Goofy IAAF Rankings--m200

[Justin Clouder]

We could probably torture this analogy for some time yet... :lol:

Justin

[26mi235]

Re: Goofy IAAF Rankings--m200

It might be badly dressed, but it's not naked.

IMHO!

Justin

If you are badly dressed and act as though you are well-dressed and that everyone needs to conform or pay the consequences (see tafnut and others above), it can be worse than being naked.

[Justin Clouder]

Re: Goofy IAAF Rankings--m200

I can't understand why Obergfoll is only ranked third. Four of her performances are superior to Spotakova's best. Nerius' best is 65.82m out of the six but Obergfoll has done 62.77m, 68.08m, 70.20m, 67.78m, 66.91m and 66.59m.

If the rankings were just based on how far athletes threw we'd not need a separate system at all.

I do believe there is merit in trying to weight the significance of the competition rather than simply the distance or time. The rankings are not trying to say where athletes would place in an ideal competition (T&TN rankings come with the same proviso) but to measure the impact of an athlete on their event.

It might be badly dressed, but it's not naked.

IMHO!

Justin

[tafnut]

The intro to the very first T&FN World Rankings said the magazine would present them on a monthly basis.
I'm still waiting. :wink:

As I've stated here before, T&FN 'should' (uh oh, here comes a gh flame) update them on-line on a weekly basis from July 1 till the last significant meet!!!!! It is SO doable and plenty of SMEs (Subject Matter Experts - Navy term) are available for the job. Too bad it'll never happen.

[dj]

The intro to the very first T&FN World Rankings said the magazine would present them on a monthly basis.

I'm still waiting. :wink:

They were. In 1948. If you weren't around then, you missed them!

[Mighty Favog]

The intro to the very first T&FN World Rankings said the magazine would present them on a monthly basis.

I'm still waiting. :wink:

[Mennisco]

Any fan worth their salt knows which rankings matter. Here, here!

[tandfman]

Correct me ifI'm wrong (I've had a spate of that lately), but did't the overall Rankings serve as the entry criterion until last year?

It's my recollection (which could be wrong, too) that they used the rankings for the three years that the WAF was in Monaco. Last year, when it moved to Stuttgart, they reverted to WAT points. I say reverted because I believe that before they moved the meet to Monaco in 2003, and at the same time changed the name from the Grand Prix Final to the World Athletics Final, they used GP points as the primary entry criterion.

[az2004]

garbage in, garbage out....

[gh]

Correct me ifI'm wrong (I've had a spate of that lately), but did't the overall Rankings serve as the entry criterion until last year?

[tandfman]

Do the athletes even get shafted? I'm not sure how these rankings play into the big picture.

The WAF is predicated upon their standings, as I understand it.

Wrong! The WAF is predicated on the points scored during the year in the World Athletics Tour (GL, SGP, GP, etc.). The rankings have nothing to do with it.

[gh]

I assume the javelin throwers' problem is not getting to compete indoors, which puts them at an obvious disadvantage.

Not necessarily so. Of the 60 individual performances from the top ten world ranked men, only one of them (Bekele's 3000m in Stockholm) is an indoor performance. On the women's side, only four of the top 57 performances are non-outdoor track ones. So it is possible to rank high and not compete indoors at all.

I'm not suggesting the rankings need major changes - just some alterations in the allocation of points.

Of course, this is a year without a World Indoor Champs; doubt the stats would look quite the same in the even-numbered years.

[nevetsllim]

Re: Goofy IAAF Rankings--m200

There really is no point getting worked up about the IAAF rankings. They are so ridiculous as to be laughable.

Osleidys Menendez is 26th????

The women's javelin seems to suffer most from the skewed rankings system. Christina Obergfoll (with 70m ER, 68m, 67m, 66m, 66m, 66m, 65m to her name this season) is ranked 86th overall - 10 place behind Kim Smith.

?!?!?!?!

I can't understand why Obergfoll is only ranked third. Four of her performances are superior to Spotakova's best. Nerius' best is 65.82m out of the six but Obergfoll has done 62.77m, 68.08m, 70.20m, 67.78m, 66.91m and 66.59m.

I think the road running seems to suffer from the most skewed rankings e.g 8) Magarsa Assale Tafa plus Alevtina Biktimirova, Liz Yelling, Pamela Chepchumba, Olivera Jevtic and plus other virtual unknowns being ranked above Catherine Ndereba, Deena Kastor and Susan Chepkemei.

The men's road-running is filled with complete unknowns e.g 6. Benson Barus :?: 7. Paul Kirui :?:

Also, even though she is one of my favourite athletes, I really would not rank Jo Pavey 5th in the 3000m-10000m category, ahead of Gelete Burka!

[Jnathletics]

Re: Goofy IAAF Rankings--m200

Would you believe Herr Unger is No. 4? (!)

His 20.53 to win the Euro Indoor is worth (says the IAAF) 1355 points (his best performance of the year). In comparison, Spearmon's 19.91 to win the NCAA Outdoor gets only 1286! Another glaring example of how a politically-driven one-size-fits-all methodology can lead to ridiculous numbers.

They value the EC's (win worth 170) more then the NCAA's (40). The score is not just based on time. It's also based on place and ranking of meet. His 2 WC, 1 EC and 1 EC cup merit more points then any of Spearmon's races.

Not that I think Unger could beat Spearmon, it's just at that time Spearmon hadn't any international races. So as soon as Spearmon started running more International races it changed.

I don't see much wrong with the system.

[Justin Clouder]

Isn't there a wild card slot or two in each WAF field to cover such eventualities?

Justin