Originally posted by booond
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
High Jump Injustice at the Olympic Trials?
Collapse
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
X
-
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).
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
Comment
-
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
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tuariki View PostBut you you still haven't explained what those differences are. How were these 3 athletes treated/rated/ranked differently?
Comment
-
Originally posted by bambam1729 View PostThe 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.
Comment
-
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.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bambam1729 View PostHere'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.
Comment
-
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by AS View PostEveryone 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..
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Tuariki View PostWith so many influencing factors - altitude, wind, temperature, track quality, quality of competitors, quality of the event, country self interest- I don't think that it is possible to design a system that is fair to all; elo or no elo.
Comment
-
I wasn't aware that people were ducking the DL meets. On the contrary, aren't most athletes and their agents jockeying to get a spot on the starting line of DL meets? Being in a DL meet is a win all the way around. Good competition, likely fast times/high marks, sponsor exposure, potential open door into other meets. Can the rest of the world help it if the majority of the meets are in Europe? In the end it comes down to money, as usual.
It's World Athletics, right? If they can't get more meets held around the world (I get it, $$), then they need to find a better way of getting athletes to Europe. Otherwise it's Euro Athletics with some visitors.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Steele View PostI wasn't aware that people were ducking the DL meets. On the contrary, aren't most athletes and their agents jockeying to get a spot on the starting line of DL meets? Being in a DL meet is a win all the way around. Good competition, likely fast times/high marks, sponsor exposure, potential open door into other meets. Can the rest of the world help it if the majority of the meets are in Europe? In the end it comes down to money, as usual.
It's World Athletics, right? If they can't get more meets held around the world (I get it, $$), then they need to find a better way of getting athletes to Europe. Otherwise it's Euro Athletics with some visitors.
It only appears Euro-centric because Euro countries invest more in the international level of the sport.
There is nothing to stop any non-Euro country from getting more meets, just look at the number of competitions in Asia compared to 20 years ago.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment