Such a program would certainly add dimension to the TT competition, however,
it would also add extra workload for someone - do we have enough volunteers
to handle it ?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 3:11 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [obc] TT Handicapping Method
>
> Hi Bob - I'm pretty much out of patience and time for this - Here's my
> last attempt - Please give me a
> phone call if I can clarify anything else. It's much more efficient than
> email...
>
> The facts:
> 1. Open time trial - men and women.
> 2. Age-Handicap event.
> 3. Men in the event are handicapped towards a DIFFERENT standard than the
> women (since men at their prime are faster than women (of the same
> fitness/training level) at their prime) with the men getting an
> UNSURMOUNTABLE advantage for the top in the OVERALL standings.
> 4. The math dictates that such a handicapping method will almost certainly
> move most women downwards in the overall rankings from where they'd
> otherwise be.
>
> What was Offensive:
> 1. Rather than trying to fix the unsurmountable gender advantage (which is
> SIMPLE to do), the organizer breaks the handicap into two events.
> 2. The "main event" (naturally defined as the one with the most
> participants) is the "male" event (4 times as many participants)..
> 3. There can be NO open event (with the "official" rules) - or at least no
> FAIR open event, since the women have essentially been handicapped out of
> the action. (In fact I was told to not even show the results on the same
> page...).
> 4. Women are relegated to a second (smaller) event. THIS is offensive to
> me (and some others) . As a participant in the open tt series for 15 years
> - I don't come out to this event to just compare my results to the women -
> Gee, sometimes I have been the only woman out there...).
>
> I didn't come last year to the age/handicap event because I found the
> format (and even more so the reaction to my pointing out the problem with
> it) objectionable. I only came this year because I'd been away for the
> whole season and I wanted to get in one of the few remaining TT's. I
> certainly was NOT there for the "official" handicap event...
>
> Please look at and consider the numbers (handicaps, results, the number of
> women who did or did not show up, proportion of women participating,
> etc.). I'm sure that you'll agree that we can make this a better event
> which draws women in as full participants. And why not? Is my conservative
> suggesion offensive to
> others?
>
> Again, as I said in my response to Aaron's notes:
> 1. I offer to produce age/gender handicap pages for each TT (if we can
> find some statistically sound age/gender performance tables). This would
> be easy for me to do and I think that many participants would like to see
> such pages.
> 2. The age/gender trophies could then perhaps be given to the best male
> and female age/gender result for the whole year.
> 3. We could also devise a personal-handicapping method - and perhaps have
> a special personal-handicap night. (This could of course, also be done
> every week in the background, but, since we ought to have some recent
> historical data, and since the event could be presented as something
> "different" and "special", it might be better to just do it once late in
> the TT series).
>
> Celia
>
> Bob Hicks wrote:
>
> > I really am having trouble understanding the "offense" to women with the
> current handicapping
> > system. As far as I can understand, there are 2 distinct sets of
> results and neither is given
> > precedence. Men are handicapped by age against other men, and women are
> handicapped by age against
> > other women.
> >
> > What, pray tell, is the "main" event? I'm not aware that there is one.
> >
> > There is no pretense that this is an individual handicap; it has been
> presented as a way of
> > determining the "best" time trialists in the club, with consideration
> for age. End of history (for
> > now). If the results are consistently skewed in favour of older riders
> with the current
> > handicapping algorithm, then the algorithm should be reviewed and
> perhaps revised.
> >
> > It is true that an individual handicapping system could easily be
> established and that this kind of
> > event would be quite fun. But it is certainly not the only "fair"
> handicapping method. Indeed, it
> > could be argued that it would be grossly unfair to the riders who are
> the most serious and dedicated
> > time trialists, since they would be the least likely to improve their
> handicap time.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 1:12 AM
> > Subject: Re: [obc] TT Handicapping Method
> >
> > > > Aaron Fillion> As a person who got no Handicap, I thought this years
> handicapping
> > > > method was completely fair.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you'd think differently if you were a woman who got no
> handicap in the
> > > "official" event? Or perhaps you'd be a little offended if you were
> told that
> > > sorry, you're not even a participant in the main event, but just to be
> ranked
> > > amongst the other women???
> > >
> > > > Aaron> The problem I see with using a personal handicapping system,
> is that it
> > > > is MUCH easier to improve upon your time if you are doing 30 minute
> 15ks
> > > > opposed to if you are doing 20 minute 15ks.
> > >
> > > Hmmm - The current "official" age-handicapping event actually suffers
> from this
> > > type of problem, whereas a personal handicapping system CAN certainly
> be devised to
> > > avoid it! The current "official" handicapping event gives an unfair
> advantage to
> > > the faster riders in each year of birth - ie., giving all 64 year old
> males a 165
> > > second advantage regardless of their speed will benefit the faster 64
> year old more
> > > than the slower 64 year old (ie., the faster rider will travel farther
> in 165
> > > seconds than will the slower rider) and since we're comparing the
> performance of
> > > both of those 64 year olds with people of OTHER ages, we probably
> shouldn't be
> > > giving one more of an advantage than the other relative to the other
> age
> > > categories...
> > >
> > > Celia
> > >
> > > ------
> > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064
> > > Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb
> > > Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ------
> > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064
> > Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb
> > Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter
> >
>
> ------
> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064
> Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb
> Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter
>
------
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064
Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb
Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter
==^================================================================
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiDo.a2i8p1
Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================
