]

I'm so upset now...

[Jack Smith]

Yes, if you defeat someone in the head to head racing, who qualified higher than you did, you will receive a higher finish than they they did.

It's called an upset.

[Vincent Berruchon]

You cannot place ahead of someone you did not beat in the head to head round.

Hopefully you can place ahead of someone you beat during the qualifications!

[Marcos Soulsby-Monroy]

Jack Smith Posted: 05 Jan 2006 12:08 Post subject: I'm almost ready to give up...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is directed to the forum in general.

Qualifying seeds you in the finals...period.

Racing places you.

You cannot place ahead of someone you did not beat in the head to head round.

What is so wrong about placing equal 5th, equal 9th, etc? Is it some sort of self-esteem issue?

I just don't get it.

As I have stated I don't have a problem with equal 5th 9th etc. I agree with Jack that you should not be able to place ahead with out racing the person. The only way I can see of changing it would be the way that I talked about earlier.

Marcos
Outlaws

[Pat Chewning]

This is directed to the forum in general.

Qualifying seeds you in the finals...period.

Racing places you.

You cannot place ahead of someone you did not beat in the head to head round.

What is so wrong about placing equal 5th, equal 9th, etc? Is it some sort of self-esteem issue?

I just don't get it.

Jack,

Some of us might think of it this way:

1) Qualifying runs determine your placing unless you do better in the finals. (e.g. If there were no finals -- rain cancelation, etc)
2) Racing (in the finals) allows you the OPPORTUNITY to increase your placing after the qualifying runs.
3) In this way, everyone gets a unique finishing order (no ties). This might be useful for some purposes (rankings, awarding of prizes, ego, etc).


I'm not arguing that one way is "wrong" and the other way "right", I'm just trying to show you the other side of the argument.

-- Pat

[Jack Smith]

This is directed to the forum in general.

Qualifying seeds you in the finals...period.

Racing places you.

You cannot place ahead of someone you did not beat in the head to head round.

What is so wrong about placing equal 5th, equal 9th, etc? Is it some sort of self-esteem issue?

I just don't get it.

[Marcos Soulsby-Monroy]

You could make a winner's and loser's bracket for each heat and then let them battle it out for the highest place available. This would make events MUCH longer though even though it would be the fairest. All in all I think that the system that we use now is the best compromise between the two. But I do think the idea of being 9th or 5th for all eliminated racers regardless of time is right.

Marcos
Outlaws

[John Gilmour]

That's pretty much the way I see it. Each round is in itself a race.

If you don't make it to the next round you don't get a place higher than the round that you got knocked out in.

Conditions can change during a race and so I think the conditions are valid for that round.

Of course in a round of 32....it can take so long to do that..that I'm not sure we can seed people from 17-32 as accurately, but still equal 17th won't let you see how you progress and if you think that you'll have to progress by 15 racers if you are at the bottom before you see any progress....well that can get discouraging.

However if you see that you are often placing at 17th, 18th and say 20th place...well now you can justify those ceramic bearings to yourself and make that purchase without guilt. lol... Your kids might end up with homemade pet rocks for Christmas.

Not getting any times and running purely off of the differentials really leaves everyone in the dark- including the spectators and family...

At da' farm times in single track aren't announced- but that isn't to add to excitement- its just to keep the timekeepers sanity. I think in the days of wi-fi we don't need to keep anytimes to ourselves- I think it would be great if someone were to write a program that everytime you entered a time the website updated so people could watch race progress.

You look at it like spots for the losers of each round are determined by time in the round they were eliminated until the round of 4. In the round of 4 until the end, the winner races everyone except a single racer. The top seed racer should never face racer number 3....but that's okay--- as it at least has 75% certainty. Sometimes I think the number 1 seed should also race the 3rd seed- its two more runs though in an already long event.

So for the time keepers- it isn't all that hard. The losers in the round of 16 get spots 9-16, the losers in the round of 8 get spots 5-8, and from the round of 4 forward it is all determined by pure elimination.

