scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Aug 28, 2010 19:17:40 GMT -5
Levi had 16 seconds left, Nagano had 8 in 20.
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Aug 28, 2010 20:22:49 GMT -5
Pretty sure Nagano was 1st and Levi was 2nd in SASUKE 20, that might make a difference. Perhaps using the list below that I made a while ago will hopefully assist you more in the future. I kind of mind it for a reason, after all.
|
|
chackpop
David Campbell
25%
Posts: 1,543
|
Post by chackpop on Aug 28, 2010 23:08:07 GMT -5
Pretty sure Nagano was 1st and Levi was 2nd in SASUKE 20, that might make a difference. Perhaps using the list below that I made a while ago will hopefully assist you more in the future. I kind of mind it for a reason, after all. That is very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Aug 29, 2010 10:33:23 GMT -5
Yep, I'm getting Scnoi's numbers now. I wasn't using Yam's rankings, that must be why.
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Sept 4, 2010 20:09:42 GMT -5
It's been a week since there's been a post in here, and I was wondering if you guys are still working on the top 100 list. If you are, do you need any help with it? If not, I just wanted to say anyway that I might get Microsoft Office soon (not 100% as to exactly when yet, but possibly in the upcoming week; that's a different story though ). That way, I might be able to assist on making the "Dream Competitors' List" in its entirety.
|
|
|
Post by roy on Sept 4, 2010 21:53:52 GMT -5
Have you ever tried doing ranking bi annually, or for four tournaments over a two year span or have points per obstacle annually? That way people cant have points from things they did too long ago, which hurts newer competitors(like yuji) who have performed well. Also, you don't get people like Yamada and Bunpei in the top 10 when they haven't put the results up.
Its very similar to how ATP(pro) tennis rankings are done. They get points for how well they do in tournaments, but they expire after a year and if they want to keep those points or gain more, they must play or the points are dropped off.
Take a look at bi annual per obstacle:
If you'd like to try it per obstacle- lets say Nagano gets 125 pts(arbitrary) for reaching the G-Rope in 23, but since he did not reach the final in 25, he loses those points. However, he did make it to the jumping spider in 24(lets just say 4 pts there-) and the circle slider in 25(-and 7 here). So he loses the 100, since two tournaments have passed since his finals, and then picks up 11 points for his first stage performances. So then lets say he makes the 3rd stage in 26, fails the UCH(lets just say this is 65 pts), then his 4 pts from S24 falls off, and he has a new point total of 72(Circle Slider reach-7+UCH reach-65).
According to a system like this, if the points are worked out correctly, then Yuji in all-likelyhood is ranked 1, while guys like Kenji Takahashi and Li En Zhi could be top 5. Takeda would be up there too, with a deep third stage run in 24, and 2nd stage salmon ladder reach in 25.
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Sept 5, 2010 8:56:57 GMT -5
The problem with that theory is that Akiyama essentially got all of his points wiped (including 3 first stage clears and a kanzenseiha) for failing the Godantobi in 9.
I'll take Nagano again. He's a five time finalist, grand champion, and has been probably the best competitor in SASUKE. But in the last four tournaments, he's failed the First Stage three times. So in essence you're penalizing him for a rough streak and not looking at his past successes.
I have thrown out an averaged system on the table, but it didn't fly over too well for this exact reason.
