Dragon Boat West

I don't really understand how the standing are done can someone explain it to me

Thanks

Sorry I haven't gotten around to writting a proper methodology explaination for the rankings. In the meantime, here's a quickie version:

Points are given to top ten finishing teams of festival / regatta. The scoring ranges from 32 points for first place to 2 points for tenth place. In addition, bonus points are added for top ten placments at festivals with a large number of teams. In this case, the same number of bonus points are added to the scores of all of the teams that placed in the top ten for those festivals. The second table lists the racing events that were used to calculate the standings. As you can see, we still have yet to add the results from this past weekend's Alcan festival. ;)

Curious ... Does the Lotus and Portland regatta's generate your team any points?  Just a thought! Sheesh!  :shock:

Oh yes... those will count too. Just haven't gotten around to adding them yet... :)

So does anybody know where I can find official results for the Portland regatta? :P

Looks like the Portland Regatta hasn't happened yet?!

http://www.dragonsports.org/regatta/index.html

Some kind of regatta happend in Portland in mid-June...

http://www.dragonboatwest.net/forum/index.php?topic=3463.0

Actually, a link in the last post of the thread seems to point to the official results. Gee, thanks for nothing, Google! ;)

Suspect this is the festival results you are looking for:

http://www.pksca.com/Past-Results/2006-Combined-Final.pdf

curious, why the absence of the Scotia Bank Dragons????  :doh:

As good as they are, Scotia has not yet placed in the top 10 in any of the festivals/regattas our rankings database currently tracks. Only top ten placings earn points in our current ranking system. Maybe next year we'll tweak the formulas to include more than just the first ten placings but for now this is how we calculate it.

I'm totally impressed that you've gone to the major effort of creating these rankings - kudos! So please take this as a creative suggestion not criticism. In future, how about somehow basing the rankings on where a team finishes in the pack, for instance 10th in a festival of 50 boats equates to only top 20% but 10th in a festival of 180 boats is top 6%. This approach removes the need to 'factor' for bigger festivals. Just a suggestion, keep up the great work!

Although the link says Rankings, we really refers to these as Standings where teams collect points for top 10 placements... similarly to motorsports. We had discussed many different methods ever since we decided we wanted to somehow compare different teams and we came to the conclusion that other than dumping all the teams into one big body of calm water, there's no real way to determine the ranking of teams. Therefore we came up with this method of points. With points it removes the "one-hit wonders" or the "one festival per year-stacked teams" from placing high and rewards teams that race in more festivals. Now what would prevent a team from entering only in small races to load up on points? Technically the amount of sponsorship and the size of their wallets. There are some checks in place though to highlight teams that do.

We include other information on the rankings in addition to the total points collected to give a more rounded view of the competition
Top 10 Placements - the number of times this season has finished in the top ten in a race/regatta/festival.
Total Races - The number of races the team has attend. This is the total number of races, whether they place in the Top 10 or not.
Avg Placement - The average placement the team achieves in all their races
Placement Percentile - The average percentile of the team achieves in their races. In other words... where the team places in relation to other teams, which paddleho suggested.

With these other values, one can interpret a range of expectations of these teams. For example, if we take the ratio of top 10 placements to the number of total races, we get a rough idea of how competitive the team is (on paper) since it shows how consistently the team finishes in the top 10.

Back to the "big fish in small pond" team that only races for points in small races. Usually a high Placement Percentile would indicate that the team would not place high in races since there are other teams that would place higher (ie. a PP of 25 would mean that on average 25% of the pool place higher than the team). Now if we see that this team has a large number of Top Ten Placements and a high average placement yet has a high PP, it would mean that logically the team has only raced in small races since like paddleho mentioned 10th in a festival of 50 boats is only a PP of 20 (Since most small races range around the 25 teams range, 10th place in one of these races would give a PP of 40). Like all thing statistical, the more data we get, the more reliable the interpretations.

