 |
UIAA CUWR - continuously updated WORLDRANKING |
Introduction
These ranking system is similar to the UIAA-World Cup, but the strength of the field is taken into account by a factor between 1 (best possible field) and 0 - called field-factor.
The CUWR is calculated (since 1999) as the sum of all results of the last 12 month.
There was a minor change of the CUWR system starting in the
year 1999.
All changes are documented here in italics:
Before 1999 the CUWR was sum of the best 7 results out of the last
10 events.
1. field-factor
The reason for a field factor is clear: the weight of a competition is chosen by the competitors who come to the competition and not by a commission on a green table a year before.
The CUWR itself is used to get the factor (on the date one day before the competition). Adding the points (using the a new table, later called CUWR-table, which is the regular UIAA-table plus 15 points for every place, e.g. 115 for the first) of every competitor who got a place in the competition leads to a sum.
In case of ties we add the points of the different places and divide them by the number of ties, e.g. two 2. places: (80+15 + 65+15) / 2 = 87.5 for both.
Dividing this sum by the sum of the points of all places we got a factor between 0 and 1.
So a masters-competition with only 10 invited climbers will have a field factor less than a regular worldcup.
So all competitors who are under the first 30 of the actual CUWR count for the field-factor not only the ones who gets points for this competition (the first 30).
The field-factor is rounded to two digits behind the point
before the calculation of the individual points for the climbers.
2. mode of the CUWR
The CUWR is calculated since 1999 as the sum of all (counting) competitions of the last 12 month (exactly 1 year back).
Before 1999
The last 10 competitions are used, because
it is nearly one year but it doesn't have the problems of a ranking which
substitutes one competition by the 'same one' this year nor the ranking
differs on the days between the competitions as it will do if it uses the
competitions of exact 1 year (e.g. the ranking of 15.01.93 will consist
of all competitions between 16.01.92 and 15.01.93).
The best 7 results of a climber are added
for the CUWR.
To get a larger list and to give one the opportunity to
show up in the ranking with one good placement their will be no minimum
number of competitions to be ranked.
3. places and points
To assign points to the competitors we use the UIAA-table multiplying it with the field factor.
All points are rounded to two digits behind the point.
Before 1999
Because a 12. place in a masters with only 15 competitors
is not comparable with a 12. place in a world-cup with 60 competitors not
all climbers (if we had less then 30) can get points.
A competitor has to leave at least the half field behind
him to get points. (In the above mentioned case of a competition with only
15 participants points will be assigned only to the first 7).
4. the start of the CUWR
Because the CUWR itself is used for the calculation of the field-factor their have to be a kind of provisional ranking before the CUWR can be started:
The provisional ranking (for the OnSight cathegory) was established using a fixed factor of 0.60 and the first 5 UIAA Competitions in 1991 (4 World Cups and the World Championship).
The speed and boulder CUWR's used a similar methode.
5. example: field-factor-calculation for Arco '93
| rank | name | nation | rank/ex. | points | points | |
| 1. | CHEVIEUX | Elie | SUI | 7. / 1 | 58.00 | 66.00 |
| 2. | LOMBARD | François | FRA | 12. / 1 | 43.00 | 52.80 |
| 3. | LEGRAND | François | FRA | 1. / 1 | 115.00 | 42.90 |
| 4. | HIRAYAMA | Yuji | JPN | 3. / 1 | 80.00 | 36.30 |
| 5. | PETIT | François | FRA | 2. / 1 | 95.00 | 33.66 |
| 6. | SARTORI | Nicola | ITA | 10. / 1 | 49.00 | 31.02 |
| 7. | MAZUER | Fabien | FRA | 11. / 1 | 46.00 | 28.38 |
| 8. | FÜRST | Stefan | AUT | 24. / 1 | 22.00 | 0.00(*) |
| 9. | AROCENA | Patxi | ESP | 14. / 1 | 39.00 | 0.00 |
| 10. | SCASSA | Severino | ITA | 6. / 1 | 62.00 | 0.00 |
| 11. | GIUPPONI | Luca | ITA | 28. / 1 | 18.00 | 0.00 |
| 12. | ZARDINI | Luca | ITA | 4. / 1 | 70.00 | 0.00 |
| 13. | ALBRAND | Vincent | FRA | 16. / 1 | 35.00 | 0.00 |
| 14. | COROLLER | Frédéric | FRA | 13. / 1 | 41.00 | 0.00 |
| 15. | SAMOILIN | Pavel | RUS | 5. / 1 | 66.00 | 0.00 |
| 839.00 |
(*)
As the above competition was before 1999, only 50% of the field get points.
Nowerdays all competitors would get points.
The second column 'rank' is the place of the competitor in the CUWR before this competition (after Black Sea '93).
The next column 'ex.' shows the number of ex aquos in the CUWR on this place.
This leads with the CUWR-table to the points in the next column. All this points are added and the sum is divided by 1268, the maximum number of points (sum of the CUWR-table).
The last colum shows the points a competitor gets for
this competition. The field-factor read as a percentage is the same as
the points for the first place.
Appendix: CUWR-table
The column portion is the quotient of the points and the sum of all points (1268).
| rank | points | portion % | % sum til that place |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 115 | 9.1% | 9.1% |
| 2. | 95 | 7.5% | 16.6% |
| 3. | 80 | 6.3% | 22.9% |
| 4. | 70 | 5.5% | 28.4% |
| 5. | 66 | 5.2% | 33.6% |
| 6. | 62 | 4.9% | 38.5% |
| 7. | 58 | 4.6% | 43.1% |
| 8. | 55 | 4.3% | 47.4% |
| 9. | 52 | 4.1% | 51.5% |
| 10. | 49 | 3.9% | 55.4% |
| 11. | 46 | 3.6% | 59.0% |
| 12. | 43 | 3.4% | 62.4% |
| 13. | 41 | 3.2% | 65.6% |
| 14. | 39 | 3.1% | 68.7% |
| 15. | 37 | 2.9% | 71.6% |
| 16. | 35 | 2.8% | 74.4% |
| 17. | 33 | 2.6% | 77.0% |
| 18. | 31 | 2.4% | 79.4% |
| 19. | 29 | 2.3% | 81.7% |
| 20. | 27 | 2.1% | 83.8% |
| 21. | 25 | 2.0% | 85.8% |
| 22. | 24 | 1.9% | 87.7% |
| 23. | 23 | 1.8% | 89.5% |
| 24. | 22 | 1.7% | 91.2% |
| 25. | 21 | 1.7% | 92.9% |
| 26. | 20 | 1.6% | 94.5% |
| 27. | 19 | 1.5% | 96.0% |
| 28. | 18 | 1.4% | 97.4% |
| 29. | 17 | 1.3% | 98.7% |
| 30. | 16 | 1.3% | 100.0% |
| sum | 1268 |