RE: Weight Division Points

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

To bring this matter into perspective I offer the following set of
correspondence between Randy and myself. Randy and I have our differences on
some matters at times, but please realize these differences are constructive
and in the best interests of the AERC and its Members. These differences do
not affect our personal relationship in any manner! That disclaimer
completed read on!

Oh, one other thing, you all might want to check with Peter Ansorge, he and
I were the principals in codifying the rules and we both are very familiar
with the rationale behind many of the decisions.

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID

> -----Original Message-----

> From: renegade12@juno.com [mailto:renegade12@juno.com]

> Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 3:06 PM

> To: Enduranceriders@onelist.com

> Subject: [Enduranceriders] Weight Division Points

>> From: renegade12@juno.com

> > Here is a new topic of discussion:

> > Did you ever consider how our AERC Weight Division Points are >
calculated?

> > As you probably know, in Overall Points it requires at least 11 > riders
to be awarded full Bonus Points. As an example, in a 50 mile event, if  you
have 11 or more riders, then 1st place gets 150 points, 2nd gets  125, 3rd
gets 110 and so on. If you have less than 11 starters, say 8  starters, then
1st gets 135, 2nd 110, 3rd 95 and so on. The way your Weight Division Points
are calculated should probably  follow this same equation...more than 11
starters in your Weight Division,  then 150, 125, 110 and so on. Only 8 in
your Weight Division, then 135,  110, 95 and so on. Well, it does not work
this way. AERC calculates the Weight Division points on how many Total
Starters, not how many  starters in the Weight Division. So, using a real
ride as an example, in 1998 a CT Region Ride had 16 starters in the 50 and
16 completions - 4 riders were FWTS. Ist FWT  got 150, 2nd 125, 3rd 110, and
the 4th and last FWT got 100 Points.

> Now, using a real ride in the West Region which had 78 starters and  had
19 FWTS in the ride. Ist got 150, 2nd 125, 3rd 110, 4th 100, 5th  90, 6th
80, 7th 70, 8th 65, 9th 60, 10th thru 19th got 50 points. SO, The last of 4
FWT riders got 100 points and the 5th place FWT  rider who was competing
against 18 other FWTS got 90 points. Somehow this  does not seem to be
equitable. It would seem that the Weight Division  Points should follow the
same formula for points as the Overall Points.  And, in fact, I think our
AERC Rules 8.5.5 thru 8.5.5.3 state that.

> However, for as long as I remember and as far as I can research - our
Weight  Division Points have been calculated using the Overall number of
starters as  the Base Number. If you are an average or slower rider, it
benefits you  to enter rides with few riders in your weight division because
you get  more points with less competition.

> I hope this makes sense and am interested in your thoughts. BTW, I  have
brought this to the attention of our Rules Committee, Competition Committee,
some others as well as Doyle.

 Randy

__________________________________________________________________

Randy:

I dispute some of your statements (in a friendly manner)
Another example found on page 46 is the Lost Wheelbarrow Mine I 80 Mile Ride
where there were only two starters, a MWT and a FWT. Both riders got 120
Bonus Points in their Weight Division with no weight division competition.
This is not fair.

The riders got only 40 bonus points in their weight divisions! 80 of the
points awarded were for the mileage ridden. On page 41 the Ride Results show
that the Last Place FWT rider in the Mt Laguna 50 with 54 starters got 50
FWT points while the last place FWT in the Rocky Mountain Ride with 28
starters got 99 points. At Mt Laguna the FWT Points were earned and
calculated using FWT vs. FWT. In the RMR, the FWT points were earned and
calculated using FWT vs. all other weight divisions. The Mt. Laguna Ride had
13 FWTS and the RMR had 5 FWTS. In addition, the 5th Place FWT in the Mt.
Laguna Ride got 90 FWT Points while the 5th Place FWT in the RMR got 99
Points. This is not fair.

Again I dispute your statement. In my issue of the November AERC News there
are 14 FW in the MT. Laguna, 7 in the Diamond Field Jack and 4 in the Rocky
Mt. Ride. The first thing to take into account is, the Mt. Laguna was a 50
mile ride and the Rocky Mt. was a 55 mile ride, so points do not compare.
That is why I interjected the Diamond Field Jack. That one was a 50 mile
ride. The 7th FW in the Laguna ride received 70 FW points and the 7th (and
last) in the DFJ received 60 FW points. Again remember, these points include
the basic mileage points so the 7th place riders got a bonus of 20 points
and 10 points respectively. A bit different picture.