Of course when you run a b bracket you can do the same thing.....one thing to note....the B bracket gtuys aren't racing any easier. The top seed from the B bracket really has to work and do a lot of runs to earn his position. Racing "b" or "c' or even "d" can be a lot of work. And everyone can get a taste of what it takes to win.

[Marty Schaub]

OK,

Rather than hypothetical, here is an example. At the Saturday Dixie Cup I qualified A group in 15th at 15.520. I beat Troy Smart whom ended in 16th.

Round of 8 I drew Barker. Two rounds and we know who advanced. However chasing Barker put me at a fast time for the day of 15.009.

So I could get 9th with 8 other guys. OK that's easy for a everyone to figure out.

Or if you take the Qual times of the eight losers I would get 15th since Troy lost in the first round too. BUT, Troy posted a 14.766 while losing to Jason. I don't feel that I beat Troy since he topped me by nearly a quarter second. Is that fair to Troy?

Now here is how I see fair. The round of 8 was a whole new race. Qualifying is just that, "Qualifying." If you take the racers in the round of 8 and take thier fast time of the two in that round, this is how you decide the placement of 9 - 16. This makes my runs in the round mean something. For me it would move me from 15th to 13th. It would move Troy from 16th to 9th. I think that's fair because in the head to head he had the fastest time of the 8 losing racers.

I don't know how anyone feels about this but if you are a detractor then I invite you to rationalize why Troy should be in 16th.

Like someone said earlier, it's nice to say "I finished in xth place" and know that it's not with seven other guys.

[John Gilmour]

I would say it is fair to expect that the placings of racers at the top are likely more accurate than the placings of racers lower down.

I don't find times in the round of 16 to be accurate or the round of 32 to be accurate because so much pacing goes on in those rounds. For some higher seeded racers they may still be trying out different equipment combinations for the final rounds because they are recieving times for those equipment changes.

Sure for some skaters that do not change gear- this is not an issue. Also some higher seeded racers secure in their equipment choice and with whom they are racing again are likely to pace opponents. After all why risk a wipe out or mistake unnecessarily in an earlier round.

By the round of 8 in a medium to large size race- everyone is pretty on it. ...and most times are too close to comfortably pace an opponent.

So in that case I think the times in those rounds are ussually good for ranking people as if it were single track..I know it isn't single track......and I know that each course can be different ....in some extreme cases the courses can be so different that it is nearly impossible to win a race from one of the courses. But even if that is the case you still have the best time available in the shortest period of time from which to determine a winner.

For skaters ranked lower it can be pretty demoralizing to race next to say Luca how has a 3 cone lead on you by the time you reach the first cone... for those skaters ranked much lower the qualifying time might be a better determining factor of their time. Mostly because during practice they are warmed up and then go right into qualifications and then...if they make it...they might have to sit a long time---and in some cases their times might be worse racing a racer who is much faster.

And Jack- the trophy thing- "everyone's a winner". Well it is good at a certain age to make sure everyone gets a reward for particpating. I think racers packets t-shirts and stuff is great for that and to get points for entering is good as well.

But to give the same prize/placing to many makes the prize or place lose value. In some cases...where the trophy may not have any financial or visual value...it makes the prize of even equal 9th seem worthless (were you in the top ten or not? Clearly you can't have 16 people in the top 10). So I am in agreement with you on that concept.

The thing about slalom...if you practice...and stick with it the likely hood is nearly a certainty that you will eventually win a contest. And then you progress to the lext level- where you unceremoniously have your smoked ass handed to you all over again and you find youself chasing your old nemosis.

So why hand out trophies for everyone?...If you stick with it- you'll earn one instead of being given it.

But if you are a mid pack racer- you might not get to the point of being able to practice enough to rise to the top...But you still want to see yourself improve on the charts and have your friends and family see you improve.

Getting equal 17th or equal 33rd is senseless after about 4 races. "How'd you do this time honey....oh.......... 33rd again? Maybe you should bother practicing so much and come with me to my cousin's wedding next week. You've had enough skateboarding for now."

The great thing about slalom...times are accurate to very small increments. There are few "ties" and ussually we can delare who was faster than the next guy.

