Enduro Points
| Author | Date | Message |
|---|---|---|
| Jason Kehoe | Jan 23 2012, 11:15am | So I think we had a full year of racing with Enduro points. I'm still a bit miffed by it but I was just wondering what we have learned from using them on the website, is there anyone who can do an analysis on the end results and give a summary on the stats? If Turlough won the first race this year by over a minute (well done T!) why does he rank 6th at the moment? Cheers, Jason |
| declan o'dwyer | Jan 23 2012, 11:31pm | I understand that enduro points are based on best 8 results over last 2 years, which is why leaders yesterday are not top. Only explanation of system seems to be a forum entry a couple of years ago. I'd like to see the multipler for converting base to race points listed on the events page. Would be more useful than the difficulty level used at moment. |
| Peter O'Farrell | Jan 31 2012, 5:26pm | Turlough down to 10th from 6th after winning his second race of the year :) |
| Colm Hill | Jan 31 2012, 5:41pm | 2 wins in a winter league race give 170.0 and 170.7 points. Last year Howth was worth 160 points and the winning time was slower while Ticknock was 158 points, again with a slower time. So points from that respect seem to be working fine. |
| Peter O'Farrell | Jan 31 2012, 6:57pm | Presumably the runners page on the website is set up to only show runners who run in the current year. For instance if you run in Annagh Hill Turlough will drop to 11th. Even if he wins. Again. A minor detail in the bigger enduro system.. Turlough is 26th in the 2011 enduro charts. |
| Niamh O'Ceallaigh | Jan 31 2012, 9:02pm | Can we not just bring back the old percentages? Let the winner of the race be the first person over the line and forget these Enduro Points that nobody understands anyway! |
| Alan Ayling | Jan 31 2012, 11:36pm | C'mon Eoin, your censorship skills are needed again. There is blasphemy afoot! |
| Gareth Little | Feb 1 2012, 9:26am | I agree with Niamh. I do not even look at them anymore as they mean nothing to me. Im sure im not the only one.... Gareth |
| Declan O'Dwyer | Feb 1 2012, 9:32am | The percentages of winnters time and race points are now listed which should keep most people happy. I don't remember any any measure of consistency over 2 years before enduro points, so I think they're a good idea. Shows the quality of runs by Zoran and Martin etc over a longer period of time. Unfortunately the league placings don't seem to be working for the winter league so far. Hopefully that will be sorted soon. Would be great if there was some way of automating the listing of team results, I think Rene Borg used to do it manually. |
| Turlough Conway | Feb 1 2012, 11:12am | Hi Declan The percentage of winning times are only listed in the individual race results. You cant see them looking at a runner's overall results. Thats where they need to be. To find out a percentage of a runners winning time for a particular race we need to click the runner, click his results, click the race, click results. Id also suggest that in races that are past people are most interested in results. Id suggest that events that are completed should default to results page. Events not completed should default to details page. Id suggest it is similar for runnerrs: People are most interested in visiting the results page. This should be default. One of the great strenghts of the website before the new stats and upgrades was the ability to sift through results at high speeds (few mouse clicks): that functionality is gone now and the advantage of having the huge results database is lost to some degree. Rgds |
| Declan O'Dwyer | Feb 1 2012, 2:39pm | Hi Turlough, Due to your impressive run in Ticknock which was 2.5mins faster than Eoin last year, my result as a percentage of the winning time, worsened by 6%. This is despite improving my time by a minute. At least the points system gave me higher points acknowledging that compared to the average, my time had improved compared to last year. I think there's a place for both points and percentages on the system, and if they can be put on the race results, surely they can be put on the runner's overall results. I can't say with the exception of photos that I've noticed any deterioration in the speed of the website over the last few years. There appear to be a few glitches in the system at the moment, eg league results, people trying to carpool and get on myimra, but I presume that's associated with the new year and will be sorted soon. |
| Declan O'Dwyer | Feb 1 2012, 2:44pm | While I am a fan of the enduro points, understanding how they work is essential. It's obvious that many people don't understand, and there should be a full explanation of how they work up permanently on the site, not hidden in an obscure forum entry two years ago. |
