With two on first, who's second?

[4ster]

You all make a compelling case but the rules were set up ahead of time. In Shiffrin’s mind I bet she just wishes she had gone 1/100th of a second faster.

 

[James]

If this were golf, in a tournament of 5 players
A. -4
B. -3
C. -3
D. -3
E. +5

Are you saying it's fine for E. to claim that they finished 3rd in this tournament of 5?

^ Not based on time. You want to start giving points for runs instead of timing them, it might be similar.
@karlo ‘s position on the tie for first is making more sense.

If “skier’s ahead” matters so much, then the first person to get the fastest time is in first. No ties. Too bad. You’re saying the same thing with someone who has the second fastest time, but has two or more skiers ahead. “Too bad”
That doesn’t make sense because the sport is based on time.

The smallest interval of time recorded is .01 sec. Mikaela finished with the smallest interval possible after the fastest time. Just because two people have that time, doesn’t matter to the clock.

 

[S.H.]

That doesn’t make sense because the sport is based on time.

Is it?

Or is it based on "who gets down fastest"? Because ... Shiffrin was clearly 3rd-fastest in Sestriere...

 

[James]

Is it?

Or is it based on "who gets down fastest"? Because ... Shiffrin was clearly 3rd-fastest in Sestriere...

“Fastest” has no meaning really. That’s speed.
All we measure for results in the race is time. So, yes, the race is based on time.
Whoever travels the course in the least amount of time wins. Next most time is second, etc.
The second shortest time, with the smallest possible difference from the shortest time, was Mikaela. She should be second with 80 points, not third with 60.


Anyway, nice highlights of some of the top gs skiers at Killington, 2018.

Anna Veith, with a view from the top.

 

[karlo]

Or is it based on "who gets down fastest"?

A: who gets down fastest.
And, the two failed, failed to be faster than the other, yet they are rewarded as if they succeeded.

let’s say I placed a berry with my bookie on Vhlova. Would I have gotten paid out as if she were indisputably fastest, as first? I don’t know. It’s a serious question

 

[S.H.]

A: who gets down fastest.
And, the two failed, failed to be faster than the other, yet they are rewarded as if they succeeded.

let’s say I placed a berry with my bookie on Vhlova. Would I have gotten paid out as if she were indisputably fastest, as first? I don’t know. It’s a serious question

Yes.

Though I'm not sure what a berry means in this context.

 

[Swede]

I don't understand why when there's a tie for first, the next fastest gets third, and the third fastest gets screwed. Shiffrin missed the fastest time by 1/100, then gets third.
Makes no sense. They tied for one spot, you shouldn't skip a spot.

She was the third fastest that day. She gets position three. Awarded points for third place.

 

[James]

She was the third fastest that day. She gets position three. Awarded points for third place.

S.H. Tried to make that argument. @karlo and I aren’t buying it, but he’s off gambling in Japan where they call bets berries apparently.

let’s say I placed a berry with my bookie on Vhlova. Would I have gotten paid out as if she were indisputably fastest, as first? I don’t know. It’s a serious question

You’d get all the berries you bet paid out. Make a nice smoothie!
Official results are what counts.

 

[Seldomski]

What is the timing based on? What needs to cross the line?

.01 seconds at 30 mph ~ 150 mm, roughly 1/2 a boot length.

 

[James]

What is the timing based on? What needs to cross the line?

.01 seconds at 30 mph ~ 150 mm, roughly 1/2 a boot length.

I thought the beam is 30cm/12”, from the ground.
But, I couldn’t find the spec. You need two separate systems, max 20cm, 8” apart vertically.
It has to be below the racers knees. Whatever that means esp for kids.

There's a spec that an 8mm diam black cylinder moving at 10 km/hr should not break the beam.
2017 rules-

www.fis-ski.com/DB/media/services/timing-and-data/alpine-timing-booklet-v-255-e.pdf

 

[karlo]

he’s off gambling in Japan where they call bets berries apparently.

One of those errant swipe-typing word, but I like it, placing my berries. Has a ring to it.

Anyway, I found this,

Site Maintenance in progress

Can someone figure this out? If this method were to be used to assign points, what would each skier get? I think this means it’s what I was saying, a split of the first and second place winnings.

 

[Eleeski]

.01 seconds at 30 mph ~ 150 mm, roughly 1/2 a boot length.

While I'm certain that the measurement can be displayed to .001, how accurate will that be? 15mm is likely a real world variation from wind, setup and even temperature variation. Just because a readout has lots of digits does not make it correct. Says the engineer who started doing calculations on a slide rule - our results worked despite the few digits of accuracy the slide rule offered.

