*2011 Footbag Freestyle World MVP Rankings*-Elitefootbag.com

[Cod]

Penske's 22nd position in my ranking is nothing bad, actually. He hasn't attended tournaments so he couldn't earn points. It's only his fault, not systems'.

Hey, even though I think Zeb's system won't work fine, I'm really, really happy he's doing it . If we have many test systems it will be easier to find things to discuss and finally create a good official ranking.

[Ian Brill]

It's good to see constructive criticism taking constructively

For the record I agree with Cod and Zeb. If this was explored in some unofficial capacity for a year and even if it were to just be used to seat players for finals this year I think it is a good system. Meaning- it is a logically sound way of determining a specific thing, so long as all results are documented as Cod said.

My concern is with what it actually determines. If it were used to determine seat or even influence the makeup of pools I think it would be very effective. For example: top rank shares the same pool as rank 5, 9 and 13 out of 16, making 4 groups of 4 (just an example.) If it were to establish a title, such as world title holder of the year I am not sure that I would support it. The reason being, it doesn't take into consideration that there are some players that are clearly superior but do not have the funds or free time to travel. I am sort on the edge though. If there was a system that further eliminates politics and subjectivity from this sport I am ultimately all in favor of it. I hated the results of the 2008 final routines and this system would have helped clear things up potentially.

The sort of situation with Penske's tally being unrepresentative of his talent is the reason why I thought implementing this without warning would be entirely unfair and why I thought it was increasingly inappropriate to present as official.

[Zac Jackson]

The sort of situation with Penske's tally being unrepresentative of his talent is the reason why I thought implementing this without warning would be entirely unfair and why I thought it was increasingly inappropriate to present as official.

and official implementation would definitely be unfair.

If we have many test systems it will be easier to find things to discuss and finally create a good official ranking.

I couldnt agree more, and thats apart of why I liked your system. by sharing this with zeb and others we can expand to other idea's to only make this system better

[Zeb Jackson]

I just wanted to add my few cents. Please, don't be offended, Zeb .

It's pretty cool you started such a ranking but, in my opinion, it won't work fine. And I have a mathematical and statistical point of view on my mind. It may work for the very top players but all the other shredders will just have kinda randomish ranks. The main problem is you're not using all the data you should use, just the data from finals (the other thing is that there are no full results from almost every footbag competition!). It can't work fine if the 9th player at Worlds doesn't get any points and a player who won a small tournamnet gets a lot of points. I hope you see my point.

The other bad thing about your ranking is that you posted it here too early. In my opinion, you should at first add all the results from at least one year and then post it. Just because right know the results are simply weird (like eg. Jindra Smola is 7th in the world, lol).

IFC is working on official IFPA ranking for freestylers but it's really not that easy thing to do. And at first we need to change the fact that tournament directors don't give us the full results. It's often just a first 8 players. Sometimes even worse - only a podium!

At the end of my post a small curiosity: a very first version of mine test ranking. The data were took from all the IFPA sancioned events from September 2008 to September 2009 (or something like that), plus Worlds 2007 and 2008. It's nothing official and for sure the future IFPA ranking will have totally different formulas and so on. I think it's just cool to post it .

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key= ... nbGc&hl=en

I dont mean to offend you but obviously NO ONE in this thread that doubts this system knows how to read.

A) Im not done
B) in my opinion, if you cant get to the top 8 places in an event be it worlds or a small tournament you dont deserve points
C) bevlieve me i know this ranking system is not easy to do ive spent probably 30 hours on what i have so far
D) mine isnt official either, so ill take yours as your taking mine, that is, with a grain of salt. Im going to continue using this system
E) i never once said this was an official system of use
whether you guys hate it or like it

im continuing, i dont care about your opinion unless it has some relative opinion about the current system i am using.

[Cod]

Zeb, please do not say that I can't read only because my opinions are different than yours. Honestly, that's kinda impolite. I'm not offended, though .

A) I know. You've written that you just started putting data to your system. And I said that, in my opinion, you should just wait a bit, collect more data and then post your ranking. Right now, with only these few tournament results, it just looks not well. Once again - in my opinion.

B) Well, it's your ranking and your opinion but I think it's not a thing you should have opinion about. It's a mathematical / statistical stuff. In your system someone who almost got into Worlds finals and who had an excelent routine with only a few drops (let's say Marcin Bujko who was 9th in Berlin) is treated in the same way as a guy who didn't even bother to prepare a routine and played some Tiltless freestyle and finished last in his group. The more data you have, the better the ranking is.

