Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

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

  • Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

    This years high ranking of Rashid Ramzi is just the latest in the long line of the worst thing that bugs me about the TFN rankings. I recognize track and field has no fully defined season, but if you hardly ever compete how can you get credit for significant "honors won". Any team sport would never have a player who missed 3/4 of the season voted as one of the top athletes of the year. It simply makes no since to my miniscule pea brain.

  • #2
    Re: Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

    Originally posted by donley2
    Any team sport would never have a player who missed 3/4 of the season voted as one of the top athletes of the year. It simply makes no since to my miniscule pea brain.
    Apparently you don't follow MLB All-star voting, huh?!?! :roll: :wink:

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

      Originally posted by Marlow
      Originally posted by donley2
      Any team sport would never have a player who missed 3/4 of the season voted as one of the top athletes of the year. It simply makes no since to my miniscule pea brain.
      Apparently you don't follow MLB All-star voting, huh?!?! :roll: :wink:
      MLB All star voting is as bogus as most fan voting systems. I guess I should have clarified that no SANE group of experts would do anything like that.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

        Originally posted by donley2
        Originally posted by Marlow
        Originally posted by donley2
        Any team sport would never have a player who missed 3/4 of the season voted as one of the top athletes of the year. It simply makes no since to my miniscule pea brain.
        Apparently you don't follow MLB All-star voting, huh?!?! :roll: :wink:
        MLB All star voting is as bogus as most fan voting systems. I guess I should have clarified that no SANE group of experts would do anything like that.
        So what would you do if Geb runs marathons, drops down to the 10K in the Games, wins easily in a low 26, and then returns to the Marathon? Or if Breaux Greer rehabbed his shoulder, threw 95 meters to win the OG, but reinjured his shoulder?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

          Originally posted by Marlow
          Originally posted by donley2
          Originally posted by Marlow
          Originally posted by donley2
          Any team sport would never have a player who missed 3/4 of the season voted as one of the top athletes of the year. It simply makes no since to my miniscule pea brain.
          Apparently you don't follow MLB All-star voting, huh?!?! :roll: :wink:
          MLB All star voting is as bogus as most fan voting systems. I guess I should have clarified that no SANE group of experts would do anything like that.
          So what would you do if Geb runs marathons, drops down to the 10K in the Games, wins easily in a low 26, and then returns to the Marathon? Or if Breaux Greer rehabbed his shoulder, threw 95 meters to win the OG, but reinjured his shoulder?
          Multi's, walks, marathons and 10K are slightly odd cases. In the case of ANY athlete who only competed once or twice in the Javelin (in the world were I am king) would simply not rank in the top ten under any circumstances. Injury is irrelevant.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

            Originally posted by donley2
            In the case of ANY athlete who only competed once or twice in the Javelin (in the world were I am king) would simply not rank in the top ten under any circumstances. Injury is irrelevant.
            But the the Games are the oh-so relevant.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

              Originally posted by donley2
              This years high ranking of Rashid Ramzi is just the latest in the long line of the worst thing that bugs me about the TFN rankings. I recognize track and field has no fully defined season, but if you hardly ever compete how can you get credit for significant "honors won". .....
              Err, because the Oly gold is worth more than 50% of all the honors that were available last season?

              Having said that, I personally felt Ramzi was several spots too high at No. 2, but there was some sentiment for making him No. 1 even with his so-sparse season.

              But for something in the "normal" events (i.e., not marathon, 10K, dec, 50W--all of which have restricted opportunity), I suspect this is indeed the highest anyone has ever rated in a 2-meet year.

              Comment


              • #8
                this is a quality issue. Not a rankings one. If the events quality is high you would not a 2 meet season ranked number 2. Simple as that.

                Comment


                • #9
                  One of the problems I have with this is that it reinforces the idea that in an olympic year nothing but the olympics matters. Why don't we just cancel the rest of the year? I find GH comment that over 50% of the honors won could come from a single meet very enlightening. The required number of performances to be ranked in the old IAAF ranking system was in fact one of the only good things it had going for it. I still think a system like that is workable. I might have to work on it myself in a few decades when I am retired and have sufficent time on my hands. It would never be the same or necessarily as good as the subjective ones done by the current people, but it could be much, much better than it was.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    For what it's worth, I've been rather (too?) vocal about the fact that the Olympics should NOT be the "be-all-and-end-all" of the year. It's a big meet, of course, but--at the end of the day--it's just another competition. Some truly worthy people come away with golds, as do some "merely" lucky ones. Being best on "that day" may or may not have anything to do with being best for the season.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by kuha
                      For what it's worth, I've been rather (too?) vocal about the fact that the Olympics should NOT be the "be-all-and-end-all" of the year. It's a big meet, of course, but--at the end of the day--it's just another competition. Some truly worthy people come away with golds, as do some "merely" lucky ones. Being best on "that day" may or may not have anything to do with being best for the season.
                      Can't buy that. Some athletes spend YEARS in prep for that 'just another meet' day. If you peak perfectly there is a chance you won't win a lot before (training through) or after (mostly emotional let-down), but your being the best on that one day was no accident. I agree it's not the ONLY ranking criteria, but it is an essential one. The rare exceptions seem to hit the 800 a lot, where someone wins who obviously did just happen to have a good day that day, but is not the 'best' for the season.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Can't buy that. Some athletes spend YEARS in prep for that 'just another meet' day. If you peak perfectly there is a chance you won't win a lot before (training through) or after (mostly emotional let-down), but your being the best on that one day was no accident. I agree it's not the ONLY ranking criteria, but it is an essential one. The rare exceptions seem to hit the 800 a lot, where someone wins who obviously did just happen to have a good day that day, but is not the 'best' for the season.
                        Don't THEY ALL spend years in prep for the Olympics? And, if so, so what? Do they all get golds?--or should they all get golds? Obviously, no. Only one does--from all the competitors who have trained and sacrificed and so on. My point is that sometimes that winner is clearly "the best" of the bunch (overall, on a day-in and day-out basis) and sometimes not. We're in complete agreement that the Olympics "is not the ONLY ranking criteria, but it is an essential one." Yes, clearly. We now just need to parse "essential."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kuha
                          We now just need to parse "essential."
                          Indeed.

                          I'll go with its etymology:

                          the general sense of "basic element of anything" is first recorded in Eng. 1656, though this is the base meaning of the first English use of essential (c.1340).
                          [Online Etymology Dictionary]

                          Ergo: the significance of the OG result, to the Annual Ranking, is that it shall be the "basic element". Everything else is just minutia! :wink:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            So how do you feel about AI giving Ramzi No. 1?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              If you peak perfectly there is a chance you won't win a lot before (training through) or after (mostly emotional let-down), but your being the best on that one day was no accident. I agree it's not the ONLY ranking criteria, but it is an essential one.
                              What you are describing is a situation where the rest of the season is very close to meaningless. As a fan (there is far too much of thinking like a coach or an athlete around here) I want athletes to compete as often as possible and compete against outstanding competition when they do so. Otherwise there is no SEASON. If there is no SEASON I am not sure what you call it but calling something without a SEASON a sport seems a stretch.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X