Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Latest ISSF World Rankings
-
01-09-2010 7:54am#1The ISSF World Rankings have been updated today, to take into account the World Championship results.
And guess who's ranked in Prone Rifle?
82/0 - 23 - DUFF Gary -
:cool: :cool: :cool:
82nd in the World! What a swelled head that chap is going to have
In shotgun: Trap Men
44/42 - 144 - BURNETT Derek -
62/48 - 72 - O CORRAGAIN Mairtin Sean -
66/81 - 61 - MURPHY Philip -
81/63 - 38 - MALONE David -
96/77 - 17 - OGRADY Thomas -
Well done all, to be World Ranked in the top 100 is a serious acheivement, on a par with being world ranked in Tennis or Golf to name but a few.
Full rankings are to be found here.6
Comments
-
-
Unbelievable! It's a hellish complicated system that ranks shooters, but I had a feeling that Gary would get in the top 100. I'd calculated 17 points, but it turned out to be 23 which was still enough to make the grade.That really is an excellent result!
Been watching for the update for the last couple of weeks. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Having now got a result to work from, it seems to operate like this:
I initially thought Gary would be in what they call Group A because he was ranked below 20 and that's how I came up with 17 points. However his actual result was 1 point above the average 20th place result for his discipline (592) and that's what they work off and which puts him in Group B.
Which is the following formula:
GROUP B - rank 20 to rank 8:
The maximum value for the group B:
(WR-MQS):7 + ((WR-MQS):7 x 2 / AVERAGE RESULT OF RANK 8 - AVERAGE RESULT OF RANK 20) x QUANTITY OF POINTS EXCEEDING THE AVERAGE RESULT OF RANK 20
The average results for prone rifle are: Rank 8: 595, Rank 20: 592
So for Gary:
100:7 + (100:7 x 2 / 595 - 592) x 1
14.28 + (28.56 / 3) x 1 = 23.8
The ranking decay time for WCH is 2 years
Basically, every point scored above 592 gives an extra 23.8 ranking points and they accumulate over time as well as decaying, so the more events you enter and are placed in (providing you score over 592), the higher you go.0 -
Unbelievable! It's a hellish complicated system that ranks shooters, but I had a feeling that Gary would get in the top 100. I'd calculated 17 points, but it turned out to be 23 which was still enough to make the grade.
Been watching for the update for the last couple of weeks.Having now got a result to work from, it seems to operate like this:
I initially thought Gary would be in what they call Group A because he was ranked below 20 and that's how I came up with 17 points. However his actual result was 1 point above the average 20th place result for his discipline (592) and that's what they work off and which puts him in Group B.
Which is the following formula:
GROUP B - rank 20 to rank 8:
The maximum value for the group B:
(WR-MQS):7 + ((WR-MQS):7 x 2 / AVERAGE RESULT OF RANK 8 - AVERAGE RESULT OF RANK 20) x QUANTITY OF POINTS EXCEEDING THE AVERAGE RESULT OF RANK 20
The average results for prone rifle are: Rank 8: 595, Rank 20: 592
So for Gary:
100:7 + (100:7 x 2 / 595 - 592) x 1
14.28 + (28.56 / 3) x 1 = 23.8
The ranking decay time for WCH is 2 years
Basically, every point scored above 592 gives an extra 23.8 ranking points and they accumulate over time as well as decaying, so the more events you enter and are placed in (providing you score over 592), the higher you go.
Next step is of course the top 50, so roll on a few world level competitions in 2011.
0 -
There are also ranking points if you're outside the top 20 score, but above the MQS. It's roughly 3 ranking points for each point above MQS.It wasn't me! wrote: »Next step is of course the top 50, so roll on a few world level competitions in 2011.
So a 588 would have got you into the top 125 in the World
The same goes for other disciplines obviously, but you need to be consistent.0 -
There are also ranking points if you're outside the top 20 score, but above the MQS. It's roughly 3 ranking points for each point above MQS.
So a 588 would have got you into the top 125 in the World
The same goes for other disciplines obviously, but you need to be consistent.
That's interesting. I can hopefully get the prone scores up to competitive level for next year and hopefully make it to Munich if there's a trip on, would be nice to get an ISSF ranking.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Not really; the 25yd indoor one is a ranking, but we don't really track that in air (all we have is A/B/C/D and no ranking within those groups). Not sure how the 50m stuff is being done. It's also got very little decay time - the ranking you get can change in a very rapid manner, so have one or two off days from illness or whatever, and it can knock you right off the rankings, and that's not really the most accurate way to do it.
Also, if we had all the scores feeding into a computer somewhere, we could do this in a more automated way like DURC does with Kada; but we don't have that on a national basis (hell, even getting the raw data out of some clubs is like pulling teeth from the wrong end of the digestive tract), so all this required manhours that just aren't there to be spent.
0 -
Not really; the 25yd indoor one is a ranking, but we don't really track that in air (all we have is A/B/C/D and no ranking within those groups). Not sure how the 50m stuff is being done. It's also got very little decay time - the ranking you get can change in a very rapid manner, so have one or two off days from illness or whatever, and it can knock you right off the rankings, and that's not really the most accurate way to do it.
Also, if we had all the scores feeding into a computer somewhere, we could do this in a more automated way like DURC does with Kada; but we don't have that on a national basis (hell, even getting the raw data out of some clubs is like pulling teeth from the wrong end of the digestive tract), so all this required manhours that just aren't there to be spent.
Jaysis, you really have been out of it! Check the NTSA website and check the downloads section. There's now a fully ranked Air Rifle classification list (numbers in it are pretty big, too)
I do, however, completely agree that changing people's classes on a case by case basis doesn't really make sense. To stay in class A, I've to shoot 584 in the next match. 583 and I'm back in B. Now, I've no interest in competing in B, and 583 is still a class A score, but since my last match was a 576 - not the best shoot in the world, but that's what happens when you get up at six o'clock the morning after the colours and drive from Kells to Rathdrum for a shoot - I've got to get better than a class A score just to stay in the class. Shooting a 583 will drop me to B class, but since I'm shooting better than that, it's not an accurate reflection of my shooting. However, the system is as it is until some overworked volunteer comes up with a better one (And for the love of Bog, KADA?! How many years did it take to polish the bugs out of that to get to where it is today?) I also agree that we need proper 50m class lists. The numbers involved are good enough to warrant it.0 -
Firstly it's not a case by case basis, but on the basis of your last two competitions, Secondly the threshold for Class A is 580 and thirdly you can elect to shoot in a class above your own whenever you want.It wasn't me! wrote: »I do, however, completely agree that changing people's classes on a case by case basis doesn't really make sense. To stay in class A, I've to shoot 584 in the next match. 583 and I'm back in B. Now, I've no interest in competing in B, and 583 is still a class A score, but since my last match was a 576 - not the best shoot in the world, but that's what happens when you get up at six o'clock the morning after the colours and drive from Kells to Rathdrum for a shoot - I've got to get better than a class A score just to stay in the class. Shooting a 583 will drop me to B class, but since I'm shooting better than that, it's not an accurate reflection of my shooting. However, the system is as it is until some overworked volunteer comes up with a better one (And for the love of Bog, KADA?! How many years did it take to polish the bugs out of that to get to where it is today?) I also agree that we need proper 50m class lists. The numbers involved are good enough to warrant it.
The whole point of a classification system is to seperate people so that everyone has a chance of winning a prize. That's all it actually does. Whether it's based on indoor or outdoor scores doesn't really matter except that basing it on outdoor scores is an exercise in trying to smooth the unsmoothable curve
. Indoor gives more consistent data (obviously) so that's why it's used. I can't really see how the requirement to be consistently over 580 is in some way unfair.
It's been done before where there were two seperate classifications, but in reality it either confirmed people's indoor classification or provided one for the odd few that had no indoor classification. For the few that haven't got an indoor score, it's a relatively simple task of looking up their latest registered scores and classifying them accordingly.
Outside of that, a classification system has no other role, it doesn't select for International matches and it doesn't exclude poeple from training sessions whenever they are held, so it's kind of pointless devoting a large amount of time to what's essentially a method of grading people into prize groups.0 -
Firstly it's not a case by case basis, but on the basis of your last two competitions, Secondly the threshold for Class A is 580 and thirdly you can elect to shoot in a class above your own whenever you want.
The whole point of a classification system is to seperate people so that everyone has a chance of winning a prize. That's all it actually does. Whether it's based on indoor or outdoor scores doesn't really matter except that basing it on outdoor scores is an exercise in trying to smooth the unsmoothable curve. Indoor gives more consistent data (obviously) so that's why it's used. I can't really see how the requirement to be consistently over 580 is in some way unfair.
It's been done before where there were two seperate classifications, but in reality it either confirmed people's indoor classification or provided one for the odd few that had no indoor classification. For the few that haven't got an indoor score, it's a relatively simple task of looking up their latest registered scores and classifying them accordingly.
Outside of that, a classification system has no other role, it doesn't select for International matches and it doesn't exclude poeple from training sessions whenever they are held, so it's kind of pointless devoting a large amount of time to what's essentially a method of grading people into prize groups.
It's not that I think it's unfair (and I'm just shooting for overall place - class prizes aren't on my agenda) but I do think that dropping out of the class for one match, then back in again after the next, doesn't make much sense. I'd prefer to see some sort of ongoing performance evaluation with promotion or demotion based on longer term performance, rather than the effects of a given match.0 -
You could do that, but it could easily have the opposite affect than intended. People could be carrying 12 month old scores that have no bearing on their current performance level, you'd also have people classified on three or four results and others on just one. It's not perfect, but I've seen so many people spend inordinate amounts of time on trying to improve it and realistically, that's just time wasted.It wasn't me! wrote: »It's not that I think it's unfair (and I'm just shooting for overall place - class prizes aren't on my agenda) but I do think that dropping out of the class for one match, then back in again after the next, doesn't make much sense. I'd prefer to see some sort of ongoing performance evaluation with promotion or demotion based on longer term performance, rather than the effects of a given match.
Yes, you can have a bad day and drop a class, but (a) you can declare back up and (b) it's an incentive to actually try and improve so that you're in no danger of being pulled by one result. The classification system culminates with the Nationals in May which is when you expect people to be at their best, so they should be carrying their best result into the summer. You're then back in September in good fettle from the outdoor matches to improve again.
In theory 0 -
You could do that, but it could easily have the opposite affect than intended. People could be carrying 12 month old scores that have no bearing on their current performance level, you'd also have people classified on three or four results and others on just one. It's not perfect, but I've seen so many people spend inordinate amounts of time on trying to improve it and realistically, that's just time wasted.
Yes, you can have a bad day and drop a class, but (a) you can declare back up and (b) it's an incentive to actually try and improve so that you're in no danger of being pulled by one result. The classification system culminates with the Nationals in May which is when you expect people to be at their best, so they should be carrying their best result into the summer. You're then back in September in good fettle from the outdoor matches to improve again.
In theory
I see where you're coming from alright, and it does hold together for the most part, but if you have people at the upper end of one class and the bottom of the other, they tend to bounce between the two in a lot of cases (particularly the club shooter demographic where you don't have much upward mobility) and that's where it fails. It's reasonably good, but there's a flaw there. Still though, shooting for score is the only thing that matters. I'd prefer to shoot in class A anyway, if just for the fact that it puts class prizes and compromises out of my head.0 -
Just think of your indoor score as about 6 or 7 points above your outdoor score and you'll be about right. Gary was shooting consistent 590s after having scored a 597 indoors.It wasn't me! wrote: »I see where you're coming from alright, and it does hold together for the most part, but if you have people at the upper end of one class and the bottom of the other, they tend to bounce between the two in a lot of cases (particularly the club shooter demographic where you don't have much upward mobility) and that's where it fails. It's reasonably good, but there's a flaw there. Still though, shooting for score is the only thing that matters. I'd prefer to shoot in class A anyway, if just for the fact that it puts class prizes and compromises out of my head.
People who are on the cusp always have an issue, but that won't change no matter what you do as there'll always be a line and always people traversing it.
The only cure is to get better 0
Advertisement