Of course the main fact is that to even be considered, the team still needs to place in the Top Ten of at least one race. These standings are far from perfect, but it gives people an idea of where they're at and maybe even goals to achieve.

One comment:

2006 Alcan Regatta Sat - there were only 24 teams in that 'regatta' not 99.  Therefore, no bonus points should be awarded for that race. 

I not sure where the 99 came from because even if you combine all 4 groupings that would still only amount to 96 teams.  However, I assume that the number came about because all four groups were combined and only the SAT AM grouping was given the opportunity to gain points.  That's not to say that anyone other team from the other groups would have taken a top 10 placing in SAT AM (I don't know because I didn't check), but in the reality the SAT AM teams only raced against 23 other teams. 

Anywayz...just a technicality on a Friday afternoon after a long week...

I now I'm grasping at straws ... but could a team not earn at least half a point for Lotus and Portland ... so hard getting on this ranking list ...  :?

damn fingers - know ... I know ... where is the delete button!!!

It says 99...well.... because I mis-counted. Thanks for the correction... ;) 

IMHO...I believe the the tab up top should be labelled "Points Standings" and not "Rankings"...

1)  To have ranking the way it is done right now, ALL teams have to compete equally in all the same races....like a circuit...the way CHAMP, IRL, Pro Snowboard, Skiing, etc...is done...to be able to rank accordingly

In dragonboating, since the circuit format does not exist, it would be unfair to rank teams accordingly if we stay with the current format because not all teams race in the same festival/regatta; some regatta/festival draws more competition than the others; and some are bigger than others...

The way it should be done is like how it is in the PGA, Tennis or even NCAA/Highschool...

In the PGA or Tennis format, you have a separate list for money leaders (point leaders in our case) and another for overall ranking...both are inconsistent in drawing everyone to each tournament so overall ranking is based on player activity (how often do they compete) and 1 on 1 records between all competitors.  Boxing uses this in some ways...

NCAA is also based on team activity and 1 on 1...and also based on previous years ranking....

If you look at the standings right now, teams like Kai Ikaika, FCRCC mixed2 or even the Laoyam Eagles deserve better ranking positions....even as mentioned...teams like Scotia (not on the list) deserve the recognition to be on an overall ranking list.  "As good as they are", Scotia is far from a "one hit wonder team" and have shown consistency over the years as one of the top teams in any festival!!!  Besides, this current format does not eliminate the one hit wonders as I still see a few on the list...

But nonetheless, something to definitely work on...again IMHO...8)

Forget it. I found what I was looking for. Sorry about that. Thanks for reading! :(

Standings versus rankings...
If I were a betting kind of person, I would want websites on each team on the list to show the roster, each persons abilities & histories (including drummer and steerer), where they were sitting in which heat, etc.  just like when I watch TSN, but alas, teams don't get millions of dollars, the marketing machines are not out there to do the stats.  With all its short-comings listed on the thread, it still is a pretty decent way of seeing at least where you compare against other western teams.

If you really want to see nerding out over stats, check out this website: http://www.dragonboat-truerank.blogspot.com/  It attempts to rank the top 100 teams in Ontario and Quebec.  Blue Streak, I appreciate the work you put into the dragonboatwest ranking, but you have to appreciate the crazy time on data entry for the Power Demon ([email protected]) has done.  And no, I don't think we can use their method because they don't have to account for major tidal differences that we experience on the Pacific Ocean.

Oh yes... I've seen that page. They must have one big mother-of-all-spreadsheets over there. :)

Is there any thought to adding the Alberta Races and Teams in as well to the Ranking/Standing List?

How many bonus points do teams get for participating in the WCC's?  I think Roli, Pac Reach and Layoam should now be moved to the top of the list.  I'd say put FCRCC there as well but they already own top spot!

Hard to put them ahead of the GD's since in the only head to head meeting of the season (Alcan) the GD's beat all of the mentioned teams. (except False Creek and they are already #1) Now if they were coming to Victoria and beat the GD's you might have a case.