C) I didn't mean what you've done was easy. You probably misunderstood me. I meant there are a lot more things to do including the big change in tournament directors' duties. So, even though your work is hard, implementing "perfect" ranking will be much, much harder.

D) I have no idea how to replay on that because I simply don't get it.

E) Is it official or is it not has totally nothing to do with the fact it should work fine. Spending 100 hours of your life for something what just won't work ok is useless and well - actually stupid.

Zeb, please, be a little more open minded. I'm not telling you all these things because I'm a stupid trolly mofo and I just hate everything people do. I want to share my knowledge to help you. I study Information Technology and Econometrics. I work a lot with databases. Believe me it's not just a stupid kid talk.

And hey, I respect you and your opinions. If you want to do your ranking without any changes, go for it. It's your life, your free time and we can't force you to do your things different than you want them to do .

[Zeb Jackson]

yeah i have no issues with you, I just don't understand why people say "ah this will never work" rather than thinking of ways to make it work. You know?

Like for example, you think that 8 places is not enough, another thing to implement would be something like how every place past 3rd get 20 pts less than the previous position, this could countdown all the way to zero, instead of just going to the 8th place that would make it so that rankings would count to the 10th-12thish place making it much more fair to people.

just a thought

[Zeb Jackson]

!New Tournaments added!

German Footbag Championships (tier 3)
http://www.footbag.org/events/show/1257621700

Routines:

1. Jakob Wagner +300pts
2. Christopher Schillem +240pts
3. Stefan Siegert +200pts

6th Annual Wilanow Footbag Open 2009 (Tier 3)
http://www.footbag.org/events/show/1251990500

Routines:

1. Damian Gielnicki +300pts
2. Arkadiusz Dudziñski +240pts
3. Mariusz Wilk +200pts
4. Krzysztof Sobóta +180pts
5. Micha³ Biarda +160pts
6. Ales Zelinka +140pts
7. Jakub Grabarczyk +120pts
8. Rafa³ Kaleta +100pts
9. Micha³ Ostrowski +80pts
9. Mateusz Janicki +80pts
11. Maciej Niczyporuk +60pts
11. Pawe³ Nowak +60pts

Circle:

1. Arkadiusz Dudziñski +300pts
2. Damian Gielnicki +240pts
3. Mariusz Wilk +200pts
4. Micha³ Biarda +180pts
5. Rafa³ Kaleta +160pts
5. Micha³ Ostrowski +160pts
5. Mateusz Janicki +160pts
5. Maciej Niczyporuk +160pts
9. Szymon Ka³wak +140pts
9. Pawe³ Nowak +140pts
9. Jakub Grabarczyk +140pts

2009 East-Coast Footbag Championships (Tier 3)
http://www.footbag.org/events/show/1252110023

Routines:

1. Ken Somolinos +300pts
2. Ryan Thomas +240pts
3. Nathan Pipenberg +200pts
4. Danny Greer +180pts
5. Jon Schneider +160pts

Circle:

1. Ken Somolinos +300pts
2. Ryan Thomas +240pts
3. Nathan Pipenberg +200pts
4. Danny Greer +180pts
5. Jon Schneider +160pts

Funtastik Summer Classic (Tier 3)
http://www.footbag.org/events/show/1245793403

Routines:

1. David Clavens +300pts
2. Jay Boychuk +240pts
3. Daryl Genz +200pts
4. Ryan Thomas +180pts
5.Scott Davidson +160pts

#6 Swiss Footbag Open(Tier 3)
http://www.footbag.org/events/show/1245404642

Routines:

1. Jakob Wagner +300pts
2. Stefan Siegert +240pts
3. Karim Daouk +200pts
4. Andreas Peier +180pts
5. Arthur Ledain +160pts
6. Mateusz Janicki +140pts
7. Julien Apollonio +120pts
8. Flavio Lötscher +100pts
9. Silwan Daouk +80pts
9. Silvan Lötscher +80pts
9. Jonas Meyer +80pts

Circle:

Open Circle Contest
1. Yves Kreil +300pts
2. Jakob Wagner +240pts
3. Karim Daouk +200pts
4. Paul Cronjaeger +180pts
5. Arthur Ledain +160pts
5. Mateusz Janicki +160pts
7. Julien Apollonio +140pts
8. Silwan Daouk +120pts
9. Jonas Meyer +100pts

!updates!

Im going to go back and add points to previous people who were below 8th place. Gimme a little bit to do that. Also I changed the title of this thread and a little of the information to better reflect how I imagine this system could be used.