Reading too much into measurements is wrong. Ties at .01 offer a reasonable assessment.

Mikaela has won several races by very small margins in the past. But you can't win them all. She skied well enough for third place and scored the corresponding points for that.

Every sport I've been involved with gives the same ranking to ties, then skips a placement for the next finisher. Pretty standard stuff. While I understand the logic of time based ranking, the tradition of placements matters more.

Eric

 

[hbear]

Seriously....this is a discussion/debate?

I’m all for looking for ways to improve things but I’m of the belief that this is pretty cut and dry. Lots of examples in other sports with season long points.....shouldn’t be that difficult to understand.

The overall premise of racing is to determine the quickest athlete of that event. Time in Alpine is only used because it’s not a sport where all competitors can race down at the same time.....hence they use time to rank the athletes. Time used to create rank, rank determines placing. 2nd fastest time means nothing if there are multiple athletes with a better time (and hence rank) than you.

Some sports use a playoff to determine ultimate winner, but that doesn’t change the fact that (in this case) Shiffrin was the 3rd ranked athlete for the event. The 100 points for win is not for clearing the field, if for ranking 1. In this case 2 athletes ranked 1 so both should receive full points (not reduced to 90 for win because there was a tie....tie does not diminish the win). Yes season long points can be effected but like most things in life....if you don’t like it simply place better.
If you don’t want the point race to be close at the end of the season then leave no doubt....

 

[Seldomski]

@Eleeski I think timing to 150 mm of distance traveled is good enough. I was just curious to see what that distance would be, so I did the math. If you went to the nearest .001 sec, then you start getting into the thickness of the clothing/shin guards starting to matter.

 

[dbostedo]

You race for the fastest time.

Wrong. You race to be the fastest skier. The time is a measurement of that, not the result in and of itself. If X number of skiers are faster than you, you finished in X+1 place.

 

[dbostedo]

Seriously....this is a discussion/debate?

FWIW, I think @James is doing an excellent job of trolling.

 

[S.H.]

@Eleeski I think timing to 150 mm of distance traveled is good enough. I was just curious to see what that distance would be, so I did the math. If you went to the nearest .001 sec, then you start getting into the thickness of the clothing/shin guards starting to matter.

The accuracy of the start wand is nowhere near close enough to do this to the thousandth of a second. Even to 0.01 is a bit of a stretch.

 

[karlo]

If you don’t want the point race to be close at the end of the season then leave no doubt....

I think that’s fair in the context of uncertainties in the timing device. For example, in tennis, there has always been grudging acceptance that the call might be wrong. Even with Hawk-eye review, there is a degree of uncertainty of the call, a far lower degree, but there. Over three or five sets, one must perform convincingly to win. However, the allocation of points needs to be fair for a fair outcome of the match.

The allocation of points is a different matter. In the tennis example, one wouldn’t say, wow, that ball was so close to being out, so thrilling, let’s give you 2 points. Anyway, I look at points like they’re money, that’s why I looked at what happens in betting.

I found this,

Site Maintenance in progress

I didn’t notice it before, but there’s a downloadable spreadsheet with which one can determine the outcome of one’s bet. I used 1:1 odds, betting $1.00

Betting on 1 horse to win and there’s a dead heat, I lose $0.50. I lose money of my horse is not an absolute winner.

Betting on both horses to win and it’s dead heat, I breakeven. There’s no bonus for them having tied.

From a betting perspective, when money is involved, that’s fair. Points from races are money. They determine the Globe, Globes have financial value, in prize and endorsements.

I wonder how purses are disbursed in horse racing, for dead heats and runner ups.

Seriously....this is a discussion/debate?

A discussion and exploration. There are no debate judges here,... are there?

Just noticed there’s a new thread for this topic. I’ve copied and pasted there

 

[James]

Wrong. You race to be the fastest skier. The time is a measurement of that, not the result in and of itself. If X number of skiers are faster than you, you finished in X+1 place.

Lol. Wrong!
You race to the clock. They add the times 1st and second run. They don't add places. In the end you figure out what the story is. They make a decision to skip second. We think it's wrong.

Btw, these posts were requested to be moved out of the world cup thread

 

[S.H.]

Over three or five sets, one must perform convincingly to win. However, the allocation of points needs to be fair for a fair outcome of the match.

You can win more points than your opponent in a tennis match and still lose.

Is that convincing?

Is it convincing to win in a final-set tiebreaker if you never broke your opponent's serve, but your opponent broke your serve?