12" White Stickers ______________

BallOfSpray $5 Donation ______________

BallOfSpray $10 Donation

Horton
Posts: **31,404** Administrator

I have been screwing around with the idea of a handicap tournament. Playing with ideas to deal with the problems associated with mixing skiers of different levels. I need to see some actual stats but I am pretty sure that a skier with an average at 32 off has a wider variability of scores than a skier with an average at 39. Because of this I think handicaps have to be weighted.

The bottom line is to have an event where everyone is equalized and then competing against each other.

Ideas?

*(and please this is NOT about Nationals*)

The bottom line is to have an event where everyone is equalized and then competing against each other.

Ideas?

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes

0

## Comments

2,734★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★Incidently there's a spreadsheet tool on the USAWS webpage that will calculate a NOPS value based in division / score.

AWSA Chairman of the Board

5,374Mega Baller2,734★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★For example would the top 5 scores in the last 3 months be more accurate for handicapping purposes? Or an average of all scores? Top 80%? Other thoughts? The idea is NOT to change or recreate the current ranking list value but to provide a calculation (or a couple different methodologies) specifically for handicap tournaments. I'm not talking about "how to handicap", I'm talking about the baseline score used as a skiers "current" ability level.

If a calculation methodology could be developed that makes better sense for handicapping, it's potentially possible to add that functionality to the ranking list.

AWSA Chairman of the Board

31,404AdministratorThere is a limit to how wide a range of skill levels can be grouped. For the event I am considering I think a skier needs 5 scores into 35 or 38 to enter. You simply cannot put short line skiers and kids together – unless you just want to have fun with the kids. The handicapping rules must take variability into account.

@Klindy

I would like to see a 5 score over 12 month average. I was thinking I would just scrape the scores by hand and then apply my own tweaks.

The tricky tweak is not in setting the handicap before the event but weighting the results.

As an example: If skier with a handicap of 100 scores 101 that should clearly beat a skier with a handicap of 90 who scores 91. The difficultly of one more ball increases as the scores go up.

With a system like this I think you could mix adult skiers from level 8 up through pro level and have a fun event.

Support BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes

6,978Mega BallerHere are some keys:

- (Stolen from golf) Pick a maximum score -- we usually use 105 but if you have skiers above that you might need to pick something bigger. Each person's handicap is 90% of the difference between their score and that maximum score. That normalizes different ability levels. Without that, veterans basically have no chance against those earlier in the learning curve.

- Don't include kids (or at least separate them). Kids are such wildcards that if you have more than a few of them then it's just about certain that one of them will bust out a massive PB and nobody else with have a chance.

- Use the most recent 12 months scores as the base. Average of best 3 from differeent tournaments works well, but for people who don't have 3 tournaments it's much less clear what to do. We simply use the average of the best scores from each tournament they did ski in: It's basically the ranking list except manually removing the penalty.

- Round all handicaps to the nearest quarter buoy to avoid really goofy looking scores. (A spreadsheet is your friend; I can share one of ours as a starting point if you want.)

- Do your best to display all the handicapped scores somewhere so people have a sense what they need to do to beat the current leader. This is a pain, but adds to the fun.

Good luck!

4,791Mega Baller6,066Mega BallerThat said the variance is much higher for the lower level skier. You see 15 and 22 off skiers have 4-6 ball PBs regularly where someone that runs into 35 and beyond generally pushes their PB by only a ball or two.

I will say that handicapped events are a lot of fun we did a handicapped head to head a couple of years ago and it was a blast even though my son knocked me out (and eventually won).

1,305Mega BallerSkier A has an average score of 100. His handicap would be 18 buoys ((120-100)*90% = 18). If he scores 101, his handicapped score is 119.

Skier B has an average score of 90. His handicap would be 27 buoys ((120-90)*90% = 27). If he scores 91, his handicapped score is 118.

Skier A wins.

The key is selecting the appropriate top line, percentage and formula for the average to be used.

Problems in the current WSTIMS program is it uses the ranking list average with the penalties, etc. This causes problems when a guys handicap is increased by penalty. For example - Skier C skies 1 tournament and posts a score of 90 buoys. In the ranking list, his average is 81 buoys and his handicap is 35.1 based on my example. In reality, for fewer than 3 or 5 scores, there should be a penalty going the other way by adding buoys to his average - say 90+10% = 99 with a handicap of 18.9.

Having said all this, I'm sure someone could get the data to come up with appropriate percentages so the 12 year old girl doesn't always beat the 38off skier, but still has a chance to do so.

2,734★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★AWSA Chairman of the Board

6,978Mega Baller188Baller3,357★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★My plan, though not etched in stone, was to take the shortest of the three jumps used in the last 12 month average as a base line and add or subtract a point for each foot over or below the average. The thought was either a two round elimination and a final, or three round total score counting the best jump from each round toward the total. I estimated I could raise $3000 in sponsor supplied prize money, and charge a $150 entry fee with half of all entry fees going into the prize pool. Since it was handicapped, anyone could win. We would also have a gross award so the better jumpers would be encouraged to come even if they thought the handicap system would work against them.

All skiers would ski against one another. No M1, M2, M3, etc. Speed differences would not matter due to the handicap (except skiers couldn't opt to ski faster than they skied when they set their handicap baseline score. We would award high gross jump ( no handicap), high net jump (with handicap added in), high net female and maybe high net junior. If I awarded to third place in each category, that would be an approximate $500, $300, and $200 pay out per group. Females and Juniors might be so few that entering was a virtual guaranteed pay out.

I asked for interested jumpers to contact me by way of an email account I use for ski tournaments. In October, I advertised on our regional web site, our regional Facebook page, my local ski related Facebook page, by email to individual skiers and by word of mouth. I got a couple "likes" and "great idea[s]," but not one single response to the requested email address. I take that as no interest, and, unless things change, I am not planning on running the event.

That says to me that at least in the jump realm in the northeast, there is no interest in handicapped tournaments, even with a generous cash prize inducement.

In my view, if the goal is to attract a crowd of non skiers, the handicapping rules have to be easy to explain and understand. Otherwise, the crowd will likely not understand why a 130 jump beat a 160 foot jump and will walk away saying "What a stupid sport. There's five hours of my life I'll never get back."

2,878Mega BallerSee attached spreadsheet. I have no idea what the weighting coefficients should be, but I just put something in to get it working. With some trial and error, I bet some realistic values could be established and used...

6,978Mega BallerAs a simple example, suppose we choose 100 as the target score. A skier with a 96 average is getting 4 * 90% = 3.6 buoys, which we round to 3.5. A skier with a 50 average is getting 50 * 90% = 45 buoys. If both skiers were to match their average, the 96 guy would win by 4.5 buoys:

96 + 3.5 = 99.5

50 + 45 = 95

So to win the guy with the 50 needs to get a much better score relative to his average. Just as everyone's intuition is saying it should be.

The one case where this breaks down is for someone who has already reached the end of their athletic ability but doesn't have a very good score. Such a person has just as low of a chance for a big PB as I do, so gets hosed by the 90% thing.

To deal with that, you'd need to use score trends as a predictor, and somehow include injuries, and other crap. Not worth it.

31,404AdministratorSupport BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes

6,978Mega BallerBtw, I'd have to check back, but I think we actually found 95% worked a little better than 90%. But 90% is easier to use in an example!

31,404AdministratorSupport BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes

31,404AdministratorSupport BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes

6,978Mega Baller2,878Mega BallerUSAWS already has all of the scores. Simply add a PB column. Maybe the PB column is a rolling 3-year scope or something more than just 12 months...

2,734★★★Triple Panda Award Recipient ★★★One thing we can't do very well is some kind of average "on the fly" where you'd define how you'd want the average defined based on drop down boxes or alike and calculate instantly. The math needs to be defined so the update can happen nightly like it does currently.

AWSA Chairman of the Board

1,494Mega Baller@Than_Bogan how did you decide that 100 should be the target score for your system?

4,791Mega Ballerallyour scores in the previous 12 months, as well as your top 3 ?1,305Mega Baller31,404AdministratorSupport BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes

5,374Mega Baller218Baller31,404AdministratorSupport BallOfSpray by supporting the companies that support BallOfSpray

Connelly ★ DBSkis ★ Denali ★ Follow ★ Goode ★ GiveGo ★ HO Syndicate ★ MasterCraft

Masterline ★ Performance Ski and Surf★ Reflex★ Radar★ Rodics OffCourse ★ Stokes

3,315Mega Baller218Baller