A Unified Ranking System?

Tournament announcements + Results + Match Reports
User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Boris » Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:24 pm

Important Notice It is proposed, but not yet decided, to amalgamate table-specific rankings into a single rank applicable to all tables from the start of 2011.

This is for a number of reasons, the scarcity and potential demise of Tornado tournaments, the advent of Fireball and more frequent Bonzini events, and the reduction in the number of national tournaments. There are no plans to hold further Roberto-Sport tournaments unless we receive sufficient tables to run a pro-tour event,

The preferred system of amalgamation would be a weighted average of points on the different table types, based on their overall contribution to the points lists, retaining the existing system going forward, tweaked slightly, with all tables having equal weight, subject to tournament status.

There are advantages and disadvantages to a unified system, the disadvantages are that one-table players will tend to be underranked as a whole on other tables, however the bonus point system will rectify this soon enough. If we find players are being promoted too quickly the event weightings can be adjusted accordingly.

The advantages are easier tournament adminstration (only one ranking list which can be incorporated into the SPORT database), a simpler system for the media and general public to understand, no more having to explain 'I'm No 29 on Tornado, no 55 on Garlando and no 112 on Bonzini' or the like. The effect on you as a player is that a unified ranking will be somewhere between your highest and lowest points total.

Comments and views please?

User avatar
El Capitan
Posts: 3613
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 4:14 pm
Real Name: John Worthington
Location: Wirral

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by El Capitan » Thu Oct 07, 2010 8:33 am

Is this post just your idea, or supposed to be on behalf of the committee?

Either way, run it in parallel for a year, I'm sure it will be fine, then go live.

It may discourage crossover of people who like sticking to their one table, but players who are actually good will be fine with it. Rob Davey at the Bonzini event recently is the shining example.

Will it disadvantage anyone going to international events?

Not that it will happen, but would we include a £5,000 tournament on Smoby tables?
£3,000 Herefore No-Snakers? Foosy etc etc.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Boris » Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:50 pm

As the committee seems unable to make up its mind one way or the other, I felt it was necessary to consult more widely and canvass the opinions of the regular tournament players and other britfoos members.

Re Smoby/Harvard, no it would have to be restricted to tournaments on ITSF official or recognised tables, or tables otherwise approved by the BFA as of tournament standard.

Re international events, as a players highest ranking is likely to be reduced to their average ranking, and is no-longer table specific, it would probably decrease the risk of players being unfairly over-ranked at overseas tournaments.

The catastrophic decrease in the number of, and turnout at, Tornado events will mean that everyone's Tornado ranking will fall away year on year and if there are no tournaments it would render them meaningless. A unified system would allow us to run events on any table using the same ranking list, rather than having to start new RS/Fireball rankings which would need at least 10x Britfoos pages to display in its entirety! On the other hand ranking someone like Tich based on his Garlando ranking alone would be unfair on other SPs.

The problem with running lists in parallel is eligibility for events and how one would treat points earned in one system if they were ineligible for that event in the other.

Steviola
Posts: 2656
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 6:02 pm
Real Name: Stephen Lyall
Location: London

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Steviola » Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:23 pm

Interesting idea, a few issues though:

Have you thought about the (many) players who like starting on a new table at a lower rank and working their way up? I think having a unified ranking system will definitely put some people off exploring other table types if they have to start at their usual rank, especially money-conscious students. Some people also like to feel like they've at least earned their rank for each table.
Boris wrote:The advantages are easier tournament adminstration (only one ranking list which can be incorporated into the SPORT database), a simpler system for the media and general public to understand, no more having to explain 'I'm No 29 on Tornado, no 55 on Garlando and no 112 on Bonzini' or the like.
With regards to this:

- Tournament administration isn't affected by this - at the end of the day you are using one ranking list, whether it's a unified list or not. There is no advantage here.
- Media? General public? There is no media impact and the general public are oblivious to the BFA
- Explaining your rank to someone is quite straightforward after practice.