I only just found this site when looking for pictures of us in toronto i am a paddler on the laoyam eagles and i was amzed when i saw us ninth in the west out of ADULT TEAMS id also like to thank false creek team for putting up with us at toronto and for helping us bring home golds for the west!!!!!!! Well see ya at ALCAN next year!

No plans currently, but Alberta sorta counts as part of the west so we might start tracking them one day. :) We're counting the Calgary festival in our rankings cause a good number of BC teams went over there to compete.


Currently, we don't give points for participating at the WCC. Its an interesting idea though... its something we can consider when we revise the rankings for next year.

Well Miss Vicpaddler Gorging should be awarded bonus points as well since many members from their crew were on False Creek.  Saw many a Gorging jerseys walking around.  Then again all the teams had imported members from other crews to fill rosters.  Still good on all West Coast and Canadian teams for cleaning up in the medals department!

i think you saw the same 4 shirts multiple times....    and the victoria guys weren't technically imported for the CCs... they were on the mens team only, and were on the mens team in alcan as well.  and before the question is asked, yes they were attending practices here with FC

Okay, I'm confused as well.  Swordfish is three for three, yet they placed sixth in Rec A at Alcan.  So how does that compute?

(And no disrespect to Swordfish.  Great team, love paddling against them, hope to race them at Kelowna).

D

Thanks Colossus, I was aware of that but I also saw a Gorging girl, Dragonaut men and Hugh Fisher jump on the Cdn National Sr Mens team.  Can't wait to hear how Gorging does in the North American Club Crews in Welland.  Anyone else know who's going?

no one is going anymore.  cancelled.

I don't have much faith in this ranking system.

What I want to know is how fast each team is, not how many races they've been in. Looking at this it would look like Swordfish is faster than Pemberton Bald Eagles and Capital Iron, or VO2Max is faster than Laoyam or San Fran Dragon Warriors. Those are just some examples of rankings that don't look right.

I know there's no perfect system but unfortunately this one is a bit misleading the way it is. Also it's only the top mixed teams, it would be great to have all the teams and the different divisions e.g. womens, seniors etc.

Alcan's rankings are much better than these, the problem with those is that it's a lot of work so they only do it once a year, and they don't publish it, but damn it would be good to see.

How about it Alcanranker, put 'em up next year?

rb

Somebody start ranking the women's teams already! Some of us will be ranked higher than some mixed teams out there..honest!!!  :lol:

Faith in the system, rb?  You may be right in the criticism of the system being based on number of festivals than speed, but because we don't race in the same boats, nor is every event in a canal, that we can ever have a perfect ranking system.  As stated earlier, this is more like standings.  As for faith in Alcan, I don't because many teams peak later in the season, such as at Victoria and Kelowna.  Also, one bad race and you are knocked down.  If you can develop a better system, I suggest you tackle the issue head-on.

The same criticism goes to kryssee.  If you want women teams, men's teams, blind team, master teams, bc survivor teams rankings, then do the work yourself and post it here.  Simple as that.  Everyone here that posts, included the "rankings" are doing so voluntarily, with volunteer hours.

On that, I tried doing it myself.  I gave up on the frustrating part of how to account for currents in a race (for the west coast).  It just got too complicated.

Backward Rowing, thanks for the feedback and also the info on Victoria.

Just to clarify, my point was that I had faith in the Alcan ranking not the Alcan race results. I also think the race results are a good indication but the ranking is awesome. Prior to Alcan they have a whole team of volunteers go through the previous year's results including Victoria and Kelowna and vote on who they think is faster than whom, tabulate it all and have one mother-of-all ranking lists. That's the one that I'd be interested in seeing, it has all the teams and the divisions and is based on who beat who in previous races. That's one hell of a volunteer effort. I suggested AlcanRanker post it.

That kind of effort makes for a good race but can't be done year-round as a ranking system, that's way too much work.

After re-reading this thread I get the point that the rankings on this page are more like standings. I'm content now that I know how to read it.