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Sept 5, 2010 18:11:35 GMT -5
Have you ever tried doing ranking bi annually, or for four tournaments over a two year span or have points per obstacle annually? That way people cant have points from things they did too long ago, which hurts newer competitors(like yuji) who have performed well. Also, you don't get people like Yamada and Bunpei in the top 10 when they haven't put the results up. Its very similar to how ATP(pro) tennis rankings are done. They get points for how well they do in tournaments, but they expire after a year and if they want to keep those points or gain more, they must play or the points are dropped off. Take a look at bi annual per obstacle: If you'd like to try it per obstacle- lets say Nagano gets 125 pts(arbitrary) for reaching the G-Rope in 23, but since he did not reach the final in 25, he loses those points. However, he did make it to the jumping spider in 24(lets just say 4 pts there-) and the circle slider in 25(-and 7 here). So he loses the 100, since two tournaments have passed since his finals, and then picks up 11 points for his first stage performances. So then lets say he makes the 3rd stage in 26, fails the UCH(lets just say this is 65 pts), then his 4 pts from S24 falls off, and he has a new point total of 72(Circle Slider reach-7+UCH reach-65). According to a system like this, if the points are worked out correctly, then Yuji in all-likelyhood is ranked 1, while guys like Kenji Takahashi and Li En Zhi could be top 5. Takeda would be up there too, with a deep third stage run in 24, and 2nd stage salmon ladder reach in 25. That would be good for a current ranking system, similar to what I did here: sasukemaniac.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=sasuke26&action=display&thread=2641As for this system, I've done the rankings for every person who has made it to the Final Stage, most who have made it to the Third Stage (all people from 4-25), everybody who has made it to the Second Stage (5-25), and assorted other people. Here's the list, if there is anyone else you think should make the list, lemme know. Also a quick note, the bottom of the list has very small numbers so it probably is not accurate. #100 has 2.4 points. Anyone that competed once or more and made it to the sixth obstacle of the First Stage (Flying Chute/Slider Jump) from SASUKE 19-24 has more points than that. So to be complete accurate more people should be calculated. The top half of the list is pretty accurate and very few new people will change that as of now. # Competitor Unknown Results? Points 1 Nagano Makoto 0 145.881 2 Takeda Toshihiro 0 123.808 3 Yamamoto Shingo 0 96.635 4 Takahashi Kenji 2 69.557 5 Bunpei Shiratori 0 59.903 6 Okuyama Yoshiyuki 0 59.475 7 Li En Zhi 0 53.052 8 Yamada Katsumi 0 52.044 9 Urushihara Yuuji 0 50.681 10 Nagasaki Shunsuke 0 49.254 11 Iketani Naoki 0 47.487 12 Akiyama Kazuhiko 0 42.755 13 Kanno Hitoshi 0 39.390 14 Nakata Daisuke 0 37.315 15 Yamada Koji 0 36.650 16 Hashimoto Koji 0 36.519 17 Jordan Jovtchev 0 34.587 18 Levi Meeuwenberg 0 33.806 19 Asaoka Hiroyuki 0 33.411 20 Washimi Yuuji 2 23.558 21 Kobayashi Shinji 3 23.404 22 Brian Orosco 0 23.099 23 Kobayashi Masaki 0 22.737 24 Hiromichi Sato 0 22.465 25 Kane Kosugi 0 22.029 26 Kawahara Takuya 2 18.213 27 Tajima Naoya 0 18.049 28 Ishikawa Terukazu 0 17.113 29 Kawashima Takayuki 0 15.488 30 Miyazaki Daisuke 0 15.369 31 Sato Jun 0 15.153 32 Nagasawa