Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Women's 400 World Rankings [split-split]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Matt
    Its a foolish man that doubts Watman and Matthews.

    I wholly agree with the AI rankings.
    I would trustv Mel Watmans judgement on more or less anything athletics related. Especially when it corresponds exactly to mine. Top 5 look exactly right to me.

    Comment


    • #32
      Except you have no idea (unless you've talked to him) what Mel's opinion was; he was one of a group of people who voted and then the points tallied. He could have gone another way and you'd never know it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by gh
        Except you have no idea (unless you've talked to him) what Mel's opinion was; he was one of a group of people who voted and then the points tallied. He could have gone another way and you'd never know it.
        YOur right. In which case...........

        ¨I would trust Mel Watmans publications judgement on more or less anything athletics related. Especially when it corresponds exactly to mine. Top 5 look right to me.


        [

        Comment


        • #34
          last time i read anything written by him was the '83 wc predictions in aw

          the picks didn't look great & that was borne out by the results...

          Comment


          • #35
            Mel Watman is as capable as anyone of arriving at an incorrect judgment of athletes status, as TFN has been over the years.
            Mel's points assessment of all time World rankings and Brit rankings in AW in the last 12 months led to some highly strange results on a couple of occasions, due to awarding points for various aspects of performance which appeared to a number of the regulars on our Forum, to be incorrect and biased. i.e. Dave Bedford better ranked over 10K than Brendan Foster, to name but one on a national level. I seem to recall his slightly weird placings in the all time World HJ Rankings for the top women.

            Any objective assessment as far as I am aware use points awarded for the various elements, head to head, overall win/loss, times/distances/heights etc,National/world records and of course major honours won.

            If more regard is given by expert Mr. A, to one element of an athlete's season, but more regard to a different element of a seasons performance by expert Mr B you may arrive at no better than a marginally unfair evaluation of an athletes set of performances. Which matters most in Rankings?;, a series of defeats in GPs head to head, but a Gold medal in the WC/Olympics, or the the opposite, namely, victories in a few head to heads on the circuit but defeat in the WC/Olympics.?

            Did I not see Kluft below Felix in the womens TFN rankings. Strange and, imo, wrong. Felix ran well in two separate events and team relays with one major INDIVIDUAL world honour at Osaka. Kluft did 7 events where a single weakness can ruin a performance. Gold in Osaka with a European best and nearly world best indoors.!!!
            Many, I know, consider TFNs judgment wrong.on the above. Apart from Gotzis and the above, Kluft did no other Heps, which is only to be expected.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bennyg
              .....
              Did I not see Kluft below Felix in the womens TFN rankings? .......
              Not to parse words, but no. You saw Klüft below Felix in the AOY Voting, which is completely divorced from the Rankings. The Rankings are produced on an in-event basis by our small panel after weeks of argument and counter-argument. The Voting is across all events, done by a far larger group of people each with an equal opinion.

              And if you don't like the T&FN people's voting, check out the AP, which has golfer Lauren Ochoa No. 1 in the world. Nothing wrong with that, but in their universe, note that Radcliffe is No. 3 (ergo, the top trackster!) and Felix is No. 5.

              One needs to understand, of course, that the AP voting usually means things that happened in the U.S. (asin NYC Marathon), plus the Grand Slam of tennis and little else.

              Comment

              Working...
              X