Thanks.

rb

p.s. I know you probably weren't serious but I have to say I don't think the blind teams want their own division, they like to compete with everyone else that's the point, and if you've ever seen Eye Of The Dragon you might suggest that they start a little behind the line just to make it fair for the other teams  :)

...rb and BackwardRowing, especially the last two points you guys posted. But in all honesty AlcanRanker needs more volunteers/coaches/paddlers to help get every team listed. I know this because I have spoken with AlcanRanker and considering the number of us involved in DB racing the number of people who replied to the request for feedback and ranking was quite low IMO. But in the end with the help that was provided a pretty darn good ranking system does appear to have been achieved. As for speed results I suppose in the grand scheme of things that isn't so important if all of the upper level teams were competing in the same venues, right? However it would be good to see the speed/race time just so that the rest of the teams aspiring to be a good as the upper level teams can set targets to get close to their times. Of course location of which body of water you use to try to get the same results does indeed matter though, IMO. Good points in the last few posts!

Because of each race having different conditions it is very difficult to have a very good ranking system that satisfies everyone.  In your opinion how would a ranking system somewhat based on time work?  I was thinking of something along the lines of having the first place team from a race have a time of 0:00 and then you would receive a timing from there to rank you...such as the second place team finishing 2.3 seconds behind would be -0:023.  After all the races you can have a cumulative time based on every heat and the team with the lowest total time "behind leader" would receive top points for the festival??

For example:

Race 1                            Race 2                     Race 3                    Total Time
Team 1  0:00                  Team 2  0:00            Team  1  0:00          Team 1   -0:02           First Place 20 Points
Team 3 -0:015                Team 1 -0:02             Team 2 -0:014         Team 2  -0:048         Second Place 18 Points
Team 2 -0:034                Team 3 -0:025           Team 3 -0:023         Team 3  -0:063         Third Place  16 Points
Team 4 -0:056                Team 4 -0:041           Team 4 -0:035         Team 4  -0:133         Fourth Place 14 Points

Etc....

Thoughts??  This way you are comparing overal results compared to the top placed team in the festival and also accounts for different race conditions.

...only this time by CheckTheBoat. You know what you say does make sense to me. It will take a bit of work but once you have all the data tabulated it should be simple enough to maintain. I am not one to do such a thing because it does seem like a lot of work to me. But then again I was never a strong data gatherer either! Maybe it is easier than I am making it out to be. But yes it seems to make sense to me that one would use the fastest time of the day and go down from there. But what if the faster time was posted by someone not even in the top final? I am not sure if in your example addresses this. I say this because, as you already pointed out, because of tidal differences and winds and whatever else you can think of that can affect conditions and outcomes, it is very possible (and I believe it has even happened before!) where the lower final, say a Comp B or C could end up with a faster finish time than someone in Comp A. So how does that factor in? Maybe it is tougher to do like I started off saying.  :( Unless you can add bonus points for respective divisions you end up in as well along with the time differences? Gosh I dunno.

As a follow up to my post a couple of days ago I have done some work with the Calgary Festival and have a different ranking system available.  Unfortunately I am not great at attaching files without the dummy system so if someone could help me attach an excel file on here I can put some backbone to my idea.

I found the results worked well with a few exceptions which may or may not be able to fix.  The results are based on a heat by heat result and would help to compare team festival to festival without worrying about different conditions and such.

If you would like the file just give me a shout and I can email it to you if this doesn't work attaching it to the site.

Thanks,
The Aquanauts "Challenged Leader" (Thanks Puppy)

Backyard Rowing said"
I already posted in another topic that I wouldn't be able to do it because I wouldn't have the first clue where to start...all my hats off to those who do it, and yes I know it's voluntary. Thanks for the suggestion..however rude it was..

Sorry kryssee, it wasn't meant to be a slag.  I type way too fast, and I hate editing my own work.  :oops:

No problem..thanks..you also caught me after a week of holidays with 4 kids under 5...I admit..I was a bit, er, um, what do you call it? EXHAUSTED!!! :lol: