Virtual ranking for saturdays (oct 2nd 2010) RMC Wiesbaden competition based on personal bests in competition of athletes on the inlist. Data by Apnea.cz, script for producing this output by me...note: when you see '0:00' or '0 meter' than that just means you haven't got an official ranking in that discipline yet or the script/program contains another bug. You could still win the competition!
Female athletes...There is nothing like spending a day on something to save five minutes of work! :-)
1) 134.5 points (4:45 + 155 meter DYN) Olga Martinez Alvarez (GER)
2) 131.7 points (5:01 + 143 meter DYN) Barbara Jeschke (GER)
3) 111.1 points (4:03 + 125 meter DNF) Dajana Zoretic (CRO)
4) 100.6 points (4:03 + 104 meter DNF) Aleksandra Sulkiewicz (POL)
5) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Zdenka Demlovà (CZE)
6) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Susanna Dietz (GER)
7) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Silvia Vater (GER)
8) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Silvia Schmidt (GER)
9) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Monika Hopf (GER)
10) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Julia Döllmann (GER)
11) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DNF) Agnieszka Sawicz-Orska (POL)
Male athletes...
1) 204.4 points (8:42 + 200 meter DYN) Robert Cetler (POL)
2) 190.5 points (8:35 + 175 meter DNF) Goran Colak (CRO)
3) 173.7 points (8:01 + 155 meter DNF) Eric van Riet Paap (NED)
4) 170.6 points (7:23 + 164 meter DYN) Andrea Richichi (ITA)
5) 166.5 points (6:35 + 175 meter DYN) Sergio Martinez Alvarez (GER)
6) 157.2 points (6:31 + 158 meter DNF) Michal Mrozowski (POL)
7) 146.0 points (5:55 + 150 meter DYN) Jens Berger (GER)
8) 140.1 points (5:28 + 149 meter DYN) Adrian Kwiatkowski (POL)
9) 138.2 points (6:01 + 132 meter DNF) Igor Migunov (RUS)
10) 130.6 points (6:23 + 108 meter DNF) David Cizek (CZE)
11) 124.3 points (5:09 + 125 meter DYN) Cedric Bourgaux (BEL)
12) 118.3 points (5:29 + 105 meter DNF) Danny Martherus (NED)
13) 116.7 points (5:06 + 111 meter DYN) Lukasz Piszczek (POL)
14) 115.6 points (4:03 + 134 meter DNF) David Kent (GBR)
15) 114.2 points (5:16 + 102 meter DYN) Martin Link (GER)
16) 111.4 points (4:47 + 108 meter DYN) Aristidis Efstathiou (GER)
17) 111.1 points (4:23 + 117 meter DNF) Pavel Soukup (CZE)
18) 98.2 points (3:26 + 114 meter DYN) Eric Gerritsma (NED)
19) 94.3 points (4:09 + 89 meter DYN) Erik Skoda (NED)
20) 80.2 points (6:41 + 0 meter DNF) Roman Ondruj (CZE)
21) 72.0 points (3:30 + 60 meter DYN) Thomas Ehresmann (GER)
22) 42.0 points (0:00 + 84 meter DYN) Piotr Debski (POL)
23) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Udo Pörschke (GER)
24) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Stauber Sebastian (GER)
25) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Piotr Grenda (POL)
26) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Miha Karner (SLO)
27) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DYN) Jochen Lummel (GER)
28) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DNF) Frank Wiedemann (GER)
29) 0.0 points (0:00 + 0 meter DNF) Dominik Grimm (GER)
Hi Eric,
ReplyDeleteGreat job! Eventually, it could be interesting to adding some features like an motivation-evolution parameter, and an eventual stochastic parameter (a "you never know what can happen", i.e. stress, illness, fatigue, super motivation, ...).
I.E.
motivation-evolution parameter:
consider 2 values, e.g. 1 and O; motivated people (those that have attended recently a competition for example (or more) since there PB) train constantly; they get a 1, the others stay at ground 0 ; additionally, one has to consider of how much they can evolve and get better (and do better PB's); for static I would say 30s (it would be better to consider a function that starts to saturate around the 8');
so all motivated people get a PB in STA of X + 30s;
same idea for dyn and dnf :-)
stochastic parameter:
this is to take into account that "you never know for sure" how you re going to be and in what circumstances;
it can be an additive parameter of random value between 0 and 1 (white noise) or a multiplicative parameter, multiplying the PB;
in conclusion: the PB becomes a function of apnea evolution Ea (ruled by motivation and consistency) and influenced (even slightly) by random events PB => PB(Ea) + f
see you on Saturday,
Eric Gerritsma
Hi EricG,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the good comments!
What you are suggesting would make it a prediction system while my goal was to have it fact based only. Before a competition I often find myself searching through the ranking to find out what my competitors have been doing lately. That is what this page is an automatic version of.
So what is it that I do now that I can look at this full table? In my mind I compute the points I need to make up to the person in front of me and than I try to remember how many seconds or meters my performances should be better than him. Did you do the same?
I think that would be a great feature! Have the program tell you that when I hoover my mouse cursor over a line. While actual results are coming in the (virtual) ranking can be adjusted by replacing personal competition bests by actual results. Incentives (what to do to get to a higher spot) could be shown as a kind of ticker (think WallStreet) for the athlete that is to perform next.
This would make the job of commentator much simpler while the audience/fellow athletes know much better what they are looking at.
See you saturday,
- ericvrp
yep, you got it right!
ReplyDeleteI didn't do the computing yet (I thought it was just a funny complementary idea to share) but I certainly could do it :-)
but don't forget models are limited to the ingredients you give it (i.e. linear or non-linear evolution, random parameters, ...);
this kind of approach is wide spread in science, economy and finance;
Cheers.