RE: Weight Division Points

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

Thank you Joe! This is what I explained to Randy some time back. Precedents
must be considered when thinking of change. This rule, while not fair to
every instance is fair to the most. The Board deliberated quite well on this
and made a decision. The things leading to that decision have not changed,
thus no necessity to change the rule.

The winds of change should be directed by necessity not politics.

Bob Morris
Morris Endurance Enterprises
Boise, ID

-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Long [mailto:jlong@mti.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 8:08 AM
To: ridecamp@endurance.net
Subject: RC: Weight Division Points


Some clarification, and opinion on this issue:

I was on the Board when the current system was discussed and adopted.
Sorry, Randy, but your interpretation of the rule is not what the
Board intended.  What has been being done is what was intended.  That
is, we've been doing it exactly the way the Board voted to do it and
exactly the way the rule calls for.  Apparently, though, some
clarifying language is in order.

During the discussions I advocated changing the bonus points for
weight divisions to a Top Five, and reducing the points within each
division when there were fewer than six starting riders in that
division.  I based that recommendation on the fact that  a majority of
AERC rides had fewer than six starters in most weight divisions.

That was not accepted; instead the system of reducing both overall and
weight division points based on the total number of senior riders (all
weight divisions added together) was adopted.  The reason for this was
that otherwise a majority of AERC rides would have reduced points, and
those people competing in the small rides would have no chance at
Regional points awards.

I understand the unfairness of a rider finishing second against 20 or
50 or more competitors getting fewer points than a rider finishing
first against two or three competitors.  But the problem is that no
point system where there is a large disparity between the numbers of
competitors can be fair.  The object is to minimize the overall
unfairness and give the most people the best chance to participate.

In the system you propose, you could be the best rider in the world,
with the best horse in the world, and if you lived in an area where
you could not attend the "big rides" you would have no chance at all.
You could finish first by a wide margin at every ride you attended,
and you still could not earn enough points to have any chance at a
Championship -- those would go, every year, to the people who could go
to the big rides.  At least under the current system everyone has a
chance, and if you are the best rider with the best horse you will
come out on top regardless of whether you compete in big rides or
small.

One more time,  though,  we have *NOT* been making a mistake in
calculating points.  We've been doing it exactly the way the Board
voted to do it and exactly the way the rule calls for.

--
Joe Long
jlong@mti.net
www.rnbw.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   
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=