New 2007 NASGA Rankings ideas

Option 2 is clearly the most objective and least prone to abuses, no question about it.

12:00 will be worth 1000 points.  No Bradshaw scale.

 

Carl and I both agree that option #2 is the way to go.  Like Borges states it is the most objective and least likey to be abused.  We also agree that the change in how the caber is scored is a great improvement.  As for the concerns regarding caber size; Athletes and AD's will simply need to police themselves and use the appropriate size caber for each class.  If an appropriate caber is not used then the results can be excluded from the ranking system (very easy to do when entering the scores).

 Carl and I thank Kurt for his efforts to improve his very good and very helpful database, and his efforts to always ask for input and feedback. 

Carl and Kaelyne Mowell

Athletic Directors

Portland Highland Games

www.phga.org

 

In response to Weaselking's question:

 

For any competition (Open or Classes) you would use follow basic Caber rule:

There is no standard size or weight of a caber but the caber should be of a length and weight such that at least half the competitors can turn it. (This is from the NASGA rules; the SAAA, SHA, and RMSA rules all concur with NASGA).

 

For a competition with Classes (A, B, Masters, and Women for example) you would use an "A" caber for the A class, a "B" caber for the B class, and so on.

 

For a competition that is Open (all levels of athletes competing together) you would have to make an educated guess to the skill level of the group and choose an appropriate caber. 

For example: You have 10 athletes competing in an "Open" Games. Two are A level, Three are B level, One is 40+, and the rest are total beginners.  To allow for half of the class to turn the caber you would choose a lower end "B" Level caber; knowing that the A and B athletes should turn it, and that the Master and Novice might turn it.

 

For determining appropriate caber size you may first want to learn about the "Bradshaw Scale" for rating cabers.  The topic has been discussed at length on this board before and can be found here.

You do not have to actually use the formula and rate your own cabers, but I feel it helps you understand how to gauge a caber's level of difficulty.  Tony Dziepak created Caber Guidelines on his webpage (Scottish Heavy Athletics) which I believe is well utilized by AD's.

Recommended caber sizes for competition:

Depends upon the caliber of the competition, but in general:
class         pro   A    B  C/M/190 W
min length    17'  16'  15'  14'    12'
max length    22'  21'  20'  19'    17' 
min weight    105  90   75   60     30
max weight    155 140  125  110     80
min w/l ratio  5   4.5  4    3.5    2.5
max w/l ratio  8   7.5  7    6.5    5.5
min rating    600  500  400  300   200(364)
max rating   1200 1000  800  600   400(727)

I have a question about the database as well... I know that stones are always a different weight too... obviously, people are gonna throw further with those lighter stones, but when it's ranked on NASGA, it only goes by distance, not weight... is there a system that can take into account the weight too? In the women's class, we usually have to throw an 11-13 lb. stone out west, but it looks like back east they use anything from 8-11 lbs. Same goes for the women's hammer- I know some places do the 9 lb hammer as their light and the 12 as their heavy, but most games I've been to, it's the 12 lb. light and 16 lb. heavy... Seems like this should make a difference in the database. Just a thought :)

Being an Ad of a few East Coast games with women...weights are half of mens..ie:56wfd=womens 28wfd,28wfd for men(light)=womenslwfd of 14lb..so along those lines we use for the stones..mens stones on east coast for  are 16-19lbs for open so womens is usually 8-10lbs..mens braemer is 25-30lbs we use 13-15lbs for women...hammers always have used light 12lb and heavy 16lb for women-have only heard in the past of RMSA using a 9lb hammer and south games using a 12lb'er as a heavy-but we use 12/16 for women

 

Hey Kurt great job on new ranking

The new rankings won't be visable until the end of Feb.  I am still tweaking them some.

 

Edited by admin

Will,

Can't you find someon else to complain to that doesn't have the last name "Pauli"?

I'm way ahead of you...

Will,

Who cares how well someone threw in one event?  The new system will determine who is the best OVERALL athlete. 

And I guess it wasn't clear, but the rankings will go by the average NASGA score for each athlete.  (the average of the percentages of total decathalon points you earned at each Games).

 

Roy dude that is all me. Except now I have longer hair and no beard.

The ladies say I'm handsome... just repeatin' what I'm hearin'

So if someone tosses a 12 at the first games and gets 1000 pts thats as much as they will get all year? or do they get their 12`s added up at every games to get 10,000 pts for 10 games if they hit all 12`s.?

The new rankings would have no consideration for points in individual events it only considers total points.  I'll repeat my example from the other topic:

"An example would be a Games with 7 events.  Each event except the caber is scored with the American record on that date being 1000 points.  The caber is scored with the best toss of that Games being 1000 points.  The total possible points would be 7000 points.  If you scored a total of 5500 points, your NASGA score would be 5500/7000*100 = 78.57.  If over the season your NASGA scores were 78.57, 80, 70, and 82 your 'ranked' NASGA score for the year would be the average of these, which would be 77.64."

I'll also repeat that this sysem is my brainchild and is only intended for NASGA rankings and will not affect any championship rankings!  The USA and North American Championship rankings will remain the way they are unless the organizers of those Games want to change them.

If everyone does not like the new system for the NASGA rankings, then speak up and I will keep them the same as they are now.

 

Kurt,

  One other thing, there needs to be a minimum event standard for a games to count. That is, a games should only count if it has at least five events (WOB, caber, and at least one each of stone, weight, and hammer). I recall that we discussed this when you and I talked about this type of system at Woodland several years back.

  I also think it would be excellent if you applied this ranking system across all classes. In other words, a single list for men and a single list for women.

Over the years I have averaged my throws and it has provided me with ability to see where my weaknesses were at in each event, and from year to year....this would be a great asset to have when gauging ones overall consistency and ultimately, allowing you to correct the problem.