Looking at the IOM Rankings following the Nationals we can see the new introduction of double points scoring for National Championships.

Trying to get my head around how a skipper scoring 3 x 1sts and 1 x 5th placing out of a possible four results can be placed behind another skipper counting an 8,8,9,12 as their best results?

I see no problem with a Nationals having an increased scoring weighting but feel the recent introduction completely misses the mark and ignores the Australian system weighting that the MYA based theirs on from the outset.

That an individual Ranking event winner will score less points than a 25th place at a Nationals takes a baseball bat to a system designed to choose the best ranked skippers for International events.

I would be interested to hear the logic on the changes and how they will better encourage ranking event participation.

As for the volunteers giving their extended time, why do they not enjoy the increased weighting?

Edited yesterday at 08:571 day by Brad Gibson

Putting it like this does make you think that maybe there is too much weighting on the Nationals ranking points that needs to be tweaked for next year.

Looking at the present system ,if this was used last year neither myself or Walshy would of made this years GBR team and we came 3rd and 6th at last years Euros, surely this example gets the point across.

Hi Brad & graham,

I've been pushing for some time the return to having double ranking points for the Nationals.

Brad..you yourself said some years ago that it cannot be fair that someone who may win a day's ranking race of maybe 4 races (as I did once) shouldn't get the same reward as someone who is consistant over 3 days.

Maybe the wrong formula has been used

Maybe we need to go back to Mr Bantock's original instructions from 1987?

Either way I believe that the 3 day Nationals should be worth more than 1 day.

Hi Derek,

Absolutely agree with you and yes, as I mentioned in my post I am not against the Nationals over 3 days scoring ‘more’ points.

To balance our argument we could also say a 4 race Nationals at Datchet some years back may not be equal to a ranking day with 7 races. Swings and roundabouts….

I think you have nailed it with the weighting being the issue. It needs to not only balance against the format of how many events are scored (currently 4), but also make both the Nationals and multiple ranking events meaningful.

At present, if a skipper had hypothetically won the last 6 Ranking events, counting their best 4, they would be sitting outside of the top 10 with zero chance of qualifying for an International event. At present this would have them sitting behind the 10th placed boat scoring 8,8,9,12 as their best finishing positions of their possible 7 events sailed. Does we honestly think that a fair reflection of performance over a season or correct to use as a guide for selection?

The scoring weighting has now become so overweighted that it is impossible for any skipper that misses a nationals for whatever reason to qualify for an International event, no matter how well they do at ranking events. Can that be right? Are they actually ranking events anymore?

If we extend the above to this years Marblehead Nationals starting on a weekday, we have skippers in education either studying or working that are disadvantaged heavily by the ranking system should they wish to represent next year. Is that right?

An IOM Nationals of questionable timing last year saw it start within 6 days of a European Championship. Our 2 leading skippers at that event both of working age and one with a young family, were not in a position understandably to do both. Had the current system been in place then, both Graham Eliiot and Rob Walsh(without his IOMICA bonus) would not be racing at Datchet in 2 weeks. They go away, perform well, earning extra picks for GBR skippers then get penalised.

With such a dissadvantage for those unable to attend a Nationals, what safeguards and measures are in place to ensure all have a realistic opportunity to attend through a better level of timing?

The system needed a tweak to reward nationals performance, not an upending of what has served all classes and events here well making them all fair, meaninful and attractive to enter for anyone looking to improve their ranking. It is no longer this.

The solutions we have are:

Option 1.

At present with a double points nationals and 4 counting races there is a maximum of 500 points to score.

• Change regulations to allow a skipper not competing at the Nationals to score their best 5 events which levels the points available to score for all skippers.

This means that anyone not doing the Nationals not only needs to attend all ranking weekends, but they will need to consistently score high placings for a chance to reach a top 10 or higher finish. (remember at present a ranking win scores no higher than mid fleet 100 points at a nationals)

Option 2

• Change Ranking regulations to reduce the number of maximum points to score to 400

A skipper doing the Nationals will also count 2 individual ranking event scores for a total of 3 ranking events

Skippers not competing at the Nationals will score their best 4 events which levels the points available to score for all skippers.

Again, skippers not doing the Nationals will need to consistently score high placings for a chance to reach a top 10 or higher finish. (remember at present a ranking win scores no higher than mid fleet 100 points at a nationals). This option though offers less incentive for skippers to do more events and lessens the idea that skippers be selected over a wider set of conditions over a season.

Option 3.

Reduce the weighting of a Nationals win to balance against ranking events while rewarding the importance of a Championship win.

• Change regulations to a weighting of 120-125 points for a National Championship and leave all other ranking events with a 100points weight as current.

To use the above hypothetical example of a skipper winning all 6 events and counting 4, with a 120 point Nationals weighting they would sit in 5th place. With a 125 point Nationals weighting they would be 6th.

This I believe requires the smallest change to an already workable system prior to recent changes.

All options require a skipper not attending a Nationals to sail to a level considered worthy of gaining their position while those attending the Nationals enjoy the benefits that that event affords.

Every ranking event goes back to being exactly what it says…..a ranking event.

GBR continues to do well without unfairly penalising skippers.

Cheers

Brad

As has been said, I think the principle is correct, the numbers are probably slightly off.

It should also be noted that the actual ranking regulations can be amended easily, however the software to implement this has been in existence for a long time now and even a simple change like doubling the points has taken longer to record than was anticipated due to its complexity, hence why the 2026 ranking positions have only just been published.

Any change that is considered requires either a simple solution, like Brad's option 3, or will require a complete rewrite of the software. Obviously there will be plenty of people who say "that's easy" but they will also have to follow up on their words...

If we can agree on the weighting it can be introduced for 2027.

As a sciency type - but with no detailed knowledge of past/present systems either...! - I'd just chime in that you can prove most arguments with statistics/maths, especially for particular examples.

More pragmatically perhaps, I'd suggest stripping the problem down - what is the aim of the Ranking, and what is the best fit for that aim. (If its toooo broke then maybe it needs a back-to-basics look, rather than trying to just tweak/evolve).

If (?) its Ranking towards international qualification, then why not miss out Nationals result altogether? As mentioned above, they are significantly larger scale than yer average event, and competing does bring added complications for most re. cost, family, work etc. Or - devil's advocate lol - say only Nationals results! Not a serious suggestion, but is it trying to merge the two angles which causes the dilemma? A dichotomy.

(I've had most of my career with people hoping "it's only software, it must be easy" lol)

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by Colin Helliwell

Hi Colin, the rankings have stood the test of time and work well.

The recent “tweak” is just a blip and just needs a readjustment to bring it back inline.