I'm not sure these 'advantages' that you've listed outweigh a big disadvantage in putting off players exploring new tables, which given that most of the country plays on just one table type (Garlando) could be a major blow in growing the tournament scene.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Boris » Fri Oct 08, 2010 12:41 pm

The existing ranking system when applied to a new table will give players points according to their highest ever rank, i.e PMs or open winners start as SP, pros and SPs start as 1100 & 1000pt Ams respectively, and amateur/novice players start as novices from scratch. That restricts us to holding open, amateur and novice events only.

As for players starting a new table at a lower rank, is this fair on the genuine Ams/SPs to have pros or pro-masters competing in their divisional events? As JW said, Rob Davey winning OS on Bonzini in his first Bonzo tournament (as a SP) proves that a good player is a good player regardless of the table type. Of the Bonzo specialists only Jean-Alain Tiquet has consistently done well when faced by the tournament regulars (two third places in OS). It is generally the same few players in the top 10 of each table type, the only exception being Bonzini where most specialist players haven't compete on other tables - at a lower rank or otherwise! - or one-table specialists such as Norman.

Name - GPos - TPos - BPos - RPos
Atha Robert 1 1 1 1
May Jonathan 3 9 10 3
Amsden Mike 7 4 13 6
Burdett Tom 2 3 15 2
Davey Robert 16 5 6 8
Hamilton Joe 4 2 21 4
Sohi Jujhar Singh 10 10 2 14
Shovelton Alex 5 7 11 17
Lyall Stephen 6 12 14 10
Nubbert Andrew 8 14 17 5
Ziemann David 11 8 3 20
Boardman Iain 56 15 4 42
Cloney Norman 52 6 29 16
Farrukh Muhammad Am Am 5 Am
Morgan Dave 27 14 16 7
Philippon Emmanuel Am Am 7 Am
Racy Mayya 23 28 29 9
Thompson Jean-Philippe 65 59 8 27
Tiquet Jean-Alain 144 126 9 87
Shovelton John 9 11 25 11

Craig
Posts: 1309
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2003 1:36 pm
Real Name: CF
Location: London

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Craig » Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:33 am

A unified system would be:

- much clearer
- fairer (no Pro-M's claiming to be Novice because the table is different)
- presumably less work to administer



Absolute no-brainer. Amazed it hasn't been done already.

User avatar
Christopher Lyall
BFA Regional Rep - South West
Posts: 1751
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 10:00 pm
Real Name: Christopher Lyall
Location: Gloucester/Warwick Uni

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Christopher Lyall » Sat Oct 09, 2010 12:04 pm

I am in favour of a unified ranking system.
www.fivebar.co.uk - Foosball Tournaments, Leagues, Shop

User avatar
CannonBallGuy
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:23 pm
Real Name: Matthew "Mac" Simmons
Location: Newport, Wales
Contact:

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by CannonBallGuy » Sat Oct 09, 2010 11:57 pm

I think I agree with Steve's post above, but Craig also has a point with:
Craig wrote:fairer (no Pro-M's claiming to be Novice because the table is different)
Perhaps rather than a unified list, we just need to constrain ranks such that you can't be a PM on one type and a Novice on another. For example: when you become a Pro on Garlando, you are automatically ranked up from Novice to Amateur on Tornado.

User avatar
shovie
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 2:16 pm
Real Name: Alex Shovelton
Location: Bristol
Contact:

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by shovie » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:47 am

CanonBallGuy wrote:Perhaps rather than a unified list, we just need to constrain ranks such that you can't be a PM on one type and a Novice on another. For example: when you become a Pro on Garlando, you are automatically ranked up from Novice to Amateur on Tornado.
I'm pretty sure this is already the case.

User avatar
Graeme
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:23 pm
Real Name: Graeme Addison
Location: Vancouver

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Graeme » Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:58 am

At the moment as soon as you go Semi-Pro on any table you're bumped up to at least Amateur on the others. If you go Pro-Master on any table or if you win an open event you're bumped up to at least Semi-Pro on the others.
OUTFC Secretary

User avatar
Bundy Volume 1
BFA Regional Rep - London
Posts: 3258
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:13 pm
Real Name: Joe Bundy
Location: Liverpool

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Bundy Volume 1 » Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:10 pm

There is such a small points difference between starting out and Amateur that after 2 tournaments, if you enter all events, you'll likely get promoted no matter how much of a beginner you are. So there are many amateur players who are still beginner in terms of ability and should be protected against more experienced tournament players in their divisional events.

