becka_girl
Proud Vic Chick
Surely if people are up there on the rankings that means they have performed at a national level on very tough patterns? U don't get 100 points for coming down the bottom.
Ranking System - Tournament Bowlers
- Thread starter JWhitty
- Start date
Surely if people are up there on the rankings that means they have performed at a national level on very tough patterns? U don't get 100 points for coming down the bottom.
Casual Observer
Member
There needs to be a system that is fair and caters for all, not just those who are fortunate enough to bowl more events. If you need evidence just look at the rankings. The ones near the top are generally those who bowl the most events and this seems to be a simple case of how the system works.
Casual Observer
Member
Piece of info. The ranking system is based on your best 4 finishes plus masters, a potential 5 events.
Of the men, 19 out of the top 51 listed have bowled 4 events or more - 37%. Of the women, 14 of the 51 listed have bowled 4 events or more - 27%. That's a combined 32% of those listed on the rankings who have a ranking that is supposedly meaningful. Not even one third!
Or to put it into more perspective, out of all the bowlers in Australia only 19 men and 14 women are effectively ranked. (And people wonder why I said the system was a joke)
Points are started again on 1st January each year so it looks like that is close to where it will finish up.
So yeah Bec, the system does not work. It allows people to bowl more events than others and to be ranked higher. This may or may not be based on ability but it certainly is based on number of events bowled.
Bluey, you keep asking for a solution. A good start would be to get people to admit it is faulty so we can work on a new system. Unfortunately there will be the same ones there always is who are too narrow minded to see there is a problem and will object to anything that is mentioned.
Of the men, 19 out of the top 51 listed have bowled 4 events or more - 37%. Of the women, 14 of the 51 listed have bowled 4 events or more - 27%. That's a combined 32% of those listed on the rankings who have a ranking that is supposedly meaningful. Not even one third!
Or to put it into more perspective, out of all the bowlers in Australia only 19 men and 14 women are effectively ranked. (And people wonder why I said the system was a joke)
Points are started again on 1st January each year so it looks like that is close to where it will finish up.
So yeah Bec, the system does not work. It allows people to bowl more events than others and to be ranked higher. This may or may not be based on ability but it certainly is based on number of events bowled.
Bluey, you keep asking for a solution. A good start would be to get people to admit it is faulty so we can work on a new system. Unfortunately there will be the same ones there always is who are too narrow minded to see there is a problem and will object to anything that is mentioned.
Roysa
Well-Known Member
But if people dont put themselves forward for the events that are ranked, in my opinion they shouldnt have a problem if they are not on the rankings list.
IM not saying the system is perfect, but having no system give people nothing at all to aim for. Golf and Tennis rankings im sure would also create an imbalance for players who dont compete in tournaments.
Tiger Woods is still in the top 10 players in the world in my opinion but is ranked 51st currently.
Casual Observer
Member
Roysa, who said they had an issue not being on the list? Not a single person on here.
bluey
Member
Do you think that the points system could have an average of points to amount of events with a min number of events. So if someone bowls 8 events with mostly 5-10th finish positions would possibly have more points than someone that say bowled 5 events but finished top 5 every time? The points accrued would be averaged out on events bowled. The system I think would need to be rolling so you would have results "in the bank" to base an average on. ?????
Actually I think an even better start would be for someone to start a discussion about how it would work best, and try and formulate an idea to take forward. The ideal next step would be for other people to provide some constructive input.
It's great to stimulate discussion, but when I started this thread I was after some constructive ideas about how this could be improved. We've experienced two different rankings systems and aren't really happy with either of them to the full. I intended to input the years tournament results, apply the some new ideas to it, and we could compare how the different systems worked and which way we subjectively thought it worked best. I have some ideas and an opinion, but I'm renowned for having slightly radical ideas sometimes and not being a sheep (no offence intended to anybody there). I thought it would be good to bring some fresh ideas to the table.