| Turlough Conway | Feb 2 2012, 12:53pm | Hi Declan, The differrence in course time between last year and this could be around 2 mins. Course was shorter this year and no icy pools to contend with. So % of winners time last year may be a better comparison to how you performed this year. The base points are unusually high for both races so far. Having 8 runners above 140 for Howth is extremely unusual. Compare this to last year where only Eoin managed to get just 140 and you can see that there may be problems. I personally think the base points formula is counting the outliers and skewing the points. There were only 3 runners over 200% of the winner last year. There were 15 this year including 6 over 400% of the winners time. This would account for the points skewing and infact distorts it greatly. Race points are deffo useful but the formula needs checking against a manual calculation. I dont agree with race points/Enduro points because they are too subjective and too geared towards longer races. Initially a 33rd in Carrauntoohil was of more value than a win on Maulin winter! This was changed but it shows up clearly the inaccuracies due to its subjectiveness. My point about the site is not a performance issue, its more a navigation one. I would argue that the results is what users are most interested in seeing when looking at races past, and by a long margin. I would also argue that people are most interested in other runners results. The default page for a past event is the Events details page. That should be results for a past race. The default page for a runner shoudl also be results to assist speed in brwosing the results database. Basically the pages that people are most interested in seeing should be the ones that take least mouse clicks to see. |
| Declan O'Dwyer | Feb 2 2012, 5:36pm | Hi Turlough, This topic appeals to my nerdy interest in stats. As there are so few leading runners who did Ticknock in both 2011 and 2012, it is hard to comment on whether the course was 2 minutes faster. While you showed huge improvement, Eoin only took a minute off his time. The base points are just an average of the runners on the day and will be affected by the quality of the field. Maybe more good runners ran in 2012 resulting in the number over 140 points. According to Eoin in his forum entry about 2 years ago, outliers are excluded from the calculation which should eliminate skewing problems. The question is does the system work properly? The difficulty level used to calculate race point is always goint to have subjectivity problems (your point on Maulin v Carrauntoohil is valid)and I'd like to see a list of the difficulty put up for comment.I'm happy to rely on the committees best efforts at the moment. I think the system has 3 good measures results. 1, Individual race results. I have no problem with the results page being the default page of completed races. 2, League results. I think this is a hugely important list of results over a particular league and its disappointing it's not working at the moment. 3, Enduro points. This is a take on the overall consistency of a runner over 2 years. Zoran and Martin have not won too many races over the last 2 years, but they place consistenly high in all races, especially the more difficult ones. The runners list is like a league table for this, although as Peter points out above you have to have run this year to be listed, and someone with huge enduro points from last year could be omitted. |
| Turlough Conway | Feb 2 2012, 10:01pm | Hi Declan, As stated the course was shorter this year and last year every pool was iced over. Those two factors count for time. If last years race had been run under this years conditions on this years shorter course Eoin would have run around 42 or possibly faster. No need for statistics there, thats based on common sense. Base points are skewed for the first two races. 140 might normally win a race. The formula is supposed to exclude outliers agreed. What im saying is that it appears that the formula has not worked for the first two races as it looks like the bottom 15 runners who were over 200% in Howth were included in the calculations for Howth. If you look at any league race in any year you will not find race points in the range scored by the top 10 runners in each. This is wrong. The formula needs to be reckoned manually for Howth and Ticknock, and compared with the automated results. Myopinion they will be different. Re Enduro Pts: As you say, any calculation of difficulty is subjective. Therefore, you cant accurately gauge it so it shouldnt be attempted. If Enduro Pts are not accurate why are we using them? |
| Eoin Keith | Feb 3 2012, 12:45am | I'll make a detailed reply here when I get more time. More urgent issues on the website taking my time at the moment. Enjoying the discussion though, and noting the suggestions! |
| Jason Reid | Feb 3 2012, 2:41pm | I agree with Niamh and Gareth. Such statistical analysis and year-to-year race-time comparisons are more applicable to road and track racing. I'm sure there are less convoluted ways of gauging one's progress over time. Enduro points also seem somewhat inconsequential (unless I'm missing something). But, subject to Turlough's suggestions, I don't suppose they do any harm either. |