I again stress what I sent you. The 1990 issue of the rules states;
8.5.5.1 Where there are fewer than eleven starters (all weight divisions
added together), all bonus points (overall and weight division) are reduced
by the following methods.

I have no recall on the Board making a change to that rule but the 1995 rule
book left out the explanatory parens( ) . Have Louise check the minutes to
see if there was a motion to eliminate the explanation. I have very serious
doubts that it was done.

I believe that I also stated the philosophy behind this method of
calculation.

Be glad to discuss it further with you.

Bob
___________________________________________________________________

Randy and others:

This matter was discussed during the codification of the AERC Rules and
Regulations. It was felt that Rule 8.5.5.1 was definitive enough to be self
explanatory. (fewer jail house lawyers back then (:p )

It is so written Where there are fewer than eleven starters, all bonus
points are reduced… . It does not say in the weight divisions fewer than
eleven starters. Note that juniors do not count towards the eleven.

I would check the office procedures where the methodology should be spelled
out. If it is not there then the Office Committee should rectify the matter
so the staff are aware of the correct methods to apply.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Bob Morris

_____________________________________________________________________

What I am saying is during our discussions while we were codifying the rules
this same argument occurred. It was decided that it would not be equitable
to make every weight division have eleven riders. Hell, that would mean a
minimum of 44 riders to have each weight division get full points.

So, the decision was made that it would require at least eleven riders in
the ride for full weight points. This did not include junior riders.

It was also in the interest of encouraging more rides to be held. If the
only way to obtain points was to go to a very large ride (say in the case of
HW) fewer riders would go to local rides and the big rides would be over
subscribed.

The system has worked since at least 1987 when we published the codified
rules!

Randy, I just started looking back in our archives. The 1990 issue of the
rules states;

8.5.5.1 Where there are fewer than eleven starters (all weight divisions
added together), all bonus points (overall and weight division) are reduced
by the following methods.

I have no recall on the Board making a change to that rule but the 1995 rule
book left out the explanatory parens( ) . Have Louise check the minutes to
see if there was a motion to eliminate the explanation. I have very serious
doubts that it was done.

Bob Morris

-----Original Message-----

From: renegade12@juno.com [mailto:renegade12@juno.com]

Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 8:40 PM

To: bobmorris@rmci.net

Subject: Re: Weight Division Points

Bob,

I asked this question of several members of our Board and even Louise could
not remember exactly...so, are you saying that the weight division receives
bonus points just as the overall..must have at least 11 in the division..or
are you saying that the way it is presently being accounted, and it has been
done this way since at least 1988, is the correct method?

I hate to be so ignorant, but it seems to me that 8.5.5 sets the tone when
it states," AERC computes points within each division except the Junior
division based on the following formula (one point per mile, plus bonus
points per mile for Top Ten, equals total points per mile):"

Randy
________________________________________________________

Sorry that I am a stickler for details but that is what governs the
system.(try putting a . in the wrong place in an E-mail address!) So, who
was authorized to change the rules as approved by the BoD. That is my first
concern. Second, there is a standard procedure for changing the rules ( so
we do not go off half cocked as is the custom) Request the change in the
proper manner, submit it to the Rules Committee, place it before the
membership in the AERC News and then have the Board approve it. These are
the procedures! Details yes, but it is also control!!!

Think seriously before changing rules that have been in place for a number
of years with out problems. This rule was not a spur-of-the-moment decision.
It went through many iterations as did all of the rules.

Personally, I have no concern with a different rule but it must be well
thought out and the product of much discussion. A very serious thought is
that the concept of fairness and equality for all is, while universally
desired, universally unattainable. There is always a short end of the stick.
(some times it appears there are several "short ends" and only one long end)

Bob
____________________________________________________________

-----Original Message-----
From: Nancy Mitts [mailto:mitts_n@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 8:11 PM
To: ltbeason@worldnet.att.netp; mbowers472@aol.com; lriedel769@aol.com;
hikryrdg@evansville.net; step@fsr.com; cancer@inetworld.net;
Mike@tomlinson.com; NdurN@aol.com; renegade12@juno.com;
bmmcrary@aol.com; merryben@aol.com; dubaieqn@emirates.net.ae;
otdumas@color-country.net; dfrazier@mail.llion.org;
endurancevet@writeme.com; randomrio@earthlink.net; horsee@msn.com;
mmsprice@ptd.net
Cc: aerc@foothill.net; ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject: RC: Weight Division Points


The following letter is being sent to the AERC Board of Directors, Endurance
News, and Ridecamp.  Directors without an e-mail address will receive it by
Fax or snail mail.

