Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rankings

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Rankings

    Garry I am convinced that you and the crew have taken on the credo of the BCS, "Just keep em talkin'!"
    I know you hear it every year, but I am here to tell you I am tired of saying it every year. Where is the consistency? You flip flop your criteria every year, and in some cases event to event. I look at the 100 and just have the same questions as I do every year. I remember 1996 when you ranked DB number one over FF, only to come back in 1997 and rank Mo second,a nd this year rank Kim 3rd! THIRD? Even in TNF's mishmash of rankings Kim's record and accomplishments define him as number one. He won the biggest race in an up and down year that had no dominate competitor. Kim ran fast and won the prize. Capel did nothing to earn such a dubious honor this year, Bernard was more deserving in this case.
    The sad part is that you turn right around in the 200 and rank Capel first using the exact opposite logic of the 100. No one ran fast, no one dominated, he won the big race, he gets number one. He did not win USATF's!
    All I am saying is there needs to be some consistency involved, so we know that when December comes we are reading something that does more than keep us debating. Also, you stated years ago that these were for TNF purposes and its readers and any corelation to money and contracts was not the concern nor responsibility of TNF. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. You are costing the people you love to criticize and uplift and watch and announce money. Many, not all, but many have contracts based upon your rankings. And I know you know this Garry, I am asking you to show some respect for our sport in this regard.

  • #2
    Re: Rankings

    The rankings MUST be subjective, look at what a farce the IAAF rankings have become. So you put a bunch of the best track minds together, let them duke it out, and you actually end up with FAIRER rankings then any model or paradigm could come up with. I'm have ALWAYS been impressed with the 'fairness' of the rankings, even when I disagreed! (See my 'Ranking Discrepancy' thread) Good job, T&FN dudes.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Rankings

      How bout you to stop posting novels as messages

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Rankings

        OK, no War and Peace here. Every meaningful ranking process must be "subjective"--but a collective "subjective" effort by genuine and varied experts. We may quibble about the T&FN results, but it's hard to imagine any really "better" or "fairer" approach.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Rankings

          If anybody has taken on a BCS approach it's the IAAF, what with an unyielding computer formula with bad base parameters. Totally incapable of finding the nuance that TFN usually gets right. Not always (Don Paige over Seb Coe?!), but far better than anybody else I've ever seen.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Rankings

            Read the other post on rankings. The TNF staff entered comments stating " all shoe companies use the TFN rankings in their athlete's bonus structure." This is a subjective list, TFN will not print a rankings issue that would offend a company purchasing print adds. TNF favours American athletes because its an American driven subscriber base, IAAF list favors the Europeans' , because the marketing hub of the Golden League is Europe beased. Its just business.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Rankings

              Lots of people can complain about TFN rankings but if you've got problems with subjective rankings just head over the the IAAF site and take a look at their joke of a rankings system. Currently, Jadel Gregorio of Brazil is the 2nd best triple jumper on the planet. In the TFN rankings he's sixth, which is about where he belongs.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Rankings

                And why shouldn't Gregorio be number 2? He was the second most consistent jumper for the year. He attended all the major meets where his event was contested, and did very well at most.

                The crux of the IAAF rankings is what the TFN chooses to ignore, i.e. the hierarchy of the meets. World Champs-World Indoor/Grand Prix Final - Golden League - Super Grand Prix- Grand Prix I - Grand Prix2 . The NCAAs and other such meets that TFN gives equal prominence to is nothing but a local "bush" meet. That is why the TFN rankings are so screwed up.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Rankings

                  Let's see, Gregorio was 6th at the World Indoor, 5th at the World Championships and 4th at the GP Final. Yup, sounds like real No. 2 material to me! Dread is obviously a comedian.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Rankings

                    One at a time.
                    I will write as long as I see fit and you will read it anyway. LOL

                    While not promoting IAAF, I will not promote TFN either. There is a happy medium somewhere, but besides all of that, I just want some consistency in the rankings so when I do disagree it is an opinion, not a debate about the reasonings that change depending upon person and event.

                    Yes, I agree having a human element always helps balance out a pure numbers rankings, but you cannot sit there and look at the 100 rankings and 200 rankings and not see the double standard employed. Capel in the 100 is ranked one for being the closest to consistent and fastest, and Kim is demoted because he was inconsistent and only won the WC in a slowish time. Also, the ranking implies that Capel would have won the WC. But in the 200 we see Capel ranked number one because he one the one big race of the season, although he lost USATF's and did not run fast. In 1996 TFN ranked DB number one based on his OG victory, although FF dominated the season from beginning to end. In 1997 Maurice was not ranked first because he lost too many races, although he won world's in the year's fastest time, won USATF's in 9.90, and won Lausanne in 9.90. Be subjective, it keeps the numbers balanced out, but there still needs to be some consistent guidelines that make it all make sense.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Rankings

                      There is no way Gregorio deserves a No. 2 ranking!!!