| Declan O'Dwyer | Feb 3 2012, 5:35pm | Seems like the anti enduro points lobby is growing! Hi Turlough, I believe the view that Ticknock in 2012 was 2 minutes faster than 2011 is very subjective. How much shorter was the course?. Are iced pools at the highest point of the course in 2011 much slower than mud throughout the whole course in 2012? Both Eoin and Zoran who completed Art O'Neill in record times this year,dropped several places in the results compared to last year. That to me suggests the quality of the top runners in Ticknock 2012 was higher than last year. Put simply, as a mid table finisher, do I prefer to have my time measured against the vagaries of one runer - the winner, or against the average of the field (excluding outliers) which should eliminate those vagaries?. I prefer the average. Please keep base and race points! |
| Peter O'Farrell | Feb 3 2012, 6:49pm | Both Eoin and Zoran who completed Art O'Neill in record times this year,dropped several places in the results compared to last year. That to me suggests the Art O'Neill is a savage event that takes something out of people? I understood the base points are calculated from the average of the middle third of the field (taken from finishing position). In that case outliers make no difference and the base points will not depend upon the 100% or the 400% folk. Turlough's subjective view that Ticknock is 2 minutes slower is no worse then race points where Eoin subjectively assigns a multipier. Both views are useful for discussion but should not be part of a runners metric on their profile. |
| Turlough Conway | Feb 4 2012, 12:51am | Peter is right ofcourse. Race points and therefore enduro points are subjective and likely and more useful for discussion than for marking runners. Declan, Base points are fine in conjunction with percentages (if the formula is working. It does not appear to be working. In Howth out of 52 who did the race in both years only 10 actually performed worse than in 2011. Average improvement was 8 points: Can you explain this? Do you really believe all these runners improved by this much?) Perhaps outliers are being reckoned after all? |
| Brendan Lawlor | Feb 4 2012, 9:54am | Perhaps us outliers have all been training like mad things since the invention of the Enduro points, and inspired recently no doubt by Eoin 'Enduro' Keith and his Art O'Neill heroics! |
| declan o'dwyer | Feb 4 2012, 2:39pm | Hi Turlough, I'm very impressed you went to the effort of comparing all results for Howth for the 2 years. No I can't explain the improvements shown, I still believe measuring times against an average of standard finishers, is preferable to a measurement against a single winner. Still there's no reason I can see not to have both stats up for both race results and runner profile. Yours and Peters view that subjectivity has no real place in the stats is persuasive. I just think most sports have a classification system in place and I assume they use subjectivity. How else does golf decide how to award world classification points to the winners of different tournaments. I presume you get more points for doing well in a major than other tournaments. I just think the website will be less interesting if race/enduro points are removed. |
| Barry Minnock | Feb 8 2012, 3:48pm | http://www.imra.ie/forum/topic/id/2563/ There is only one number that matters in hill racing - your position. The current points system is subjective in nature and should be removed in my opinion. If there is a real desire for a points system it should be simple to understand. If it's to remain it should be renamed ... If it helps I've done a very simple survey here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/FDVN9GQ Let democracy rule :) |
| Brian Furey | Feb 9 2012, 1:36pm | Enduro points is a subjective system. I think we've established that :) To make better sense of it and improve on it if it stays on the site- it would be helpful to know what 8 results over the last 2 years it classifies as your best. That way we can give feedback to improve it. Not looking to overload the web designeer with work! Would be worth doing if its too stay. |
| Peter O'Farrell | Feb 9 2012, 1:55pm | It should be scrapped but if it's kept; It should not pick up it's list of runners from the current years registrations, instead it should include anyone with 8 results in the last two years. It could have a history tab showing the highest enduro points acheived by everyone since 2000 - an all time list if you like. This would give representation to the likes of John Lenihan who has no results in the last two years. |
| Barry Minnock | Feb 9 2012, 9:41pm | Survey Results to date: Leave as is - it's the perfect points system 22.9% 8 Remove completely - it's overkill, confusing and subjective 48.6% 17 Simplify - make the system easy to understand and more objective 28.6% 10 Other (please specify) 6 No quite the perfect system, but keep. Leave Bace points calculated from mean on runners times, correct if not working as intended, simplify race and enduro points (or explain better) explain how it works - possible tweaking only Simply bring back the % (except for when Barry is running) Willing to listen to alternatives I don't know what an Enduro point is? Anything to do with a certain runner's Boards name? go back to percentages only |