[sidekick]

Zeb, keep up the good work,, and I also agree about the tournaments need more full results (like maybe a secondary finals circle so you could get the other places needed for this system, etc.)

I also think that having a system like this might push people to have more formalized and organized events so that each player could get a more balanced ranking. For example, if Portland held an "Oregon Championship" and then Boise held an "Idaho Championship" where only people from that state/region could be ranked in the tournament, then it could be more fair because everyone would be ranked regionally, nationally, and then worldwide.

That being said, man, like half the names on here I don't even recognize...

Also I thought this was funny:

16. Yves Kriel -200pts
16. Vasek Klouda -200pts
16. Reid Strellner -200pts

[Zeb Jackson]

So...if im right Im completely finished as far as updating the list of event that have happened since last years worlds. So its completely up to date in that respect (other than the womens group, but ill get to that soon enough).

Also i added a rule that i had been using this whole time without thinking to put it on the list to clarify how points will be distributed.

If anyone has any issues/complaints/fantasys with an individuals score and you think it may be wrong or invalid post here and ill post the persons individual roster to show you what points they have accumulated and where

[Reid]

Also I thought this was funny:

16. Yves Kriel -200pts
16. Vasek Klouda -200pts
16. Reid Strellner -200pts

No, that seems about right to me.

[Zac Jackson]

haha yeah! go Reid!

[ShredOnLawn]

Quote:
If we have many test systems it will be easier to find things to discuss and finally create a good official ranking.


I couldnt agree more, and thats apart of why I liked your system. by sharing this with zeb and others we can expand to other idea's to only make this system better
_________________

I like it. But the points could be lowered to help make event size equate better.

Last place=1 point.
1st place=X (xx)or (xxx) points depending on # of competitors.

This way you would get a point for each competitor you beat in that event.

So at Worlds you could could get over 20 points, but only 8 at an event with 8 competitors.

It could even jump up to double points for top 8 or extra points for top 3 or something like that.

My records list isn't perfect either. But it got people interested enough to set many more records than if I hadn't done it at all.
Not seeing myself in the ranking certainly motivated me to enter in more tournaments now that someone is ranking some players.

Thanks Zeb.
I haven't even spent a 100 hours total on the records list and this might not either. Thanks for your 30.

[boyle]

I like the idea of a ranking system being based on the amount of players competing, so if last place gets 1 point, for example, then first gets 100 points, then the rest of the places can be split according to how many people were competing in the tournament. There would need to be of course, a minimum competitor number.

Of course, all these systems will develop over time, not everybody will make it to as many tournaments etc, and the ratings will favour those who can go to as many tournaments as possible.

It is great to see some rankings coming together...it could lead to a world tour or something similar. I think if footbag can develop more, the top 30 or so ranked players could compete in a world tour, similar to surfing, then the next level of players could compete in a qualifying series, with the top players moving through the next year. For the moment, that is just a nice dream though...

[Zeb Jackson]

I like the collaborating, I like that people are thinking of ideas and such, here is a reason i dont think that it will work based on the amount of people that go to an event.

In north america im pretty sure the attendance of events is substantially lower than that of a European event. Which makes it a tad unbalanced. The goal here is to make it even with everyone, its the same reason there is a limit as to how many tournaments in the t3/t4 division can be counted, its because Europe has way more events than we do here in the states. If we counted attendance of an event Europe would always shine well above the U.S./Asia/ Australia etc etc.

[hacksterbator]

Stoked to see some one doing this. I had brought this up years ago, but it mostly got shit on and i never manned up and did it, so props to those who are getting on this.

Here's some suggestions to consider:

-put it on a spread sheet: then you can just scan across on an individuals name, see their placings, see their points, add em up, totals at the end. Since you have implemented a maximum number of tier three events, you can then just bold their best 3 and add them once they are exceedining their limit.

-There needs to be more than just top 8 placings: This can be difficult as you aren't always going to get every person's raking, but this in future could encourage directors to get their shit together. you can always just group them when out of the finals (9-16 = 20 points, 16-24 = 10 points, 24-32 = 5 points, etc.). This is particularly important when dealing with large events, where the quality of players is high, like worlds. Coming 9th at worlds deserves a nod.

