Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Jump Injustice at the Olympic Trials?

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ATK
    replied
    Originally posted by AS View Post
    And, to be clear, athletes from outside Europe and USA have even less access to the big points meetings.
    I mean, do we expect any less from a governing body based out of a city-state on the French Rivera?

    Leave a comment:


  • Conor Dary
    replied
    Originally posted by AS View Post
    Everyone seems to be ignoring a clear agenda with the Rankings (which IAAF was up front about at the time of their launch): that they want to encourage/force athletes into the main circuit meetings (i.e. DL and Continental Tour). The (flawed) logic was that somehow the awarding of meeting points would lead the very best athletes into more head-to-heads..
    I've pointed that out a few times...

    Leave a comment:


  • 18.99s
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam1729 View Post

    The Elo rating system is actually a great system to rank head-to-head matchups and fairly easy to understand. It may be complicated to implement in T&F with so many athletes to track.
    Not that hard for a computer though. If there are 8 in a race, treat it as 28 head-to-head matchups and run the Elo algorithm on those pairings (discarding the rabbits, unless they finish the race).

    Leave a comment:


  • Atticus
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam1729 View Post
    Here's the basic idea of the Elo system. In any head-to-head matchup, if I start with a rating of 1,000 and you start with a rating of 1,100, and I beat you, then my rating goes up and your rating goes down, because you're supposed to beat me. But if you beat me, my rating also goes down, but not so much, since I'm supposed to lose to you.
    I guess what they are trying to do in D1 college football, but the outcome is often farcical.

    Leave a comment:


  • AS
    replied
    Everyone seems to be ignoring a clear agenda with the Rankings (which IAAF was up front about at the time of their launch): that they want to encourage/force athletes into the main circuit meetings (i.e. DL and Continental Tour). The (flawed) logic was that somehow the awarding of meeting points would lead the very best athletes into more head-to-heads.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't achieve that end, as the only part of the points distribution that really matters is the qualification cut-offs we're seeing here i.e. no superstar is missing selection because they skipped a DL or two, but journey(wo)men are because they haven't been on the (mainly European) circuit or appearing at hardly equivalent 2nd and 3rd tier champs.

    It is somewhat amusing that so many USAians are suddenly aware of these quirks, given many of us pointed this out back in the day.

    And, to be clear, athletes from outside Europe and USA have even less access to the big points meetings.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    Originally posted by bambam1729 View Post
    The Elo rating system is actually a great system to rank head-to-head matchups and fairly easy to understand. It may be complicated to implement in T&F with so many athletes to track.
    Here's the basic idea of the Elo system. In any head-to-head matchup, if I start with a rating of 1,000 and you start with a rating of 1,100, and I beat you, then my rating goes up and your rating goes down, because you're supposed to beat me. But if you beat me, my rating also goes down, but not so much, since I'm supposed to lose to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • bambam1729
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuariki View Post
    But you you still haven't explained what those differences are. How were these 3 athletes treated/rated/ranked differently?
    The Elo rating system is actually a great system to rank head-to-head matchups and fairly easy to understand. It may be complicated to implement in T&F with so many athletes to track.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trickstat
    replied
    ELO actually had an album called 'A New World Record'!

    Leave a comment:


  • booond
    replied
    Originally posted by Flumpy View Post

    Something like this has happened in the wTJ. Britain's Naomi Ogbeta is ranked 17th on World Rankings but with a best of 14.29m. 3cm off the qualifying.

    She ranks 36th on Road To Tokyo because 35 women achieved the qualifying mark. All 35 ahead of her go and no one claimed a spot through the world rankings.

    To the best of my knowledge she has not yet set up a Go Fund Me to cover legal expenses
    In some respect she illustrates the problem.

    She is the British Champion and the British championship is rated a B.

    She jumped 14.04 to win.
    Second place jumped 13.25

    13.25 would place tied for 6th in...wait for it... the Southeast Conference Meet which was ranked an F.

    This is why events need to be ranked separately. And, yes, college meets would be harder to rank as there is a constant fluctuation of talent.

    The OT was ranked a B, too, and 13.25 would've finished 11th.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flumpy
    replied
    Originally posted by 18.99s View Post

    Theoretically, if there were 32 athletes with the standard (after considering 3 per country) in an event with field size 32, nobody could qualify via world rankings in that event, not even the #1 ranker (of course, in practice the #1 ranker is almost certain to have the standard anyway).
    Something like this has happened in the wTJ. Britain's Naomi Ogbeta is ranked 17th on World Rankings but with a best of 14.29m. 3cm off the qualifying.

    She ranks 36th on Road To Tokyo because 35 women achieved the qualifying mark. All 35 ahead of her go and no one claimed a spot through the world rankings.

    To the best of my knowledge she has not yet set up a Go Fund Me to cover legal expenses

    Leave a comment:


  • NotDutra5
    replied
    Originally posted by booond View Post

    If it was we'd be all Mr. Blue Sky in this thread instead of, "dude, Don't Bring Me Down."
    A positive attitude never hurt!

    Leave a comment:


  • cigar95
    replied
    Originally posted by donley2 View Post

    Some implementation of the elo concepts would greatly improve the world rankings.
    Something in this vein is done in the World Golf Rankings. Each event is given strength based explicitly on the rankings of those who enter that event. In our case, we have much smaller fields but more events. Still, the process is automated so there ought to be a way to make it work.

    Leave a comment:


  • booond
    replied
    Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post

    Jeff Lynne is doing the rankings?
    If it was we'd be all Mr. Blue Sky in this thread instead of, "dude, Don't Bring Me Down."

    Leave a comment:


  • booond
    replied
    The best part is once an improved system is in place the strength of events rely on the competitors who show up not where they show up.

    Leave a comment:


  • NotDutra5
    replied
    Jeff Lynne is doing the rankings?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X