Minimum of 4 results
Rank—rank lw—Name--------# Raced---Weekend Result
1tie----2----Jim Johnson-------9----1st @ Kingman
1tie----3----Ben Nephew--------6---1st @Hallockville
3------4----Matt Cartier--------7---2nd @ Hoxie & 3rd @ Bridges
4------7----Tim VanOrden------7---1st @ Hoxie & 2nd @ Hallockville
5------5----Dave Dunham-------9---Idle
6------6----Tim Mahoney-------6---Idle
7------8----Matt Westerlund—5---3rd @ Hoxie
8-----N R---Josh Merlis--------5---4th @ Kingman, 7th @ Hoxie, 3rd @ Hallockville
9------11---Steve Wolfe-------6----2nd @ Kingman
10-----9----Ken Clark-----------13--12th @ Hoxie, 11th @ Bridges, 4th @ Hallockville
11-----10---Paul Bazanchuk-----6---8th @ Hoxie & 5th @ Hallockville
12-----13---Abby Woods-------7---Idle
13----NR---Danny Ferreira----4---3rd @ Kingman
14-----15---Brian Northan-----5---Idle
15----NR---Jay Kolodzinski----9---11th @ Hoxie & 5th @ Covered Bridge
Top runners with less than 4 finishes who would be in the top:
Justin Fyffe
Josh Ferenc
Kevin Tilton
Corey Watts
Joseph Hayter
Jeremy Drowne
Leigh Schmitt
Andrew McCarthy
Robert Jackman
Andrew Rickert
Dave Quintal
Greg Hammet
Jim Pawlicki
Tim Cox
Ahmed Elasser
Chris Dunn
Brian Rusiecki
Ethan Nedeau
7 comments:
I believe if you use the Grand Tree points system (winning time/your time*100)and apply it to all WMAC and GSSS races, the rankings would look something like this (>5 races):
1. Jim Johnson
2. Ben Nephew
3. Matt Cartier
4. Dave Dunham
5. Tim Mahoney
6. Tim Van Orden
7. Matt Westerlund
8. Josh Merlis
9. Paul Bazanchuk
10. Steve Wolfe
I'd say that's pretty darn close to your subjective gut ratings. Maybe a change in the points system is in order....
I forgot to mention: I averaged the points from all races, not just the top 5 for each runner.
Problem with averaging all races is that the more you do the higher the chances of a bad races (or going off course, or getting injured....). Also, a couple of the RD's are known to "run" one of the races that put on at less than all-out just to get the All-time appearance points.
Sorry, so looking at all this, I still have my own system and it looks very similar to my 2-11-09 rankings. Here is my highly anticipated new rankings for week of 2-23:
My Rankings for Week of 2/23:
1) Dave Dunham
2) David Dunham
3) D. Dunham
4) D_Dunham
5) DDunham
6) D.Dunham
7) Dunham, David
8) Dunham, Dave
9) david_dunham
10) ddunham@dunham.net
+->< 100 races x Pi / 4!
P.S. considering my snowshoe season is over now, can I officially take my name off the rankings going forward? I don't even want my name to appear if I'm not racing anymore... thanks!
The POINT was using a very simple scoring system produced nearly the same results as your made up system. I don't care if you want to take the best 3,5,7.
or we can go with Jim's ranking system instead :-)
I vote for Jim's ranking system. It takes into account where the runner placed in races and gives credit for all the races they did. In other words it doesn't reward people for cherry picking races nobody else showed up to. In addition it's clean it's simple, it's accurate.
DD is GOD!!!
I want credit for my races in 2001!
Post a Comment