Seems to me that the weighting applied to the olympia is too large.
This is particularly evident comparing Dex and even Kai to Branch.
Branch has some 7ths, a few 4ths, and the single 2nd place at the 'O and yet is given ranking no. 2.
Dex has a bunch of 1sts and his worst is 3rd...
Kai too consistently placed higher than branch.
If you look at the rankings, the list is almost exactly as they placed at the 'O- meaning that the effect of other competitions, and the reward for competing more is virtually superfluous.
So why bother if the rankings are a mirror of the 'O placings?
Seems ridiculous to me and makes the term "rankings", and "RAS Statistics" a bit of a joke.
In tennis, you could win wimbledon and the US Open and not compete the rest of the year and therefore not be no.1. But you'd rank high.
To see branch at no.2 is a great example of how this "rankings system" doesnt work.
Finally, the rankings should not be based on placings alone, it should be based on scoring at each show. This would allow the closeness of some shows to be taken into account.
Currently this rankings calc is stupid.
Ron please post your raw stats- show scores for each show and I'll excel up a better system for you thats fair.
