| Author |
Message |
    
Jason Fieldwick
Username: Jasonf
Registered: 10-2016
| | Posted on Friday, 23 December, 2016 - 08:53 pm: | |
Omg, this thread has turned into a Carol Vorderman master class. :o |
Fiona Powell
Username: Fionap
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, 23 December, 2016 - 09:19 am: | |
I shall be explaining how and why the percentage rule-of-thumb was developed, what the class and age co-efficients are and giving practical examples of the calculations as part of the course I am giving, 18 January, Melton Mowbray, in the evening. All 19 at the first course said they understood it!
I am also covering aspects of all three phases of the competition from the point of view of avoiding unnecessary penalties and understanding the rules and scores. All on foot, in a nice warm village hall, light refreshments included. More details shortly...
Everyone is welcome! |
May Lennard
Username: Mayl
Registered: 12-2016
| | Posted on Thursday, 22 December, 2016 - 11:36 am: | |
I have been following this page for a couple of years now and understand how the co-efficient works to take into account for horse size within the championship classes making it fairer for small ponies, big horses and multiples, however I'm not sure I agree you need a separate co-efficient for juniors and veterans.
As it stands now, veterans for example, an open pony score is being reduced by 10%, which is a disadvantage to a veteran competing at novice or intermediate level. If the relevant small pony/novice/intermediate/open co-efficient for horse size was applied, then when that normalised score is applied to the veteran championship class, it would show a truer result according to difficulty, ability and size.
The same applies to the junior classes. Currently novice junior for example can be any size horse. A Shetland is never going to be able to compete fairly against a 16.2 purely down to leg length! By applying the relevant small pony/ novice pony/novice horse co-efficient to calculate difficulty percentage, this will then even out when separated into relevant novice/intermediate/open junior championship class.
just a thought for 2017
|
Mike Watts
Username: Mikew
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, 29 November, 2016 - 11:34 am: | |
Thanks Jason.
I'll try to explain it differently.
The idea of the 'percentage' is to give an idea how people are performing, to help get the best drivers to the championships. A figure we can compare across classes and venues.
If for example an Open Pony scores 200 and a Pony Tandem 205, say, who is likely the better* driver, and by how much?
The numbers tell us a tandem driver with 205 is probably "better"* than an Open Pony with 200, so would set the 100% mark.
The best score recently at Merrist Wood was 107.31 and at Wix was 179.78. No problem, just different events, but how do those two drivers compare?
Some classes are usually slower than others, e.g multiples and novices are usually slower than open pony, so to compare scores we "weight" scores in each class by a number for the class.
We take the best weighted score of the event - which might not be the best actual score - and call that 100%. Then we relate all the other scores to that.
By looking at the scores over the seasons and especially at Keysoe which gets the top drivers, we can see how scores of the different classes compare. That gave us the weighting we use ("coefficients").
We'd like to encourage new regions, but often they start with small numbers of drivers and we're looking for a measure that helps decide who goes to Keysoe.
Winning the points league for a region in a class of one isn't really a very useful guide to qualifying. The percents help give an idea.
We've tried using a standardised obstacle across regions, for example, but that was too much affected by the local environment e.g arena surface, and its precise layout.
At best the percent is a rule of thumb - and believe it or not the percentage system is kept as simple as possible to try to be understandable and because more complex statistical systems just give more bizarre side effects.
Yes if someone has been scored in or entered the wrong championship class then when we change it that can change the percentages (as the classes have a different weighting).
At present juniors need to click the box marked "Junior
* By "better" here I mean more outstanding/likely to be higher ranked in their particular class
I'm sorry, I used to be a mathematician, now IT, perhaps my world view is ... different
|
Jason Fieldwick
Username: Jasonf
Registered: 10-2016
| | Posted on Monday, 28 November, 2016 - 09:38 pm: | |
Just don't get how 100% can get allocated to someone that doesn't have the best score, then how the rest of the percentages are worked out is way way above my comprehension.
But just as confusing is after following results in our region, our percentage has dropped in round one, and then we are listed in the wrong class this time round as are some others. I'm guessing that when this is sorted it will change again. Hopefully i'll get my head around it eventually!! |
Mike Watts
Username: Mikew
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Monday, 28 November, 2016 - 05:17 pm: | |
Hi Jason, thanks for your feedback on our clarity.
Which part don't you understand please? |
Jason Fieldwick
Username: Jasonf
Registered: 10-2016
| | Posted on Monday, 28 November, 2016 - 05:02 pm: | |
clear as mud |
Jenny Moon
Username: Jennym
Registered: 01-2012
| | Posted on Monday, 28 November, 2016 - 07:31 am: | |
Alan/Jason, there is thread that may well answer your questions. If you go to ICD forum page, then search and type jenny moon percent you will hopefully be able to see it and read Mike Watts comprehensive response and a few other comments. Hope this helps. |
Jason Fieldwick
Username: Jasonf
Registered: 10-2016
| | Posted on Sunday, 27 November, 2016 - 07:24 pm: | |
I'm not the only one then. |
Alan Hodges
Username: Alan
Registered: 10-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, 27 November, 2016 - 04:47 pm: | |
I am confused about how the 100% score is allocated. Looking at the scores I see that sometimes the 100% is awarded to a competitor who has not got the lowest score. Just interested. |
|