A common start can blur things a bit. Independent starts make the results directly comparable like in single track. And still...it is not single track because you have direct indication of how you are doing by the opponent racing next to you.

I just want the challenge to improve to be similar for everyone....not every racer has BLR in their sights.

Yes, you too Mr. Floitgraf. You'll be due in time.

***(update Oct 17, 2006)
http://www.ncdsa.com/contest_registrati ... testID=217

Mr. Floitgraf won his first contest May 20th 2006- and later placed 4th in Antrim New Hampshire. We all move up and advance- even the guys we swore would forever be near the bottom- well...they move up as they practice.. having times available and placings helps reinforce the drive to improve. Unlike many head to head racing sports our course conditions barely vary at all- even if we send 100 racers down the course.

[Jani Soderhall]

I've been into this debate before and personally I see two important issues:

a) I don't want qualifying times to determine the position among those who were taken out within one specific round.

b) I want each skater to have a specific place in the final results.


My personal reasons are:

for

a) I never have the time to get ready for a race, so I normally use the qualifying runs as practice runs. (This has usually worked for me, not so much any longer because the competition is too hard.) Whether I am ready or not, I don't want this placement influencing what I do in the racing rounds.

b) I think it's really boring to end up equal 17:th, equal 9:th or equal 5:th. At the Worlds 2002 I ended up equal 17:th along with 16 other skaters. I was close to taking out Charlie Ransom in the tight, so I felt quite good. As I was out I got 17:th, that's fair, but what troubles me is with 16 others in the same slot I couldn't even say I was among the 20 best. To me it was very disappointing to say I was just one of the 32 best.
With the methods and timers we use we have the capability to assign individual placings to each skater.

I think we should reward those that do good runs in the elimination rounds, even when they're running against superior racers that they have no chance to beat. I think it's lame to just give up in these cases, or not even give it a try (Yes, I've done it).

/Jani

[Jack Smith]

John,

I'm not talking about kids. For that level of racing I agree with you.

I'm talking about high-level slalom racing.

Do you really think that every middle of the pack racer is going to finish in exactly the same position at every race, thus creating a high number of ties in the ranking system? And remember in the current ranking system, different races award more/less points based on the ranking of the given race.

I know, we can make all the races single lane.

One of the ways I promote slalom to kids, is exactly what you mentioned; kids can measure their improvement. And no matter what any new-age, non-competitive, mom or dad trys to tell me...I know kids like to compete and win!

A few years ago I was dating this gal, the first time I met her kids who were about 7 and 10 at the time they were eager to show me their room. When I walked into their room I was blown away by all the soccer trophies I saw. I said to them, "Wow, you guys must be really good soccer players". They looked at me kind of funny and said "Why, do you say that"?
I responded by saying, "You have so many trophies". The older boy just shrugged and said,
"Everyone gets trophies, just for playing".

I was, and still am amazed at this concept.

[John Gilmour]

In tennis it makes sense about rank -

One player can have a totally different strategies..

In skateboard slalom racing the race course conditions are not degrading like they would in snow racing. So times are comparable. And the closer in time the times were made to each other the more comparable they are (Lets avoid gusty wind days).

If we have the ability to ranks racers with some degree of accuracy...why not?

Certainly the rankings are more accurate for the top 5 - 10 racers, but that doesn't mean that we should not attempt to give others a accurate rank so they can indeed see the results of increasing their speed for each contest. IF say a racer pours it on practicing every day for 4 weeks and shaves on average .5 seconds off his time why not reward that racer. Normally that racer might be tied for equal 17 and get the same points as racer that consistently is slower than him.

I think one of the great things about slalom for kids is that they can immediately quantify the fruits of their practice or equipment changes. Why not let those same kids immediately get rewards for their skating in points? Particularly for a small group of kids winning equal 9th seems silly for 16 kids. Equal 5th is just as silly for a group of 8 kids. Equal 33rd is just ridiculous and luckily we haven't gone there yet.

"Go Go Go- You're all ..winners!!!!!"
Elaine Bennis, Seinfeld
-remark made to NYC marathoners


Racing - inherently, is about rank. People aspire to advance by surpassing the person in front of them. If the person in front of you in points is actually slower, but has attended more races where he ranked evenly because of the number of people attending- well the rank is skewed wrong. I can only see ties for equal placing as more likely to skew rank than actually attempting to rank the racers.

No offense to your system- I just don't think it does what racers want- ***to see where they placed amongst their peer racers so they can set their sights on another racer as a goal.

[Jack Smith]

In head to head racing you should not be placed higher than someone you didn't defeat. You should not be placed higher than someone who is elminated in the same round as you were.

In true head to head racing, elapsed time for each racer is not even considered. The first racer across the finish line starts the clock, the second stops it. The slower racer must then win the next race by a greater amount than he was defeated by.

Combined times mean nothing when you lose your heat. Your combined time means nothing when compared to another racer in another heat.

Give me a break in the conserving energy argument, most runs in slalom are 15-30 seconds, is it reallly that taxing? If you desire to be a top slalom racer, you should prepare yourself to be able to race at a high level throughout the competition.

Yes, equal placing is fair. If both racers are eliminated in the same round why should one receive higher placing? Qualifying times you say? This is racing not qualifying.

[John Gilmour]

What I'm trying to say that once the racers complete the racing...

racers 1-4 are determined by the elims.

racers 5-8 are determined by the fastest combined times in the round of 8

racers 9 and downwards are determined by their qualifying times.


So lets say I sandbagged (or screwed up on my set up) and got 14th in qualifying and then I beat the racer with the third fastest qualifying time.

I go on to face racer number 6 in the round of 8 (Because I take 3's position). I get a lousy start and lose. After all the racers for the round of 8 are finished my combined times are compared and I find that of the losers in that round I placed second to last.

So I get 7th.

The guy I beat who got 3rd in quals has to rely on his qual time for placement. Assuming he is the highest qualifying guy who did not make the final 8 he gets 9th. (fair... since I beat him)

So basically to make top 8 you have to make it to the round of 8. If you don't it reverts to qualifying times.

Why is this interesting?

Because from a racers standpoint..the top 8 are conserving energy for final rounds because they really believe they will make it to the round of 8. (They have to do an extra 6 runs- and close together to one another)

Others that aren't sure they can make it to the round of 8 better post a damn good qualifying time.

Once a racer sees he can occassionally make it to the round of 8, he might try and save some energy for later rounds instead of peaking during qualifying.

The guys who peak too early in qualifying are punished if they don't conserve for the round of 8 if they could make it there. (Which should happen because they raced stupidly)

From a racers standpoint it makes sense to me.

A round of 32 is so long that racing conditions can change. A round of 4 goes by so fast that conditions don't change.

Since every racer can't race every other racer- you have to try and compare racing under equal condtions to try and determine a placing.

So the final 4 race under equal conditions.

The ones eliminated in the round of 8 also are under very equal conditions. They know they have a shot for the final 8 so they have set themselves to "peak" in speed for the later runs. The times posted for those racers should be amongst the fastest for them.

The ones that don't think they have a shot in the top ten....well they better "go for broke" in trying to post a very fast qualifier ,,,,even if it means breaking out those ceramic bearings for qualifying and running a lot of practice runs......or......well they run a risk of getting a slow qualifier and facing a high placed seed in an early round and get eliminiated immediately.

I'm certainly not in good shape as a racer, nor the most practiced (do I ever practice?), or the one with the most dialed equipment (I just run what TK tells me to run). But I do know when to save it or BURN it.

Most people want to land a top ten position. I do. So if you want top ten you either have to....... survive until the round of 8........or post a blistering qualifier to get spots 9 or 10 by hopefully placing a qualifier higher then 8 or at the very worst be 9th or 10th .

I think this system encourages good racing from everyone.

the equal stuff..

screw that- I want to know where I rank. In Stockholm, Brewington got equal placing with Steve Olson...... is that normal?

[Jack Smith]

Arrggghhhh...

I repeat, it is unfair to use qualifying times to determine a racer's placing in head to head to racing.

Example:

16 racer final

JG qualifies 14th he beats JS, the 3rd fastest qualifier in round 1. JS is done for the day. JG is now in the round of eight. He races in the round of eight and loses.