Hidenori 0 14.769 33 Omori Akira 0 14.619 34 Paul Anthony Terek 0 14.386 35 Haryu Norio 0 13.050 36 Kawaguchi Tomohiro 0 12.671 37 Takahashi Hiromitsu 1 12.419 38 Nagasaki Takamasa 0 11.933 39 Shane Kosugi 0 11.881 40 Ishimaru Kenjiro 0 11.600 41 Nakayama Kinnikun 0 11.328 42 Honma Kota 0 11.207 43 Shirai Ryo 0 9.750 44 Yamaguchi Kosuke 0 9.668 45 Morgan Hamm 0 9.131 46 Haga Tomoya 0 8.825 47 Izuma Masakatsu 0 8.713 48 Wakky 0 8.619 49 Tomoyuki 3 8.025 50 Paul Hamm 0 8.004 51 Hasegawa Ken 0 7.375 52 Sato Manabu 0 7.266 53 Richard King 0 7.063 54 Miura Aiichi 0 7.031 55 Kameyama Masashi 0 6.444 56 Suzuki Naohiro 0 6.400 57 Shoei 0 6.310 58 Matsunaga Tomohiro 0 6.271 59 Yamamoto Tatsuya 0 6.25 60 Ijima Toyohisa 0 6.238 61 Adachi Yuta 2 6.183 62 Kuboki Hironori 0 6.025 63 Ito Yoshiki 1 5.913 64 Arai Kenichi 0 5.825 65 Yoshiaki Hatakeda 0 5.800 66 Fujinami Koji 0 5.738 67 Kadota Masayuki 0 5.525 68 Yoshinaga Katsumi 1 5.156 69 Yoshizaki Hiroaki 0 4.975 70 Matsumoto Minoru 0 4.975 71 Matachi Ryo 0 4.725 72 Nakamura Satoshi 0 4.706 73 Hirata Atsushi 0 4.500 74 James Okada 0 4.494 75 Yoshikawa Yasuaki 1 4.388 76 David Campbell 0 4.275 77 Oya Motohide 0 4.225 78 Tanaka Hikaru 0 4.2 79 Takashi Yo 0 4.150 80 Kato Masafumi 0 4.013 81 Hibari 1 3.988 82 Sato Hiroki 0 3.969 83 Brett Sims 0 3.838 84 Iwanaga Sho 0 3.769 85 Kitaya Motoshi 0 3.632 86 Nomura Masaki 1 3.55 87 Ueki Shigenori 0 3.450 88 Kouchi Kairi 0 3.375 89 Komiya Rie 0 3.256 90 Shimizu Hideaki 0 3.225 91 Akimoto Kozo 0 3.188 92 Travis Allen Schroeder 0 3.1875 93 Kawahara Yoshimi 0 3.088 94 Izumiyama Yuta 0 2.956 95 Luci Romberg 0 2.869 96 Iketani Yukio 0 2.8 97 Sakawa Ryuichi 0 2.800 98 Ueda Takuyu 0 2.55 99 Goku 0 2.519 100 Kato Ayumu 0 2.463 Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by thatoneuser on Sept 5, 2010 21:31:01 GMT -5
Ryouji Higa 2.825
I'll get the others from SASUKE 1-3
|
|
supersheep
Hashimoto Kōji
Former Admin
Posts: 2,242
|
Post by supersheep on Sept 11, 2010 1:25:01 GMT -5
Iamsofakingcool, you do realize when you make pointless posts just to raise your post count it actually goes down, dont you?
|
|
|
Post by r3dcomet on Oct 26, 2010 10:44:26 GMT -5
Sorry to be bumping this such a late stage and the first post in over a month but, I wanted to add to this.
As said the best way to do this would be weighing tournaments against each other and the success rates in them. Another factor thats hard to factor in is the difficulty bar per each tournament. Is the difficulty bar set lower if its the same obstacles? Kinda like 23 vs 24 or something along those lines. Another hard factor to figure is the weighing of a stage. Example: Yuuji's Final Stage fail in 22 vs Nagano's Final Stage fail in 23. Had Nagano had those 5 seconds extra he would've had a second kanzenseiha. OR even Yamada's Final Stage fail in 3 vs. Kanno's Fail Stage fail in 23. Can it be fair to weigh the fails the same because they produced the same result? Should it be scored differently base on the tournaments? Other Elements as well. Example: Shingo's Final Stage fail in 7 vs. Kane Kosugi's Final Stage fail in 8 vs. Nagano's Final Stage fail in 11 Shingo got injured, Kane was getting rained on like hell, and Nagano was a normal fail. Should the injury be held against Shingo? Would he have made it in normal conditions? Same for Kane, minus the rain would he have made it? Same result, same Final Stage, different elements.
Should we try to quantify in a sabermetric type way?