I have a vision, a dream, a stupid concept that's obviously beyond where we are at right now - I wanted to come up with a system to offer to TBA that could allow tournament directors to have scores going live (maybe with frames if running on a supported system). Youth cup this weekend for example - no disrespect to Brett and his team who did the job perfectly well and a smooth enjoyable event was had by all I believe - every few games the poor guy turned off the projector, punched a bunch of numbers into a spreadsheet, saved it as an image or PDF, pushed it to whatever was sourcing the projector, emailed it to Ian Nicholls, posted it here on Totalbowling, and when he gets to work tomorrow it'll go on the AMF site. I count SEVEN steps there. John Coxon then needs to take those results, apply whatever formulae for rankings, and update that system. Ian has to upload it to the TBA site. At a bare minimum, what if he'd had a website to put scores directly into? It could drive the projector, and obviously be live scores, and perhaps an automatic rankings system could leverage it (and therefore be up to date at the end of an event). At the end of a year you'd know who bowled what, their best finish, their worst finish, their average overall, their median game, their highs, their lows, preferred lanes, preferred squad times, earnings... What else would you like to know? For supported systems (ie Computer Score variants at this stage) you could have it automatically published every few minutes showing frame scores, people at home could watch the scoreboards almost live. At the end of that year you could count spare %, single pin misses, all of that. All of the information Ian currently displays about Rachuig, could be in the ranking system. *Jeff steps off his soapbox and ends his Martin Luther King speech*
What I actually seem to have done, rather than generate good ideas, is started a flame thread. I apologise, it was not my intention. I am now sorry I asked, and this project will go into the spare time hobby-code pile.
Roysa
Well-Known Member
Its an example CO, if you dont bowl in the events you wont go up the list its simple.
You'd boo Santa wouldnt you.
Michael Little
Active Member
I stated the way the rankings worked earlier in the piece, at present, this is quite possibly the fairest system, especially for the fact that points are dropped every year, lets face it, there are only 6 tournaments one can bowl, so 1 every 2 months on average, the problem this year, was the schedule was very busy and close together for some tournaments which then makes it costs prohibitive to some players. I think with an increase in tournaments next year, but more evenly spread out throughout the year will help with this, it will allow players to pick and choose, hence why I stated earlier that it would be interesting to see how many tournaments the rankings will be based on. IMO, basing results on your 4 best plus Masters, still allows for those who may have a dodgy result somewhere to make up a result somewhere else. I still don't think the system is perfect but due to a lower number of ranked events this year, it is what it is for this year.
In regards to the percentages, the women, well, just don't have the tournament entries, so of the 58 bowlers with rankings points, you will find the figure you quoted, to be most likely those core women bowlers who attend all tournaments and then the others attend IMO based upon locations, costs etc etc. The same can probably be said for the men, except expand the numbers, there are 128 men who have registered for ranking points and you will probably find a similar core group, probably around 30-40 who have or will have bowled 4 tournaments for the year, and therefore prop up the tournament scene.
So I guess what we should be looking at and probably the crux of your argument, is not so much that the system is flawed (not saying that it isn't, but we do have to have some yardstick in place), but where the motivations are for those that haven't bowled the full tally of 4 tournaments to give themselves the chances to win the rankings. I guess without those bowlers, posting on here their motivations for bowling/not bowling, we won't know and can only guess ie costs, travel, family commitments, other tournaments clashing etc. And also how much the rankings mean to the majority of bowlers, as we are the only ones who can ultimately decide to make them more interesting by competing in more events, therefore having more bowlers in the mix, and actually making it an interesting race, as there will be a bigger core group of players utilizing their spare tournaments to drop and gain points etc.
Casual Observer
Member
Haven't you noticed that very few people even care about the rankings? You are trying to justify a system that the majority agree needs looking at.
There are a number of issues working against the tourney scene and that has all been discussed before. The rankings system will be extremely difficult to fix until the tourney situation is fixed.
I guess the question we need to answer is "How do we fix or make better the ranking system that we have in place?"
Well here is a scenario which would happen currently. In a tournament with 100 bowlers, if I finished last I would get 0. In a tournament with 30 bowlers, if I finished last I would get 12. Not ideal but it's what we have...
IMO, If you finished last you get 0... whether there is 100 or 30...
The current system should have it's scale ratioed for amount of entries. If there are 100 entries, things stay the same... 30 entries, Top 5 points remain as is then from 6th to last the points from the 100 entry scale is divided by the ratio in this case 3 (round figures). If there are more than 100 entries then last still gets 0 and the percentage of points increases for the whole scale... i.e If there are 110 bowlers then first gets 110, second gets 88, third gets 72 etc etc.
Just an idea...
Well here is a scenario which would happen currently. In a tournament with 100 bowlers, if I finished last I would get 0. In a tournament with 30 bowlers, if I finished last I would get 12. Not ideal but it's what we have...
IMO, If you finished last you get 0... whether there is 100 or 30...
The current system should have it's scale ratioed for amount of entries. If there are 100 entries, things stay the same... 30 entries, Top 5 points remain as is then from 6th to last the points from the 100 entry scale is divided by the ratio in this case 3 (round figures). If there are more than 100 entries then last still gets 0 and the percentage of points increases for the whole scale... i.e If there are 110 bowlers then first gets 110, second gets 88, third gets 72 etc etc.
Just an idea...
Michael Little
Active Member
This might be a valid point, however, I think with this system of only having 4 events maximum for results, this allows this to be managed better. I don't agree that points should be accumulated over as many tournaments as possible, but restricting it to a manageable level at least allows for greater participation. This year there are 6 ranked events plus Masters, not so long ago, there were 17 ranked events in one calendar year.
For any rankings system to work, it needs to have some form of measurement, in this instance 4 events maximum can be used. There has to be a half manageable cutoff somewhere and 4 is it. I guess my point is, that if you are really motivated to do well in the rankings, then you would make an effort to compete in at least 4 events plus Masters. I think as Bec has pointed out in another post, more than likely the top 10 in each category, would not change much given that these guys will tend to form a core group of those that always support and participate in tournaments, the motivation to do well in any rankings system may only even fall to a few of those and believe me, even in my own personal situation was/is an afterthought when the year is done. I certainly haven't gone out with the view to do well to earn rankings points, but have focused on each tournament I have competed in to finish in the best placing that I can. There is a monetary benefit of some degree to winning, but unless there is a significant prize for a few placings, then it may be determined by the majority bowlers that it is not worth bothering with.
Having some form of average over the season as Bluey suggested, even has some merit, it complicates things a little with potential tricky calculations but using any sort of rolling system from year to year is frought with danger if events move in and out of ranking status from year to year.
Michael Little
Active Member
This would lend itself to whoever bowls the most, who can afford to bowl the most wins, a system which has been in place before and lends itself further to noone giving a damn or caring who won the rankings for that year, as it is well pretty insignificant. I think the only way to have a system where all results are counted is to base the overall rankings using some sort of averaging calculation, possibly something divided by the amount of spanners in a sidchrome tool kit? At least then some sort of mean result can be calculated.
I think a system where you have a maximum amount allowed for fairness and for bowlers to manage attending is required. I don't think there should be a massive amount of ranked events, I think next year will be interesting as this is probably the maximum amount of events that should be on offer and the events are spread around a fairly big geographical distance, which will allow some bowlers the opportunity to compete in a ranked event they would otherwise not have had the option in.
Michael Little
Active Member
This probably isn't too bad a concept as at least it puts into place a perspective of entries comparison, ie deservedly obtaining higher points in a fuller field as opposed to obtaining less points via a fair ratio for a less attended event.
I think overall, we just need to increase numbers in tournament entries and this will be the key before any equality in a rankings system can be achieved. More than likely to the two will align at some point if numbers increase as a similar amount of players will continue to contest tournaments and will therefore prevent a tournament win being downgraded in achievement by the winner because there were less entries and that winner had to theoretically beat less people overall.
jason_doust
The Bowling Geek
Jeff, An admirable idea.Don't give up just yet. There are still people who would like to see it done better. Computers are so much faster and better at doing these mechanical processes than people. If your tables could read the entries from the centre's scoring, TD's could simply upload during the first block of the event and start, that would be a great start. It would also need to be able to cope with withdrawals and various forms of match play. All do-able though. I'm sure TD's around the country would appreciate this facility and John Coxon wouldn't mind getting some of his weekends back too! Regarding the other stuff, well...
Great minds discuss concepts,
Average minds discuss events,
Small minds discuss people. - Albert Einstein
(Although I had to laugh about "booing Santa.")
I like the idea that a weighted scheme awards more points in a larger field. e.g. That winning the Australian Masters with 200 entries is worth more than winning the Upper Cumbucta West Masters with 12 entries. It's fair and reasonable.
I'm not a mathematician or statistician, but if every place in an event with 60 entries gets some multiplier (say 2) of their position in the field (P) subtracted from the size of the field (F) + 1, so 1st in a field of 60 gets 2(F-P+1) = 2(60-1+1) = 120 points, 2nd gets 118 points etc. The multiplier creates wider gaps in the points earned, making space for players to change positions more readily after each event. Maybe even have a bonus lump of points (say F/4) for winning.
As for getting tournament entries up, take away the requirement for a $2000 first prize. Top-heavy prize funds are killing, nay, have just about killed tournaments as there's not much left in the middle order for the keen amateur to cover costs and nothing left at the bottom for the fringe player who really makes the numbers work.
Cheers,
Jason
GeorgeF
Hypercell = Hyperhook!
2 points
1. The rankings system doesnt mean a lot to most people, it forms only 2 clear purposes.
a. Give the National body a snap shot on elite bowlers and their form so they can be considered for National team selection
b. The highest ranked player wins $1000 at the end of the year and gets to put that title on their resume
Now for me, its all about option b. The title is nice however the money is a nice kicker for Xmas if you are good enough to win it. I'm not too interested in National selection anymore, other people are though and the rankings help them get into the training squad.
2. I think the rankings system is as good as it can be at the moment, multiple events in all parts of Australia. Masters points is compulsory towards your total and all bowlers have the ability to drop their lowest event or dont bowl all of them. I undertsand what you are saying about numbers but why should bowlers who support National events lose potential points because the tournament doesnt draw the same field as other more popular events? If they meet the TBA guidelines and they endorse them as being on the National calendar well then all points should be equal.
I use to prefer a rolling system (like tennis) but TBA changed it a few years due to popular demand, not like it made any difference whatsoever but it made the masses happy. There is no system in existance that makes everyone happy but the current is pretty good.
Casual Observer, who are all these great bowlers you speak of? I certainly dont see them and if they are that good why dont they bowl as much as Mick or myself, surely they would make money out of bowling like me.
1. The rankings system doesnt mean a lot to most people, it forms only 2 clear purposes.
a. Give the National body a snap shot on elite bowlers and their form so they can be considered for National team selection
b. The highest ranked player wins $1000 at the end of the year and gets to put that title on their resume
Now for me, its all about option b. The title is nice however the money is a nice kicker for Xmas if you are good enough to win it. I'm not too interested in National selection anymore, other people are though and the rankings help them get into the training squad.
2. I think the rankings system is as good as it can be at the moment, multiple events in all parts of Australia. Masters points is compulsory towards your total and all bowlers have the ability to drop their lowest event or dont bowl all of them. I undertsand what you are saying about numbers but why should bowlers who support National events lose potential points because the tournament doesnt draw the same field as other more popular events? If they meet the TBA guidelines and they endorse them as being on the National calendar well then all points should be equal.
I use to prefer a rolling system (like tennis) but TBA changed it a few years due to popular demand, not like it made any difference whatsoever but it made the masses happy. There is no system in existance that makes everyone happy but the current is pretty good.
Casual Observer, who are all these great bowlers you speak of? I certainly dont see them and if they are that good why dont they bowl as much as Mick or myself, surely they would make money out of bowling like me.
I actually think that the current ranking system is good because it simple and fair.
Everyone knows that they get points from their four best events and the Nationals. The points are wiped out each year and everyone starts again.
The system suggested in the thread appears to be more difficult but at least jwhitty made a suggestion for discussion.
I have often thought if points were also allocated to the bowler who finishes on top after the squads are bowled.
If you look at the current ranking tables all the better bowlers are near the top as it should be. They are the bowlers who have preformed on difficult patterns in different centres. If there are any bowlers out there who believe that they can do better then enter these tournaments and give it a go.
There is nothing wrong with some sort of acknowledgement for completing on a tough circuit.
This weekend sees the completion of the open group. It's going to be a great tournament on a tough pattern and at the end of it either Mcik or George will finished ranked number one.
People may say that the number one ranked bowler isn't the best bowler but they have proved to be the best for the year in the ranked events.
Not sure why we can't just acknowledge the achievement rather than find reasons to disgrade it.
Everyone knows that they get points from their four best events and the Nationals. The points are wiped out each year and everyone starts again.
The system suggested in the thread appears to be more difficult but at least jwhitty made a suggestion for discussion.
I have often thought if points were also allocated to the bowler who finishes on top after the squads are bowled.
If you look at the current ranking tables all the better bowlers are near the top as it should be. They are the bowlers who have preformed on difficult patterns in different centres. If there are any bowlers out there who believe that they can do better then enter these tournaments and give it a go.
There is nothing wrong with some sort of acknowledgement for completing on a tough circuit.
This weekend sees the completion of the open group. It's going to be a great tournament on a tough pattern and at the end of it either Mcik or George will finished ranked number one.
People may say that the number one ranked bowler isn't the best bowler but they have proved to be the best for the year in the ranked events.
Not sure why we can't just acknowledge the achievement rather than find reasons to disgrade it.
Phluff
Member
That's what I did for the VSS rankings this year
1st - 100 + entries, 2nd - 85+e, 3rd - 70+e, 4th - 60+e, 5th 50+e, 6th - 40+e, 7th - 30+e, 8th - 20+e, 9th - 10+e, 10th - Entries, 11th - e-10, 12th - e-11,... last - 1 point
Scales the points value quite well. Last is 1 point no mater the numbers, 1st could be worth 300 on an event with 200 entries or 120 on an event with only 20.
