survey says wrote:grox wrote:
I wonder how they managed to call Boston more competitive than London, or Tokyo more competitive than Berlin.
Since you asked,
"The competitive level is derived from the average point level for the five highest ranked runners in the race (CL5) compared to the average point level for the ten highest ranked runners in the world (CL10) at the time of the race. The competitive level is calculated as 1000 times (CL5-BP) / (CL10-BP) where BP is the base point level (2600 for men, 2500 for women). The competitive level nominally ranges from 1000 (most competitive) to 0 (least competitive) but may exceed these limits on occasion."http://arrs.net/CompLevl.htm
If these are the same points as the ones described here:http://arrs.net/CompRank.htm
, this is pretty complicated and results in a pretty wrong ranking in my opinion.
If I understand the system, breaking a world record could get an athlete no points at all if he did not face serious competition. A marathoner losing to a half-marathoner specialist at a half marathon would make him lose points. Getting third at London after more than a year of inactivity gets you next to nothing because your score was reset to zero. Eliud Kipchoge has 2880 points, Stanley Biwott has 2975.