Maybe the difficulty bars should be tossed and everything measured the same. Kind of like baseball with the 60s vs the 70s vs the 80s vs the 90s vs 00s. Or football with 14 game season records vs 16 game records. They viewed as the same on the final totals in strikeouts, home runs, stolen bases, etc. The books will say a Final Stage fail is equal regardless of what tournament. Akiyama in 4 = Nagano in 17 = Yuuji in 24 will be viewed as kanzenseiha regardless of what tournament it was done in. The competitors can only attack what is in front of them at the tournament.
Who's to say Akiyama couldn't of won again had it not been for his eyes getting worse? Who's to say Kane wouldn't of won had it not been him retiring/leaving? Who's to say Yamada Kōji wouldn't of won it had he not lost interest or whatever?
All in all it's hard to figure these things as ranking can be based in many ways depending upon the person that does them. Some might say Bunpei > Yamada or Takeda > Shingo while others say Yamada > Bunpei and Shingo > Takeda
lol *shrug*
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Oct 26, 2010 11:01:18 GMT -5
Sorry to be bumping this such a late stage and the first post in over a month but, I wanted to add to this. As said the best way to do this would be weighing tournaments against each other and the success rates in them. Another factor thats hard to factor in is the difficulty bar per each tournament. Is the difficulty bar set lower if its the same obstacles? Kinda like 23 vs 24 or something along those lines. Another hard factor to figure is the weighing of a stage. Example: Yuuji's Final Stage fail in 22 vs Nagano's Final Stage fail in 23. Had Nagano had those 5 seconds extra he would've had a second kanzenseiha. OR even Yamada's Final Stage fail in 3 vs. Kanno's Fail Stage fail in 23. Can it be fair to weigh the fails the same because they produced the same result? Should it be scored differently base on the tournaments? Other Elements as well. Example: Shingo's Final Stage fail in 7 vs. Kane Kosugi's Final Stage fail in 8 vs. Nagano's Final Stage fail in 11 Shingo got injured, Kane was getting rained on like hell, and Nagano was a normal fail. Should the injury be held against Shingo? Would he have made it in normal conditions? Same for Kane, minus the rain would he have made it? Same result, same Final Stage, different elements. I can't find the post here, but yes that was taken into account when making the Stage rankings. Weather, how "new" the course was etc. all factored into the ranking. So yes, something like the First Stage in 5 is harder than the First Stage in 7 because the obstacles were new and thus you could not train for them. For the Final Stage, I don't know if I changed it from tournament to tournament (like 11 to 12) but I'm pretty sure 8's was higher than the others and 23's was harder than 22's.
|
|
|
Post by intelligentinfer on Oct 26, 2010 22:16:58 GMT -5
He means the difficulty ranking. And the highest ranked tournament is 7, 8 is the 2nd.
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Jan 19, 2011 16:09:07 GMT -5
I know it's been a while, but perhaps we should update the calculator to factor in Sasuke 26 as well. It shouldn't take much more time for this since it's just 1 more tournament being added in, plus I'm sure some of us would like to see how it changed compared to previously.
Also, if we do decide to do so, could one of the mods or admins possibly move this thread to the Sasuke 26 board until it airs on G4 to prevent spoilers? Besides, it would probably make everything easier as well instead of having to constantly put spoiler tags in this thread.
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Jan 19, 2011 16:23:18 GMT -5
Yes, and actually I started doing this, but didn't make it official yet until I got some input. These are what I put initally with some input. So here it goes: Difficulty (out of 5) Stage 1 - 4.5 (same as 20, easier than 19 or 22) Stage 2 - 3 (25 was 3.25, this is lower because it was exactly the same and competitors had 9 months to train for this exact stage) Stage 3 - 4 (25 was 4, 15/16 are 4.5; the tweaks to the first two obstacles would make it higher, but Cycling Road and the UCH mod balance it all out)
Bonus 1: Stage 1 - 1.1 Stage 2 - 1.16
Bonus 2: Stage 1 - 0.25 Stage 2 - 0.75
Bonus 3: Stage 1 - 1 (both easily some of the hardest stages in history) Stage 2 - 1
I'll post the results based on these parameters later.
