Some of the contents of the pages on this site are Copyright © 2016 NJH Music | [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: Computer rankings
COMPUTER RANKING FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED The =93computer ranking=94 system regularly published in Australia=92s Ba= nd World seems fundamentally flawed in that it does not, on any view, reflect how well b= ands are playing comparatively to each other at any time. At best it might rank t= hem reasonably well within a state. The reason for this is the method of cal= culation that forms the basis of the ranking system. One accrues more points the more top bands one contests against. The problem is that bands in New South Wales= , and particularly Willoughby, will continue to be on the top of the scale beca= use more top bands compete in New South Wales than anywhere else. This is perhaps understandable because New South Wales is the most populous State. Willo= ughby will continue to be on the top of the ladder so long as it continues to domina= te New South Wales competition. In contrast, Kew, which has won every competiti= on it has competed in for the last twelve months, is ranked 4th. (Kew has entered four contests in the last twelve months, which is enough for any band in a yea= r. In England the top bands usually compete in about four contests a year =96 t= he Nationals, the Open, All England Masters and Spennymoor, and if they are lucky a fifth, namely the Europeans. Of course some may also have to compete in the Grand Shield or the Regional Qualifiers.) But in Victoria there are far fewer bands to compete against, in A-Grade particularly. Therefore, despite beating all= comers and beating all New South Wales bands who went to the Nationals, Kew rema= ins ranked 4th. The ranking system for bands in Australia is artificial and completely in= accurate because amateur banding in Australia is nothing like, say professional sp= ort. With professional golfers or tennis players, those players tour the world full= time competing in every competition they can to earn maximum prize money and m= aximise their rankings. Amateur bands in Australia cannot do this. Our banding arrangements are also quite different from England in that each of the ma= jor contests named above attract roughly equal numbers of top bands. That is= , every time such a contest is held, many bands from the top 20 are almost guaran= teed to be there. At State contents in Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, Western= Australia and Queensland, it can be the case that no bands in the top 15 will be pr= esent and more often only two or three bands in the top 15 will be present. In New= South Wales the number can be six or seven. During the hey day of Hawthorn=92= s dominance when they were winning multiple nationals hat tricks, they would not have= been ranked first. Another graphic way to illustrate this is to consider it in relation to s= oloists. If the same ranking system were applied to brass soloists in Australia th= en the person at the top of the ladder, ahead of players such as Christina Bowde= n, John Saunders, Michelle Stewart and any of the other top players one cares to name, would be Kew tuba player Albie Stewart =96 and by a considerable margin. The reason for this is that Albie has the time and means to tour Australia regularly= competing in almost every solo contest which is available. Few people can do this.= I know Albie personally very well and I know that he would be the first to admit= that he is not the top brass soloist in Australia. Yet, on the same basis as the= band rankings, he would undoubtedly be at the very top, and by a very great ma= rgin. No doubt people will criticise this article by saying that I have not sug= gested a better ranking system. One might dabble with weighting certain contests,= like the nationals. But then one gets into rather more subjective problems of how= to weight. That is, I don=92t think a good ranking system can be created fo= r amateur Australian bands. I could give an indication of my view of where the ban= ds should be ranked but next week it would be different. And everyone would have a= different view. The conclusion I draw is that the ranking system is completely useless in indicating the comparative strengths of bands at any one time and I propo= se in the future to completely ignore the rankings. Most people in England ignore the English rankings and they have a better basis for being accurate than the Australian rankings do. The tyranny of distance does not operate to the same extent in England as it does in Australia. Perhaps the only conclusion therefore which can be drawn is that a band i= s only as good as its last performance. GLENN MCGOWAN Peter Younghusband wrote: > Are the rankings not based over three years like England Glenn? What di= d Kew do > during the other two years if so? > > Monkey > > Glenn McGowan wrote: > > > Kew Band (Australia) has won the Bendigo A grade competition by 13 > > points, pushing Hawthorn into second place. This means Kew has won > > every competition it has competed in for the last 12 months (4 > > contests). Yet it is only ranked in the band 'computer' rankings as > > 4th. This nothwithstanding a convincing win at the nationals. Compu= ter > > ranking seem a little irrelevant don't they? > > Glenn McGowan > > Principal cornet > > Kew Band > > mcgowan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > -- > > njh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For information about this list, including ho= w to > > unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'he= lp' to > > listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- > njh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For information about this list, including how to > unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help= ' to > listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- unsubscribe or receive the list in digest form, mail a message of 'help' to listserver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
[Services] [Contact Us] [Advertise with us] [About] [Tell a friend about us] [Copyright © 2016 NJH Music] |