manchesterpaul Posted August 6, 2013 Report Share Posted August 6, 2013 I certainly hope we stay with the 3-2-1-0 that since the inception of the sport has been the overriding scoring system....it is so simple and especially to newcomers. Changing it is like changing the value of a goal in football depending on the competition or stage of a match. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eglese 19 Posted August 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2013 Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting a change of the heat scoring system, I'm suggesting a change to the GP points that would be accumulated through the season which is like changing the points garnered for a win in football, which happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicOctopus Posted August 9, 2013 Report Share Posted August 9, 2013 I agree with Eglese 19 that it is weird when the guy winning the GP isn't the one getting the most points from it. Do they get any financial incentive, that is, is there a monetary reward for winning a GP? I think this is a nice example of what I consider differences in "European" thinking vs. "American" thinking. Europeans want to know who is the best. Americans want to know who is the winner. This is why all major American (non-motor) sports have playoffs. It does not matter how you do during the regular season - as long as you get to the "tournament", you have a chance to win it all. This results in lots of excitement and drama, but it can also sometimes mean that the best might not win. If you increase the significance of single heats (that is, the semis or the finals), in some extremely dramatic cases this might result in the best racer not getting the most points from the GP. Personall, I would like a system where the winner of the GP to get the most points. I agree that the regular 3-2-1-0 system is simple to explain to new fans, but you still have to explain that "even though he won the GP the guy who came 5th got the most points, so really he won it", which is weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barrow boy Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 For a while now I've been getting quite irritated with the way GP's are scored, or rather the lack of a reward for reaching the semis, final or winning it. Personally, I don't like that the winner can be outscored by others in the meeting but given the nature of the GPs I accept that it's a possibility. It really did annoy me when Emil finished 5th earlier this year though and top scored. The way I see it winning the GP is not worth much at all right now, if you make the final then 2nd is just 1 point worse than 1st and if you've done better earlier in the meeting I feel the incentive just isn't there. What I would like to see maybe would be to keep the scoring for all heats as it is, no double points, but award a set amount of bonus points to riders who reach the semis, then the final and then the eventual winner. Maybe 5 points for reaching the semis, 10 for the final and 15 for winning it. Am I alone with this or does anyone else think that the current system isn't great? You don't have to agree with my suggestion obviously. The rider who wins the final should get 25 points. The rider who is 2nd in the final should get 20 points. The rider who is 3rd in the final should get 18 points. The rider who is 4th in the final should get 16 points. Both riders who are 3rd in the semi finals should get 14 points. Both riders who are 4th in the semi finals should get 12 points. All other riders should get the points they have scored. I would however allow any rider to keep his points if he has scored more than 12 points in qualifying for the semi finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchesterpaul Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 (edited) The rider who wins the final should get 25 points. The rider who is 2nd in the final should get 20 points. The rider who is 3rd in the final should get 18 points. The rider who is 4th in the final should get 16 points. Both riders who are 3rd in the semi finals should get 14 points. Both riders who are 4th in the semi finals should get 12 points. All other riders should get the points they have scored. I would however allow any rider to keep his points if he has scored more than 12 points in qualifying for the semi finals. I think the idea is to keep it simple as in every point earned in every race is used. Even speedway fans would struggle to remember the above scoring, and tv newcomers wouldn't have a clue. No artificial changes to the sport's 3-2-1-0. Reward for reaching the semi-finals and final and not finishing last in either is extra points on a...yep...3-2-1-0 system. Edited August 10, 2013 by manchesterpaul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 The rider who wins the final should get 25 points. The rider who is 2nd in the final should get 20 points. The rider who is 3rd in the final should get 18 points. The rider who is 4th in the final should get 16 points. Both riders who are 3rd in the semi finals should get 14 points. Both riders who are 4th in the semi finals should get 12 points. All other riders should get the points they have scored. I would however allow any rider to keep his points if he has scored more than 12 points in qualifying for the semi finals. You have said what you feel each rider 'should' get. But not why. What is wrong with the current system that this method 'puts right'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Telfer Posted August 10, 2013 Report Share Posted August 10, 2013 Is there not something odd about a scoring system where a rider could theoretically win every GP round and still not be world champion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 (edited) Is there not something odd about a scoring system where a rider could theoretically win every GP round and still not be world champion? That is a hypothetical theory that is so unlikely to happen that it is pointless spending a moment of my life thinking about. None of the scoring systems that have been in place since the start of the GPs have even come close to producing such a bizarre thing. The nearest - but still different - anomaly is the Mark Loram win of 2000 where he did not win a GP but was champion by the end. None of the scoring systems put forward here can totally prevent a situation where year-long-consistancy can beat one-off wins by a variety of riders. Nor should it. . Edited August 11, 2013 by Grand Central Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 I think that the winner of the final should have the most points at the end. The system we have now is a joke, can you see the England winning the World cup in football because they scored more goals in the group stage. No other sport on the planet can have a competitor not even make the final and win the meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Central Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 (edited) Well, I have put forward what I think. I just hope the FIM and BSI have the sense to keep things as they are. Edited August 11, 2013 by Grand Central 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Telfer Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 Well, I agree with Paragon that the winner of the final should be the highest points scorer. And I more or less agree with Barrow Boy on how the scoring system should work in practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mothorsen Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 I am glad they ditched the double points system. To win a single event does not mean you are the most consistent rider throughout the season. A winner leaves with six or five points more than he had after 20 heats, and this doesn't rocket him up the score chart just for winning a single event. 