May 2008
11:05am, 6 May 2008
191 posts
|
sLickster
*wanders in to the discussion to ask when Fetch will allow a sub 14 second 100m time to be entered so 772 points can be claimed, before wandering back out*
|
May 2008
11:09am, 6 May 2008
3,771 posts
|
EvilPixie
I think we have most certainly set the standard for Fetch meets! well done one and all!
|
May 2008
11:23am, 6 May 2008
1,068 posts
|
Beejay
I also entered my time for the 100 and got a massive number of ranking points........to be honest I didnt agree so I deleted the race from my race portfolio.
I have kept the 1m points tho, I think they were well earned
|
May 2008
11:41am, 6 May 2008
3,104 posts
|
fetcheveryone
Slickster - that should be sorted now
|
May 2008
12:03pm, 6 May 2008
1,233 posts
|
Boycie
Mr Fetch - assuming that 10.5 seconds for a 100m is equivalent to a 4 minute mile - i.e. tough to achieve - then the scaling ratio for a 100m time should be 23 - i.e. take 700 + (300 - (100m time in seconds x 23) ) would give a more accurate ranking... So a time of 13 seconds would roughly equal 700 points, which seems about right...
|
May 2008
12:07pm, 6 May 2008
192 posts
|
sLickster
Thanks Fetch, although I agree with both Beejay's and Boycie's comments that the rankings for the shorter distances are way out. However, without knowing the current formula used, I will resist comment on a more appropriate one
|
May 2008
12:08pm, 6 May 2008
193 posts
|
sLickster
'rankings' refers to ranking points in the above post...
|
May 2008
12:08pm, 6 May 2008
2,909 posts
|
jude
*fingers in ears*
677 points LA LA LA L A LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!
|
May 2008
12:18pm, 6 May 2008
1,234 posts
|
Boycie
The formula that fetch uses (if my understanding is correct) is that you scale everyone's performances to a one mile time, using the riegel formula (which is well dodgy ) and then 700 points corresponds to a five minute mile. The riegel formula works well for long distances (5k +) but begins to get iffy below that.
By studying the equivalent performances at different distances you'll be able to work out a more accurate formula. Sadly it won't be linear...
|
May 2008
12:19pm, 6 May 2008
2,913 posts
|
jude
Damn! IT WON'T BE LINEAR!
*sulks*
|