-Look at other established ranking systems for individual sports: see how they award points, see how big the gaps between placings are, see how much some events are worth in comparison to others.
world tour rankings for surfing (i chose it because for the world tour you have to qualify and there's only like 45 dudes on it so it makes for easy looking.) http://www.aspworldtour.com/2010/rating ... t&rNav=Men

-Separate the events: mashing the circle and shred and routines stuff together works, but i think it would be better to have running rankings for each event. this in future could be really beneficial for seeding in different competitions.

-the amero-centric mentality doesn't work: competition size and strength matter, and has to be taken into account. Hackrifice comp will be in it's 12year this year, making it a tier 3 event (same as finnish championships/ Zocha jam/ todexon). But i think we'll have about 8 people out for it. Not exactly on par with the european events. This needs to be regulated, either by judging event size, quality, or both.

In north america im pretty sure the attendance of events is substantially lower than that of a European event. Which makes it a tad unbalanced.

That's NA's fault, not Europe's. Just because we have fewer events with fewer players in NA doesn't mean that we should be favouring the NA scene to give it a boost. You wanna be top dog? work hard, put your stuff on hold for a while, and buy some plane tickets to europe. no free rides, north america.

EDIT:
wanted to get somethings on paper and skipped ahead to post, the went back.

-Cod, you're spread sheet set up is sick! looks super pro. exactly what i was thinking of.
-Zeb, saw that you're now adding stuff after 8th place. awesome!
-in a shred 30 ranking system, the actual event scores could be used for rankings.
-In future getting IFPA sanctioned events, or say a "world cup" tour was created with x number of events selected over the course of a season that would count towards a ranking system, would be good. If the dates were provided well in advance people could then structure their year and travel plans around the circuit, selecting the events they want to participate in.<--- i think that would be the ultimate dream.

[Zeb Jackson]

while i agree with america needing to suck it up and go to more events, the same could be said for Europe to come to america. Its illogical at this point of the sport to factor in money. If I went to every European event i would probably be much higher ranked than i am now (which is not ranked at all), but i don't have the money, neither does 90% of the Americans that would like too as well. If the sport were bigger, and sponsors were involved to help players get to places, then I would agree, but at this time i don't.

I did agree with separating the events into a separate points sheet, so that each event would have their own separate points system. (kind of doing that now its just not very definitive).

Also right now I too have this all on a spreadsheet It would be MUCH harder without it.

Keep the ideas flowing guys I want to make this legit as possible!

12year this year, making it a tier 3 event (same as finnish championships/ Zocha jam/ todexon). But i think we'll have about 8 people out for it. Not exactly on par with the european events. This needs to be regulated, either by judging event size, quality, or both.

I would like to point out that I added a rule a while ago saying you had to have (x) (I think it was 5...) amount of competitors for the event to be counted, (while also being IFPA sanctioned) The idea of the tiers I think is the respect level of the tournament. Where as the country/world championships are most respected, the other long standing events get rewarded for being around for so long which gives them a higher position in the tier list. 12 years of hackrifice? Definately tier 3 material.

[boyle]

Mr Grant, I agree with everything you say.

I think if a world tour was to eventuate, surfing has the model that works the best.


Now for the tropical island locations and bikini clad babes....


I think the simple fact is the Europeans are much more organised than North America, then other areas (Aus, South America, Japan), may just have one competition per year.

Players in North America could travel through to other competitions, but it seems there's not so many comps in NA throughout the year, apart from the well established ones (USO, Funtastiks, East Coast, Hackrifice, a few others). In Europe there are different countries with different scenes, but different cities have different scenes, and they're probably the same distance apart). Someone mentioned state based tournaments, especially in the strong scenes, this would definitely create more opportunities for extra competitions.

A perfect system would probably never happen, but a great system will still take a long time to perfect. It's excellent that people are getting things in the works.

[Zeb Jackson]

I love the idea of state based tournaments held in the states, last year we turned the regular idaho jam into the Idaho state championships. I encourag others to do it as well There would have to follow the rules for them to fully count though, competitors mostly, because as much as I dont wont to give europe an advantage, I dont want to give U.S. and other places an advantage over europe either

[hacksterbator]

this thread makes me want to get back into competitive footbag. now if i only knew where my climas were.

if it was 2000, and not 2010, the situation would be reversed, with NA having the most competitions of high caliber, and europe scraping to get points. the world changes and footbag goes through fluctuations of popularity in different areas. What if South america blows up? or asia? I think the best way to do it is grade the competitions on strength and numbers, and after that is done, figure out the tier the event fits into.

in regards to the spread sheets, i meant they should be posted and not just the final tallies.

[Zeb Jackson]

oh i see, ill work on that hopefully ill have them up later on tonight