Forum race ladder

[DazTheSlug]

position percentage would be a possibility, but I always find I can get much better scores at summer show/fete/carnival runs which tend to have a "softer" field
comparing against the winner's time is roughly equally challenging at every race - plus it encourages you to keep running hard even when your position is pretty much settled
as regards number of counters, a champs should be (partly) about consistency throughout the year, but maybe we should drop to 6 counting "month-best" races
I'll start another thread soon, unless we want to get Brett to change the title of this thread...?

[noel]

If you start a new thread, you'll get lots of people checking it out. Rather than knowing they've already decided against this one.

[Rob Furness]

Loads of this years possible races added....

1. simgreen78
2. IanDarkpeak
3. noel
4. Rob Furness (Rombalds Stride, Trollers Trot, Anni Waltz (or TWA), Coniston, Wharfedale Marathon, Borrowdale (or Sedbergh), Yorkshireman)
5. superflyguy
6. Sam Harrison (Edale Skyline, 3Ps)
7. wormstone
8. southernsoftie
9. Mrs Noel
10. Eleanor
11. DazTheSlug (Famous Grouse)
12. dominion
13. Turbo Tom

[Eleanor]

I agree this is a great idea. I already record my results exactly this way (uh oh, that sounds sad), with % behind winning lady as my most useful statistic. We have to stick with % behind winning lady for ladies. If we have to record % behind race winner, we are automatically disadvantaged because winning woman is always several minutes behind winning men. Doesn't seem fair to set it up like that.
Make the number of race counters higher, to iron out the slight disadvantage of individual races that had a slower field.

[DazTheSlug]

I agree this is a great idea. I already record my results exactly this way (uh oh, that sounds sad), with % behind winning lady as my most useful statistic. We have to stick with % behind winning lady for ladies. If we have to record % behind race winner, we are automatically disadvantaged because winning woman is always several minutes behind winning men. Doesn't seem fair to set it up like that.
Make the number of race counters higher, to iron out the slight disadvantage of individual races that had a slower field.

Hi Eleanor - glad that you are interested, but I'm going to go with a strict overall winner's time comparison for everybody. If we make an exception for Ladies, we'd have to do it for Vets (inc. Vet Ladies!) and as Noel pointed out, some races will have very few older vets.
In the usual way though, we would still be able to see who was the leading Lady in the Champs...
not sure what you mean by your second point, as it won't matter how slow or fast the field is, only the winner...