Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by CookyMonzta
    [.....
    Interesting point. I know I've entered this conversation very late, but I couldn't help but recall another situation in which 2 races was enough to rank in the top 5.

    Let's see: She ran 48.97 at her nationals, then ran 47.60 at the World Cup, and that was enough to rank number 1 in the 400. Even if both of those performances were 48.97, I think she still would have ranked number 1.

    Which probably exemplifies perhaps the most important aspect that I'm afraid this magazine sometimes overlooks when it comes to the rankings: Honors won. On the international stage, the World Cup was the biggest meet in 1985. If Koch had run 47.60 in East Germany, she might have had a little more trouble taking the top spot with only two 400s under her belt.

    I share the opinion that the biggest meet of the year, or the biggest meet of all, can't simply be dismissed as just another meet. In fact, it is far from it. That is why I give the Olympics 4 or even 5 times the weight of a top-tier Grand Prix or Golden League meet. That is where the very best of the very best compete (that is, if all of the very best are able to qualify for their national teams). The World Cup back in 1985 would have been worth 3 times the weight of a major meet.

    Given the controversy involving the rankings in the men's 1,500, assuming the outdoor season for many begins in April and ends in September, it is my opinion that 6 races in that event should be considered a full season. I would have though 9 races in the 400 would have been enough to earn a top ranking, but it would have been impossible for anyone to ignore the extraordinary circumstances of Koch's 1985 season in that event.
    Comparisons between 1985 and now are about as apples & oranges as you can get. It was still the shamateur era without a well defined GP Circuit, World Champs only every four years and the women's side of the sport dominated by EastBloc competitors who by definition often didn't compete very much.

    The landscape--and the rules--are now far different.

    Leave a comment:


  • CookyMonzta
    replied
    Re: Ranking Athletes Who rarely Compete is a Crock.

    Originally posted by Gleason
    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by trackhead
    For some reason, it's better to fail to qualify for your Olympic team than to make it and not perform up to par, as far as rankings as concerned.
    It didn't work out that way for Veronica Campbell in the 100. She competed regularly against the world's elite on the circuit, winning every single race, yet she was ranked behind 3 compatriots because of what was her only loss of the year.
    I've been perplexed by VCB's 4th place in the 100. The T&FN summary stated "Fraser....(w)ith losing records to anyone." I assume that is a typo. The thought probably was "Fraser had no losing records to anyone." The latter seems to be true. She was 1- 1 vs. VCB for example.

    VCB's wins are the equivalent 1.25 OG wins IMHO. Her only loss was at Jamaican Ch. Fraser & Stewart lost to other sprinters 14 times, Simpson lost 26 times while VCB lost only 3 times. My OBJECTIVE method gives VCB 53 points (of 100) to Fraser's 47 points. However, I must concede that my OBJECTIVE method was developed with SUBJECTIVE critera.

    My respect for the World Ranking Panel leads me to yield to their SUBJECTIVE opinion that VCB's failure to qualify for OG & her blowing off the WAF 100 is a good reason to name Fraser as #1 in a close call.

    Stewart had only two major wins & Simpson had none. The only apparent reason for their ranking ahead of VCB is their win at the Jamaican Ch. These are high choices that I don't understand.
    Good insight. By that standard Haron Keitany would lose to Rashid Ramzi for not making his Olympic team. Add to that a couple of 7th-place finishes against lower-ranked competitors, and maybe Rashid would have a case for number 1 even with his limited season.

    Leave a comment:


  • CookyMonzta
    replied
    Originally posted by Alucard
    VCB wuz robbed!
    I'm afraid I have to agree. When I looked at the records of all 4 Jamaicans, I thought Kerron Stewart would rank number 1, barely, with Veronica Campbell-Brown 2nd (largely on the strength of her early-season performances), Shelly Fraser 3rd and Sherone Simpson 4th. I thought shelly had just enough miscues to let Kerron and Veronica squeak ahead of her, despite that 10.78 of hers in Beijing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gleason
    replied
    Re: Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

    Originally posted by gh
    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.
    I'm sorry that I had skipped over gh's quote ""Oly gold is worth more than 50% of all the honors." Because Golden League "Jackpot" events require winning all 6 events & participating in WAF, I'm changing "Golden League" events from 1/4 to 1/8 of OG value.

    In close events such as Men's 1500 & Women's 100 I don't want to "eyeball" results, so I've developed an objective system. I expect no one to agree or to even be interested in my system. New results are Fraser 45 - 44 over VCB in agreement with panelists.

    I counted Jamaican Ch, Adidas Cl, New York GP & Shanghai GP as equal to Golden League/SuperGP because 4/8 or 5/10 athletes is my standard. Stewart is a clear 3rd because of her wins at Jamaican Ch & Monaco Super GP, a couple of 2nds & 3rds. Her only failure was her 4th in a heat at London.

    Simpson barely nipped Lauryn Williams for 4th. Her OG =2nd cancelled a 7th & 2 8ths IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gleason
    replied
    Re: Ranking Athletes Who rarely Compete is a Crock.

    Originally posted by Powell
    Originally posted by trackhead
    For some reason, it's better to fail to qualify for your Olympic team than to make it and not perform up to par, as far as rankings as concerned.
    It didn't work out that way for Veronica Campbell in the 100. She competed regularly against the world's elite on the circuit, winning every single race, yet she was ranked behind 3 compatriots because of what was her only loss of the year.
    I've been perplexed by VCB's 4th place in the 100. The T&FN summary stated "Fraser....(w)ith losing records to anyone." I assume that is a typo. The thought probably was "Fraser had no losing records to anyone." The latter seems to be true. She was 1- 1 vs. VCB for example.

    VCB's wins are the equivalent 1.25 OG wins IMHO. Her only loss was at Jamaican Ch. Fraser & Stewart lost to other sprinters 14 times, Simpson lost 26 times while VCB lost only 3 times. My OBJECTIVE method gives VCB 53 points (of 100) to Fraser's 47 points. However, I must concede that my OBJECTIVE method was developed with SUBJECTIVE critera.

    My respect for the World Ranking Panel leads me to yield to their SUBJECTIVE opinion that VCB's failure to qualify for OG & her blowing off the WAF 100 is a good reason to name Fraser as #1 in a close call.

    Stewart had only two major wins & Simpson had none. The only apparent reason for their ranking ahead of VCB is their win at the Jamaican Ch. These are high choices that I don't understand.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alucard
    replied
    VCB wuz robbed!

    Leave a comment:


  • Powell
    replied
    Originally posted by trackhead
    For some reason, it's better to fail to qualify for your Olympic team than to make it and not perform up to par, as far as rankings as concerned.
    It didn't work out that way for Veronica Campbell in the 100. She competed regularly against the world's elite on the circuit, winning every single race, yet she was ranked behind 3 compatriots because of what was her only loss of the year.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gleason
    replied
    Re:