|
|
|
Post by yamfriend on Jan 19, 2011 16:52:23 GMT -5
Those all seem pretty good for the most part scnoi. The only thing I'm a little confused on is Bonus #1. I don't know if your calculator does something a little different with that, but either way in my system that bonus is calculated by giving the person with the most time left in each stage 1 point, the 2nd-fastest person 1/2 points, and so forth. Considering I did everything right Bonus #1 should be like this for each person in 26 for Stages 1 and 2: Stage 11.) David Campbell: 1 2.) Brian Orosco: 1/2 3.) Travis Furlanic: 1/3 4.) Kouji Hashimoto: 1/4 5.) Terukazu Ishikawa: 1/5 6.) Brent Steffensen: 1/6 7.) Naoki Iketani: 1/7 8.) Yoshiyuki Okuyama: 1/8 9.) Li En Zhi: 1/9 10.) Paul Kasemir: 1/10 Stage 21.) David Campbell: 1 2.) Brent Steffensen: 1/2 3.) Li En Zhi: 1/3 4.) Brian Orosco: 1/4 5.) Paul Kasemir: 1/5 6.) Yoshiyuki Okuyama: 1/6 Other than that though it all looks really good scnoi. If you need any other help with the updated calculator feel free to ask me. I'll be more than happy to help out. Also thank you for moving it to the 26 board for now.
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Jan 19, 2011 20:02:53 GMT -5
Ohh that bonus works with a number there. That's why it is giving that number regardless
|
|
scnoi1217
Administrator
Retired Staff
Ummm...not sure what to say here...
Posts: 3,595
Staff Member
|
Post by scnoi1217 on Jan 20, 2011 23:34:05 GMT -5
Ok, here's the list! I calculated everybody whose result was known.
# Competitor Unknown Results? Points 1 Nagano Makoto 0 147.456 2 Takeda Toshihiro 0 123.808 3 Yamamoto Shingo 0 97.310 4 Okuyama Yoshiyuki 0 70.667 5 Takahashi Kenji 2 70.232 6 Li En Zhi 0 64.694 7 Bunpei Shiratori 0 59.903 8 Yamada Katsumi 0 53.619 9 Iketani Naoki 0 53.112 10 Urushihara Yuuji 0 52.931 11 Nagasaki Shunsuke 0 49.254 12 Hashimoto Koji 0 44.244 13 Akiyama Kazuhiko 0 42.755 14 Kanno Hitoshi 0 40.065 15 Nakata Daisuke 0 37.315 16 Yamada Koji 0 36.650 17 Jordan Jovtchev 0 34.587 18 Brian Orosco 0 33.924 19 Levi Meeuwenberg 0 33.806 20 Asaoka Hiroyuki 0 33.411 21 Hiromichi Sato 0 24.040 22 Washimi Yuuji 2 23.558 23 Kobayashi Shinji 3 23.404 24 Ishikawa Terukazu 0 22.838 25 Kobayashi Masaki 0 22.737 26 Kawahara Takuya 2 22.263 27 Kane Kosugi 0 22.029 28 Tajima Naoya 0 19.624 29 David Campbell 0 16.650 30 Miyazaki Daisuke 0 16.044 31 Kawashima Takayuki 0 15.488 32 Sato Jun 1 15.153 33 Nagasawa Hidenori 0 14.769 34 Omori Akira 0 14.619 35 Paul Anthony Terek 0 14.386 36 Haryu Norio 0 13.050 37 Kawaguchi Tomohiro 0 12.671 38 Takahashi Hiromitsu 1 12.419 39 Ishimaru Kenjiro 0 12.275 40 Brent Steffensen 0 11.958 41 Nagasaki Takamasa 0 11.933 42 Shane Kosugi 0 11.881 43 Nakayama Kinnikun 0 11.328 44 Honma Kota 0 11.207 45 Paul Kasemir 0 10.658 46 Shirai Ryo 0 9.750 47 Yamaguchi Kosuke 0 9.668 48 Morgan Hamm 0 9.131 49 Haga Tomoya 0 8.825 50 Izuma Masakatsu 0 8.713 51 Wakky 0 8.619 52 Travis Furlanic 0 8.50625 53 Tomoyuki 3 8.025 54 Paul Hamm 0 8.004 55 Hasegawa Ken 0 7.375 56 Sato Manabu 0 7.266 57 Richard King 0 7.063 58 Miura Aiichi 0 7.031 59 Kameyama Masashi 0 6.444 60 Suzuki Naohiro 0 6.400 61 Shoei 0 6.310 62 Matsunaga Tomohiro 0 6.271 63 Yamamoto Tatsuya 0 6.25 64 Ijima Toyohisa 0 6.238 65 Adachi Yuta 2 6.183 66 Kuboki Hironori 0 6.025 67 Ito Yoshiki 1 5.913 68 Arai Kenichi 0 5.825 69 Yoshiaki Hatakeda 0 5.800 70 Fujinami Koji 0 5.738 71 Kadota Masayuki 0 5.525 72 Morikami Daisuke 0 5.175 73 Yoshinaga Katsumi 1 5.156 74 Yoshizaki Hiroaki 0 4.975 75 Matsumoto Minoru 0 4.975 76 Matachi Ryo 0 4.725 77 Nakamura Satoshi 0 4.706 78 Hirata Atsushi 0 4.500 79 James Okada 0 4.494 80 Yoshikawa Yasuaki 1 4.388 81 Oya Motohide 0 4.225 82 Tanaka Hikaru 0 4.2 83 Takashi Yo 0 4.150 84 Kato Masafumi 0 4.013 85 Hibari 1 3.988 86 Sato Hiroki 0 3.969 87 Komiya Rie 0 3.931 88 Brett Sims 0 3.838 89 Iwanaga Sho 0 3.769 90 Kitaya Motoshi 0 3.632 91 Nomura Masaki 1 3.55 92 Ueki Shigenori 0 3.450 93 Kouchi Kairi 0 3.375 94 Shimizu Hideaki 0 3.225 95 Akimoto Kozo 0 3.188 96 Travis Allen Schroeder 0 3.1875 97 Kawahara Yoshimi 0 3.088 98 Izumiyama Yuta 0 2.956 99 Luci Romberg 0 2.869 100 Iketani Yukio 0 2.8
A few quick points: * For his 5th straight Third Stage appearance, Okuyama moved up to fourth on the list, ahead of Kongu and Bunpei. However, in actuality Kongu is still probably higher because of his two missing performances in SASUKE 5 and SASUKE 6. * Thanks to Li's 6th straight First Stage clear and UCH performance, he also leap frogs Bunpei and moves into 6th place. * For clearing Stage 1, Iketani actually moved back into the top 10, by passing Shunsuke and Urushihara (Yuuji by less than 0.2) * Brian is now the best performing American competitor on this list, passing Levi due to him not competing. * David Campbell made the biggest leap of any competitor. Moving from #76 up to #29 * Other American first time clears: Brent Steffensen - #40 Paul Kasemir - #45 Travis Furlanic - #52
|
|
|
Post by bigblind168 on Jan 21, 2011 0:08:16 GMT -5
Hmmm this is why I dont really like this list *ALL* that much. I feel like its not giving enough credit to Yuuji and Akiyama who should be in the top 3 due to them achieving Kazenseiha. It's like saying The Eagles from 2001-2003 are better then the 2001-2003 Bucs. The Eagles are more consistant by far. But are the Bucs better? Ofcourse they won the superbowl! And while yes, people like Kongu and Okuyama are better than Akiyama over all, Akiyama still won. Just my 2 pennies. Otherwise i think the list is fairly accurate.
|
|
|
Post by jfeathe on Jan 21, 2011 13:53:53 GMT -5
There is no way to make the list perfect. Personally, I think it's a crime that Akira Omori is so low on the list especially compared to people like Daisuke Miyazaki and Naoya Tajima. But there is no way to fix this without manually moving him up.
Despite a few rankings like that, I think this list is as close to perfect as possible.
|
|