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

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.

Tell me that's fair.

JG should be awarded an equal 5th.

JS should be awarded an equal 9th.

[John Gilmour]

It would make sense that most times will get better as racers race the course more and become more dialed in their gear and technique.

Surely if you survive more rounds- you might be able to post better and better times- especially as you progress you are likely to meet someone who is closer to your ability until you meet someone much much faster.... you will "go for broke" with your very fastest time (or choke with a bad start).

BUT.....

My theory in racing is that you should race with your head, not over it.....until you meet a much higher ranked seed. In that case you should do whatever it takes to try and overtake your opponent. The most respectable outcome for the slower racer in the 1 vs 16 round is either....win or DQ trying. It is great if you give it your all and manage not to dq, but we all know as we push our limits the likelyhood of a dq increases. The guy pushing the false start the most in this round should be the slower guy.


So in some rounds say.,...where or 16 vs 17 or 8 vs 9 occurs you should expect that the racers are even paired and indeed it would be possible that both racers might dq trying to beat each other. If there is a big seed difference you are more likely to see one racer pace the other.

In the pro level- all "pacing" should stop after the round of 32 in a LARGE field of skilled racers like La Costa or perhaps after the round of 16 in other cases if there are enough pros.

So the times say... in the round of 8 should be the very best times of the day if the racers don't burn out over overly long courses.

I think you could respectfully use the times in the round of 8 to determine final placings but I would say you should still revert to qualifying times after those rounds because too much pacing goes on in early rounds.

fwiw

[Pierre-Yves Ritschard]

I never did like that system. Carpetbaggers lurk. Worse, some of the Very Best Racing is in that middle-of-the-pack grouping, where riders of more equal abilities tend to pool up.
What it should be is 'luck of the draw' once one 'heat' is done. Take the riders that advance, by bib #, draw them in pairs, next heat is settled. No "Bye's", no carpetbagging, just Racing! Putting the low guy agaist the top guy and bracketing it so that a 'non-race' occurs is plain silly, and it's discouraging for at least one competitor per round, and for spectators.

It's not only done in the FIS but in many other sports because it seems like the logical way to do it.
Take tennis for instance, of course the top-feeders are in separate brackets so as not to compete against each other too early. I really think it does make sense, it is racing after all.
Oh and by the way in downhill racing once in a bracket the best time chooses his start lane in the heats of 4, don't want to get stuck behind by a slow pusher.

[Jani Soderhall]

I agree that racing is racing in the elimination rounds and all that counts is beating the opponent. However, in reality, the slower guy rarely has a any other strategy than going as fast as he can.

I believe that using the times of those that are eliminated in each round would encourage racers to go for it even if they know they normally don't have a chance. It has been proven over and over that skaters make faster times once into the elimination rounds and it's a pity not to credit those that continue to improve.

/Jani

[Jadranko Radovanovic]

The Spreadsheets are logical.

If you are 16th in the qualification and you get in the round of 8 and than you didn't make the next round, than you will be the last of the last 4 guy's who didn't make the next round. That's logical. And it needs the qualification times to decide about the ranking. All other things wouldn't be fair, because it is a question of tactic how you ride in the head2head's.

And in the qualification there is only the timer and the rider. Okay two rider's, but you are only concentrated on your course.

J-Rad

[Jack Smith]

Chris,

It came about through my friendship with former racer, Don Bostick, who is also the director of WCS.

The biggest plus in being a World Cup Skateboarding sanctioned event is that it may help with attracting non-endemic (non-skateboarding) companies as sponsors.

WCS will also be helping with pre and post race publicity.

WCS will not be involved in the running of the event.

[Vincent Berruchon]

I was also perplex at the beginning when I understood that the Qualif-times determine places of non-finalists racers.
But finally it's quite simple and logic:
> Qualification are the moment one have to get a good time
> One to one are the moment to beat your opponent

But if the proposition is to keep the best time from all the times done by a racer (including qualif & one to one times)
and if it can change the results only between people that went out in the same round
it's probably good too.