Our proposal for a world ranking list based on averages
We are close to publishing our new world ranking list, based on an average of the best three results of the last three years. It will replace the current world ranking list, which will continue to exist as an “All-Time Best” list with the highest scores of each athlete.
The beta version is available on our rankings and statistics page. Here is the link: http://iam-stats.com/rankings_2017.php
This concept functions according to the following principles:
- The ranking score is the average of the three best total scores from the last three years from the current date (three rolling years; ranking period).
- If an athlete only has two results in the ranking period, the sum of these is divided by two to create the average. If there is only one result, that is the ranking score.
- There is a deduction for inactivity if an athlete has no valid result in the last two rolling years (two years from the current date). His/her average is then reduced by 10 percent.
- We propose counting digital results in the same way as paper-based results.
What do you think about the score “downgrade” issue? Let us know!
Since we presented our draft to the memory community, we have received a lot of feedback. One point was mentioned a number of times and we would like to address it: we intend to give athletes who are new to the sport a full “average” score even when they have only one or two results, in order to give them an easier start. Not everybody can take part in multiple tournaments per year.
Some people have expressed to us that the consequence of this – the fact that someone could face a decrease in their average ranking score with a lower second or third result (no decrease is possible after an athlete has the necessary three scores, of course), a “downgrade” if you will – would be a negative feature.
We would like further feedback here. We feel that this is a sport where everybody who takes part in a competition knows they might have a good or a bad day, a good or a bad result. Fate/luck/chance is always a part of the equation. The competition itself is what counts. So we feel that athletes who are ready to compete will also be able to stand the small setback of an average that is lower by perhaps a few hundred points. Also this issue would not even exist if we had decided to go the strict route and divide by three even if someone only has one or two results on the board. But we felt that would be more demotivating. So the possibility of a small decrease on one’s way to a full average score is simply a feature of this supporting measure.
Ideally, we would like everyone who saw a problem with this to reply again and discuss this so that we can finalise our new ranking system. Of course, everyone else is also invited to chime in.
Please take a look at the post on our Facebook page, which explores the issue in more detail. You can leave comments here or on the Facebook post, or send an email to newworldranking@iam-memory.org.
Thank you for taking the time to support us with your feedback on this issue. We look forward to creating our new world ranking system that better reflects current skill levels. Look out for further announcements about it soon!
For me, there is one simple way to solve this “fairness” problem. Leave the concept of “average” score of the last 3 years and substitute it by “best score”. The number of times an athlete has taken part thus becomes irrelevant for his/her best score. And as there is a reduction for inactivity anyway (good idea!), athletes who compete more often are indirectly “rewarded” AND have more chances of improving their best score. With the existing system of calculating the average score of the last 3 years, they would indeed be treated unfairly, and this would do the sport no good.