I am writing this letter in response to Mr. Eiland’s bizarre interpretation
of AERC Rules 8.5.5 1 through 8.5.5.3 that appears in the “President’s
Message” of the January 2000 issue of “Endurance News”.  As he quotes
8.5.5.1 it states clearly “Where there are fewer than eleven senior
starters, all bonus points are reduced by the following methods.”  As I read
this, the way the points have been figured thus far IS CORRECT as stated in
this rule.  Had the board members who originally wrote the rule meant for it
to say “eleven starters in each weight division” they would have said so!
Anyone who deems this method as unfair has the right to say so, and Mr.
Eiland has presented a case for CHANGING the rule.  But this should be
handled as any other rule CHANGE, not summarily re-interpreted and altered
without the opportunity for discussion and input by the membership and vote
of the full board.  Perhaps this so-called inequity hasn't been brought up
earlier because the majority of riders are satisfied with it as is.
That said, I would present my objections to this change.  It’s not fair to
riders who live where rides are small, and it will hurt those small rides.
Yes, most of us ride for the love of it, not just for points.  But points
are rightly taken into consideration when deciding to pay entry fees and
travelling expenses to go to a sanctioned AERC ride, as opposed to riding
and enjoying our horses with a group of friends free of charge.  It is also
an attraction to consider when encouraging new memberships.  After all, if
points really don't matter, then lets drop the whole AERC awards program.
Certainly would save AERC lots of money.  No points, career mileage only.
Let each individual ride award the winners as they saw fit.  The main
accomplishment at a ride is to beat the trail anyway.  Or does Mr. Eiland
mean that points only matter at BIG rides?  If your area of the country
doesn’t put on BIG rides, your accomplishments really don’t matter.  It
would be very disheartening to finish a difficult trail and then be
penalized because you didn’t beat phantom riders that don’t exist in your
area of the region.  Say for instance that somebody would win a ride that
has 25 riders in it, but only 3 in their weight division.  They would be
severely penalized in weight division points.  Another rider in that region
might win a ride with 15 riders, but 10 of them were in that rider’s weight
division.  That rider would get a lot more bonus points.  In effect, they
won a geographic weight lottery!  The last time the issue of fairness in
weight divisions was discussed, the answer was to add another weight class
so the competition was between people of nearer actual weight.  Now this
split will really haunt the riders in some areas because it not only
increases the numbers needed to fill a ride from 11 to 44, but they must be
in specific weight divisions.
What effect would this change have on ride management and the viability of
small rides?  Well, for one thing, managers better have a really good set of
scales handy.  (I see upcoming weight challenges galore.)  Remember, as the
rules are set up, you must make the minimum weight, but you can ride
“heavier” than the weight division maximum.  So even though I weigh in (with
tack) over 160, I ride featherweight.  Actually, everybody can ride
featherweight, then we’d sure have a full ride.  The trick comes in for
people who weigh on the borderline of other divisions.  Do they go up to the
higher weight (and never change to lighter tack or diet) or ride in the
lighter division?  For the most part, this didn’t concern anyone but that
individual rider.  According to the new formula, it will matter to everyone
else in those divisions.  Which one “needs” the rider to get full points??
I can see people who really don’t care about their points being “encouraged”
to enter whatever division needs them!  It adds another complication to a
sport that has tried to remain simple.
In areas of the country where endurance is a rare event, rides will seldom
have 11 riders total, let alone in every weight division.  It will also
really penalize people riding 100’s, as they are fewer in number to begin
with. A point was made that it is not fair for someone who completes a ride
of eleven riders to get 450 points because they are the only one in their
weight division, while at a large ride a rider may have to beat 14 or more
riders to get 450 points. On the other hand, is it that person's fault there
are not more competitors? They still had to complete the course. Typically,
a large rider population encourages more rides to be put on. While a rider
may have to attend more rides, there are more rides to attend. That person
who got 450 points for a completion may not have many opportunities to get
points at all. In our area of the Central Region, 44 riders is a good size
ride with 25’s & 50’s of all weight divisions combined!  Our local club
tries to spread rides out in different areas (from western Kansas to St.
Louis, Missouri) in hopes of getting new riders interested.  It’s hard to
get new people into the sport if there aren’t rides in the area for them to
try.  These small rides need support.  But now, guess what, according to Mr.
Eiland’s interpretation, any experienced riders that want to place in the
region will go to the rides that are most likely to fill, leaving smaller
rides to die.  Some way to encourage growth, huh??

Sincerely,
Nancy & Monte Mitts

cc AERC Board of Directors, Editor Endurance News, Ridecamp

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.    
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=