Merits of low/high score for winning
Hi all, just wanted to pick your colelctive brains.
I am conducting our clubs (new) handicap race...and got some great feedback about 'how to' on an earlier thread....1st event was on Tuesday and generally went pretty well.
I am wondering though which scoring approach would be best - not having much experience in this area I just wnated some comments about the merits of high scoring for the winner, vs low scoring for the winner.
I assume most people will know what I mean with regard to this?....(low score = 1 point for winner, 2 for 2nd....etc all the way to the last finisher; high score = a set high score (in our case 12 for 1st, 10 for 2nd 9 for 3rd....all the way to 1 point...which all finsihers would get)
We will not have a consistent number of people running the race series....
AH yes, it is multiple races BOTF, (4 races), but you have to compete in at least three, with your best results counting towards your overall score (best of the 4 races assuming you do all four)
Hmm the way I see it - we have 3 options,
Low scoring 1 upto however many runners there are.High scoring, descending from number of runners, High Scoring from a set figure (possibly greater than anticipated number of runners)We had 36 runners at the 1st race.....so might expect numbers to rise a little. Perhaps scoring from 50 if the last of these options.....
Visit the official Runner's World page
Follow Runner's World on Twitter
Other Natmag-Rodale Sites
Run For Charity
About Runner's World
Runner's World is a publication of Hearst Magazines UK which is the trading name of The National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.
Website powered by: Immediate Media Company Ltd. | © Runner's World 2002-2013 |