3-2-1-0 all the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eglese 19 Posted August 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 Just to reiterate, I'm not saying that the GP winner is the best rider but I'm saying that winning the final for me doesn't carry the sense of achievement that it should, some agree and some don't. I do feel however that if the GP system is just there to find out the best rider then do away with semis and the final and then you will have a proper league type situation that in theory will find the best rider over the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCB Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 Is there not something odd about a scoring system where a rider could theoretically win every GP round and still not be world champion? But a rider can win every race apart from the 11 finals and be World Champ. Why should a final be worth more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mothorsen Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 But a rider can win every race apart from the 11 finals and be World Champ. Why should a final be worth more? And if he does, he's an overall better rider and world champion. This is the point of a Grand Prix, isn't it? To gather points over a number of meetings, and come out on top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiheke1 Posted August 11, 2013 Report Share Posted August 11, 2013 I think that the winner of the final should have the most points at the end. The system we have now is a joke, can you see the England winning the World cup in football because they scored more goals in the group stage. No other sport on the planet can have a competitor not even make the final and win the meeting. not a valid comparison - the world cup is essentially a knock out tournament, albeit one which commences with a round robin phase. The speedy gp is more akin to a league competition. If u want extreme examples though, a team could theoretically win the world cup without scoring a single goal ( outside penalties) - doesn't that seem ridiculous? or tennis where a player could win a major but still drop down the rankings? every sport has anomalies. I think the current scoring system is perfect, and a vast improvement on yesteryear (which has included systems very much like what barrow boy has suggested). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchesterpaul Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 The rider who wins the final should get 25 points. The rider who is 2nd in the final should get 20 points. The rider who is 3rd in the final should get 18 points. The rider who is 4th in the final should get 16 points. Both riders who are 3rd in the semi finals should get 14 points. Both riders who are 4th in the semi finals should get 12 points. All other riders should get the points they have scored. I would however allow any rider to keep his points if he has scored more than 12 points in qualifying for the semi finals. I think the idea is to keep it simple as in every point earned in every race is used. Even speedway fans would struggle to remember the above scoring, and tv newcomers wouldn't have a clue. No artificial changes to the sport's 3-2-1-0. Reward for reaching the semi-finals and final and not finishing last in either is extra points on a...yep...3-2-1-0 system. You have said what you feel each rider 'should' get. But not why. What is wrong with the current system that this method 'puts right'? And I more or less agree with Barrow Boy on how the scoring system should work in practice. The same questions that 'Grand Central' posed that went to 'barrow boy' (and so far unanswered) go to you. The bold font is mine. Why on earth take away from the basic fairness of what you earn in every race over the whole season determines the champion. The sport has always run races on a 3-2-1-0 basis which is a great example of something being simple, very easy to remember and wouldn't befuddle a potential newcomer to the sport. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eglese 19 Posted August 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Well, it seems to me from the newcomers I've tried to introduce to the sport that the idea of 5th place top scoring is embarrassing. I just don't see the point of semis and a final if we're just after the rider who is best throughout the year. A GP series has several GPs (the series is not a GP) and in most sports GP winners are rewarded the most from each GP. For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer or would drop the semis and the finals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manchesterpaul Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 (edited) Well, it seems to me from the newcomers I've tried to introduce to the sport that the idea of 5th place top scoring is embarrassing. I just don't see the point of semis and a final if we're just after the rider who is best throughout the year. A GP series has several GPs (the series is not a GP) and in most sports GP winners are rewarded the most from each GP. For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer or would drop the semis and the finals. Indeed, technically to get a perfect representation of who scores the most points over a season would be the basic 20 heats where every rider meets every other rider once. Sometimes perfection shouldn't be meddled with. Can you get any fairer than each rider meeting each other once? However, i think that the reasons for the 'dramatic' semi-finals and final are as i touched upon earlier in the thread The main reason for their existence i reckon is the American play-off aspect that has permeated most sports and competitions on the planet. Play-offs were primarily instigated in US sports leagues for financial purposes in order to keep up interest and involvement in a competition which in turn keeps the turnstiles clicking and tv viewers watching. Also there is the aspect of leading to a 'leave them wanting more' entertainment angle of a last event grand final. Incidentally, when you say "For me I would liven up the GP finals by making the winner the highest scorer" you surely don't mean to have a final heat and the winner of that gets the most points awarded? Or do you mean the highest over 20 heats is the highest scorer? Edited August 12, 2013 by manchesterpaul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humphrey Appleby Posted August 12, 2013 Report Share Posted August 12, 2013 Indeed, technically to get a perfect representation of who scores the most points over a season would be the basic 20 heats where every rider meets every other rider once. To be technical perfect you'd also need to come-up with a formula that over the course of the season ensured every rider had each gate the same number of times, as well as different combinations of heat line-up. It wouldn't necessarily be any fairer in reality though, as the best gates would vary from GP to GP, whilst injuries and replacement riders add in an additional factor. I think this is a nice example of what I consider differences in "European" thinking vs. "American" thinking. Europeans want to know who is the best. Americans want to know who is the winner. This is why all major American (non-motor) sports have playoffs Well the Football League had promotion and relegation playoffs in the late 19th century, before baseball got around to it. Even then, they only employed a solitary 'playoff' series between rival leagues to decide the best team. So it's hardly American thinking.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.