                      First of all, he was only 5th at Worlds and 6th at World Indoor. Olsson was obviously No. 1. Edwards was injured at Worlds, but he still has to be No. 2, based on his high placings throughout the season.

                      Oprea didn't make the Worlds final, but he won Zurich, was second in Stockholm and won Lausanne. He also jumped far. Sure, this is the least important criterion, but Gregoria's best was only 17.11.

                      Davis was 2nd at World Indoor. Yes, he too failed to make the final at Worlds, but he was also 2nd at the GP Final.

                      Betanzos was 2nd at Worlds. So which of these should Gregorio have been ranked ahead of?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Rankings

                        >>Yes, I agree having
                        >a human element always helps balance out a pure numbers rankings, but you
                        >cannot sit there and look at the 100 rankings and 200 rankings and not see the
                        >double standard employed. Capel in the 100 is ranked one for being the closest
                        >to consistent and fastest, and Kim is demoted because he was inconsistent and
                        >only won the WC in a slowish time. Also, the ranking implies that Capel would
                        >have won the WC. But in the 200 we see Capel ranked number one because he one
                        >the one big race of the season, although he lost USATF's and did not run fast.>>

                        Smoke: you can't treat the two events the same. Every (and I mean EVERY) major meet on the circuit had a 100 last year. Many did not have a 200, and if you read the TFN intro to the 200 ranks you 'll see they say that many of those didn't mean much because the big studs (like Capel) as often as not ran the 100 instead of the 200. It's not as if there's an equal body of evidence to consider, even if the IAAF would have you believe so.

                        And I'm sure the rationale used for the 200 this year isn't the same as it was for some recent years. That's the beauty of the TFN system---it moves with the ebb and flow of the tide.

                        Just for interest (and I'm not trying to attack you in any way here), I would be curious to see your top 5 (10 too much work) in both the 100 and 200 and compare that to the TFN "reality".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Rankings

                          The main criteria used by T&FN are 'honors won' and 'head-to-heads'. While using the former does give more weight to big meets, the latter is just pure arithmetics, where no consideration is given to the importance of the meet. The problem I have with using head-to-heads is the following: it favors athletes who compete rarely and only when they're in top shape as compared to those who compete a lot throughout the year. Contrast on one hand Paula Radcliffe, who can keep a perfect season record by competing in just 4 or 5 races per year with 2 months between competitions, and on the other Berhane Adere, who competes in loads of races indoors, in XC, on the track and on the roads at every time of the year and who has some brilliant runs, but also a couple of crappy ones every year. Now assume Adere competes 10 times during the year and wins 8 of the races, running brilliantly. Radcliffe only races twice, but on both occasions Adere has a bad race and finishes down in 10th and 15th place. Now, would you rank Radcliffe first based on her 2:0 vs Adere? I wouldn't. T&FN probably would.
                          Było smaszno, a jaszmije smukwijne...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Rankings

                            >The main criteria used by T&FN are 'honors won' and 'head-to-heads'. While
                            >using the former does give more weight to big meets, the latter is just pure
                            >arithmetics, where no consideration is given to the importance of the meet. >>

                            What can I tell you other than that you're dead wrong. Look at the men's discus ranking. Fazekas beat Alekna by a solid 4-2 margin. But the two Alekna wins were in WC and GPF, so he ended up No. 1. You can find examples all up and down the T&FN Rankings of people finishing ahead of people they lost to head-to-head.

                            The head-to-head component also takes into account your h-t-h against others. It's tough to be No. 1, for example, even with a winning record against the No. 2 if you have a losing record against Nos. 3-4-5, etc.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Rankings

                              OK Gary then try and explain the DEC, USA NATIONAL CHAMPION in indoor heptathlon, yes he took "only 3rd in USATF Outdoors, also 3rd in italy and a very questioable DQ in WC still placed 12th. Yet, Clay DNF outdoors, 2nd USATF, 1st in Berkley against ??? and yes 85xx to 82xx. Only meet for lobidin and dvorak was WC. And Qi would not even been at WC if he was American. Stephen Moore 1st at Pan Am and 80xx at Nationals ?????

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X