Charles, I see your point but I think you are placing a little too much
emphasis on the Pax results. It
can vary dramatically depending upon the course, where Fontana and
Atwater are perfect examples.
Charles wrote:
> I was not trying to disparage anyone, just pointing out the inequities
> of the point series as it now stands. This is an amatuer sport despite
> the PRO in it's name, there aren't too many in it financially able to
> drive cross country for a weekend event, it's draining enough making
> the closest 3 events. I personally would have loved to come to CA to
> run the pros there, I get tired of getting my butt handed to me by
> most of the class here.
> Look at the facts:
> @ Fontana
> Joe paxed 7 received 21 pts
> 2nd place paxed 73 received 16 pts
> 3rd paxed 104 got 13pts
>
> @ Atwater
> Joe paxed 55 (a bit of "baggin" maybe?) got 21 pts
> 2nd paxed 107 got 16 pts
> 3rd paxed 117 got 13 pts
>
> @ Ft Myers
> Bryan paxed 3 got 20 pts
> 2nd paxed 5 got 16pts
> 3rd paxed 7 got 13 pts
> I was 11/12 paxed 89 and got 2 pts
>
> Does the point system show ANY relationship to ability? Just based on
> pax, I'd have 29 points right now and be a mathematical contender
> going into Topeka had I run in CA. Instead, I'll feel like I did
> really well if I have 6 points and not even a statistical chance going
> into Topeka with the competition here. Evewn though I paxed much
> higher at FtM than the second place guy at Atwater, It's unlikely I'll
> be able to overcome a 14 point deficit to beat him for the season,
> even if I beat him at Oscoda and Topeka.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|