The benefit of a unified ranking system is that it gives a truer indication of actual ability. It will stop people being pro on just one table type and am on everything else. It will also move down those who have been promoted to pro on one table, based on good results in a few big tournaments, maybe before their time (something which loses us some players who get this promotion).

I don't feel that having a unified ranking list will put off new players multi table participation so long as each tournament continues to have novice and amateur events, and we don't charge too much for amateur entry. If someone goes up to Amateur then you're either a good new player at your 1st tournament (note the only guys to go straight to amateur from being unranked at Darlington were Matthew and Darren Warr who beat an SP team in OD, as well as placing in top 2 in most/all A/N events) or you're someone who turns up to a few events.
Either way, you're even good enough or keen enough to turn up to tournaments on another table type as an amateur.

If anyone has other reasons they feel count against a unified table ranking then can they please contribute to this discussion. This was put in the public domain to gather the views of the players, so we really do need as many opinions as possible.

bicek
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 11:10 am
Real Name: lukasz bicki
Location: king's lynn

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by bicek » Sun Oct 10, 2010 6:38 pm

I am in favour of a unified ranking system.

potts
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:10 pm
Real Name: richard potts
Location: tamworth
Contact:

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by potts » Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:19 pm

I feel as though a unified ranking system would be good on the main website to cum up with an official rank for people eg. who is actually ranked No.2

However I think having nothing but a unified ranking system is a poor decision. for players who only care about there rank on certain tables (eg. londoners on bonzini), they are being punished for not attending other events they dont care about.

I myself would be a bit irritated if my rank is affected by the fact i cant afford to go to london to attend all the bfa events that are held there on bonzini. Tournaments arent cheap and a lot of players cannot afford to go to all 3 table type tournaments so only focus on one or two. they should not suffer because of finance.

User avatar
El Capitan
Posts: 3613
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 4:14 pm
Real Name: John Worthington
Location: Wirral

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by El Capitan » Sun Oct 10, 2010 9:58 pm

potts wrote:to cum up
That's the second time you've sprayed that on the forums. Are you posting on here by text message?

potts
Posts: 491
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 5:10 pm
Real Name: richard potts
Location: tamworth
Contact:

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by potts » Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:08 pm

tbh i cba 2 rite proply cuz i iz lazy. u get me?

I am sorry is any of my shortened words have distracted anyone from the important subject at hand...actually...no I'm not.

User avatar
Graeme
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:23 pm
Real Name: Graeme Addison
Location: Vancouver

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Graeme » Mon Oct 11, 2010 4:52 pm

I am in favour of a unified ranking system. If there were to be multiple lists I'd prefer them to be for singles and doubles rather than different tables (although I don't think this is especially necessary). I don't think issues like one-table (thinking Bonzini) players being initially under-ranked on the new system are that big a deal tbh.
OUTFC Secretary

User avatar
davez
Posts: 4072
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:17 pm
Real Name: Dave Ziemann
Location: London, UK

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by davez » Tue Oct 12, 2010 3:55 pm

Please can you remind us what the arguments were in favour of creating per-table ranking lists in the first place?
Apostrophes never make plurals.Incorrect:Table's,Garlando's,DVD's,1900's.Correct:Tables,Garlandos,DVDs,1900s.

User avatar
Boris
BFA Treasurer
Posts: 9447
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2003 10:15 pm
Real Name: Boris Atha
Location: Liverpool
Contact:

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Boris » Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:48 pm

davez wrote:Please can you remind us what the arguments were in favour of creating per-table ranking lists in the first place?
A bit of history...

Back in the dark days of 1999 there were only Tornado rankings (which themselves had developed from BTFA Tornado rankings which in turn derived from Löwen and TS status re pro-ranked players. The Garlando rankings started from scratch in December 1999 and for several years 90% of each table's playerbase stuck to their own tables, with only around 10% of players (if that) competing on both. Similarly the Bonzini rankings date back to 2003 but were not made official until around 2007, with Roberto-Sport rankings taking results from 2008-09 when we had a series of events (plus ITSF results).

Fast forward to the present, and of the tournament regulars most compete on whatever table the next tournament is held on. Yes there are still some one-table diehards, but our tournament player-base is too small to be effectively split any more. Of course with novices most have competed only on whatever table the tournament in their local area has been held on.

The big change came in 2007 when the rankings were integrated into their current form so promotion or winning an open event on one table affected rank on all the others. We had previously had Garlando pro-masters competing on Tornado as rookies, the changes in 07 meant that once a player first turned semi-pro he or she could never compete as a novice on any table, and a pro-master or tournament winner would be at least SP on any other table. Since then all results/points have been entered on a single master spreadsheet each year, from which the table-specific rankings have been calculated, with the result that the Garlando and Tornado rankings are both mature and relatively stable, and the Bonzini rankings are now at least meaningful if not fully mature. Before this the Tornado rankings had gone crazy - as there was no downward pressure in the previous systen players simply kept accruing more and more points, so at one point we had 20x pro-masters. It was a massive job converting 7x years Tornado results/points to the current system.

If we look at the current season we have had 4x Garlando tournaments (Reading, Liverpool, Warwick, Darlington), 2x Tornado (Altrincham & Penkridge), 1x Bonzini (BK) and 1x Fireball to come, a total of 8x POY ranking tournaments over the year. In previous years we have held more tournaments on a single table (T or G) than the whole 2009-10 calendar, resulting in a drop in the average points totals for each table and the average rank of players, most notably on Tornado where players will do well to win more points in 2x tournaments than they lose from downweighting points from previous years - there have been very few new players promoted to SP or pro this year (as opposed to demoted players regaining their former rank).

The reason why there were separate rankings was that the players at the time demanded them - and given the former divisions it was reasonable to do this. As a result there has been considerable inertia which has led to the current plethora of points lists.

However I feel the time is now right to move to a unified system from the start of 2011. There is just Fireball and the UKC to come in 2010, so if I get the go-ahead the new unified list would be ready in time for the effective start of the new season in January.

User avatar
Matt Price
Site Administrator
Posts: 540
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 2:08 am
Real Name: Matt Price
Location: Yeovil

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by Matt Price » Wed Oct 13, 2010 5:29 pm

I like the idea of a unified system particularly when, as you point out, there are a limited amount of tournaments. It would mean those of us who are lower ranked can still improve our ranking and turn out to tournaments on any table type.

I have so far only attended Garlando tournaments because at the moment I fail to see the point of spending loads of cash attending Tornado tournaments which contributes to a completely different ranking to my Garlando one.

For those people (particularly students) who have limited funds to be attending tournaments, this should work to encourage a higher turnout at tournaments on ALL table types.

The downside is that many people predominantly attend tournaments on the table type which they are able to practise on most. I for one don't think I would do as well at a Tornado tournament as I might at a Garlando, as I practise mainly on the latter. Therefore whilst with a unified ranking system I would certainly consider more strongly attending a Tornado tournament, I am still going to favour the table I can practise on.

To be perfectly honest, I like the idea of working mainly off a unified list but of having an idea of where I stand on each table individually.

Would it not be possible to use the unified list for a usable tournament ranking of promaster to novice as we do now, scrap these terms from the individual table rankings but have individual table rankings that demonstrate where we stand in relation to other players on each table?

User avatar
El Capitan
Posts: 3613
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 4:14 pm
Real Name: John Worthington
Location: Wirral

Re: A Unified Ranking System?

Post by El Capitan » Thu Oct 14, 2010 9:46 pm

This is a thread for whether people want a unified ranking system.

The actual method for implementing and the maths of it are not for discussion here.

Post Reply