Rule 1.13 - Ranking formulas

[Horton]

I read this USAWS Rankings List FAQ but I still do not understand when ELR scores cause an aveage of 2 best scores not 3 best scores. I had a moment when I thought my score last weekend was going to push me up farther. I know know this will not happen for me right now but still do not follow how it happens.

 

When the system resets - my 3 best scores will be from two C events and one L. If my two best scores were both L would the C not be included in the calc?

[MISkier]

@Horton, they will include the C score only if it has a positive effect (or no effect) on your ranking average. If including that score into the average of the three actually makes your ranking worse than taking the 2 other scores and applying the penalty for having less than 3 scores to the average, then they will exclude it.

 

There is this part of the rule explained on that FAQ page:

 

a # next to a ranking score, on the other hand, means the calculation has chosen to use fewer scores than the skier does have, because bringing in the next lower score would actually serve to reduce their ranking score, compared to using fewer scores with the applicable penalty. This is commonly referred to as the "Do No Harm" provision, spelled out in Rule 1.13 -- explained in more detail in the preceding section

 

I also seem to recall that two L scores would be averaged for your ranking with no penalty. Many of the Open Men rankings show two scores (usually two R or one L and one R) and they have no penalty. There are also 4 skiers with two L scores and no penalty.

[sunperch]

@Horton I have the same question: My son has 3 scores that are used to figure his ranking. His top score is from Regionals (Class E). He has a matching score from a Class C tournament so I thought those 2 scores should be his rank (85). In the rankings list, the formula uses an additional Class C score which is 2 bouys lower (83), thus lowering his ranking score by .67 bouys (84.33). @klindy, do you have any insight?

[RazorRoss3]

@sunperch, I think using the 3rd score has a smaller negative effect than the 5% penalty that would be incurred from only using 2 scores.

[ntx]

@Horton the simple answer is yes. Lots of things to consider but in your case yes. As @MISkier said they always use the higher option, even if it is with a penalty. Lets say score 100 class c. 85 class l. 80 class c. Have 88.3 no penalty. But the 100 with a 10% class c penalty is 90. So the 90 would be the score in the ranking list. If the 100 was a class l or r score the penalty would be 5% with a ranking list score of 95.

 

Now lets say 100 L. 100 C. 92 C. Ave 97.3 no penalty. 3 score Ave. BUT the two score Ave of two 100s from a L & C with a 2.5% penalty yields a score of 97.5 for the ranking list. Higher than the 97.3.

 

Now 100 L. 100 L. 98 C. Just use the two class L for a 100.

 

 

One score class L R 5% penalty

One score class C 10% penalty

Two class L R no penalty

Two class C 5% penalty

One class L one class C 2.5% penalty

Three class C no penalty.

 

Always use the score that produces the highest results regardless if a penalty applies.

 

This is why you see the little red "#" or "*" in some of the scores.

 

Hope this helps

[ntx]

@sunperch the 85 L and 85 C with a 2.5% penalty results in a 82.9 ave. If the second score was a EL or R than yes, ave is 85. Adding the third score and removing the penalty results in a higher score of 84.3

 

One E L R and one C is a 2.5% penalty

[ntx]

@RazorRoss3 since one score was class ELR and one score was class C. The penalty is 2.5%

[wtrskior]

As a usa waterski outsider this is entirely too complicated. Does it need to be this way?

[LeonL]

@wtrskior there has to be a formula of course. I'm not sure why there needs to be "extra credit" for ELR scores. Not really extra credit, but no penalty for fewer than 3 scores. It's not really so complicated, once you read the description amd guidelines. There definitely needs to be a minimum number considered and an average, so as to avoid a person going to one tournament throwing up a good score that isn't indicative of that person's average. There would be some logic to averaging every tournament round to determine ranking. Everyone's average would go down, but by similar amounts though.

[MISkier]

I think the theory on less penalty for ELR scores is that there is, or should be, better officiating and tighter tolerances. Add the pressure of competing in that heightened setting and the achievement appears to be more formidable.

[Kelvin]

@wtrskior Its a fairer system this way. Before it was changed, there was a risk of lowering your ranking score by skiing in a tournament. Not exactly conducive to growing the sport if there is incentive not to ski tournaments. Particularly for a skier with 2 scores in the books just coming off an injury or something like that.

[klindy]

The quantity and class of tournament only determine the penalty.

 

So two class L+ tournament scores of 90 and 100 would average 95 with no penalty.

 

A class L and a class C with the same scores would be a 92.63 average (2.5% penalty added). So in this case you'd need a total of 5 more buoys between the two tournaments to equal the same 95 average (it would be 95.06 actually).

 

As has been said before you're average is always calculated every possible way to determine the best score.

[Drago]

@LeonL taking a true average would finally kill the sport off. Too many people would avoid less-than- Perfect sites.

I agree the formula is pretty decent right now. It's not that confusing.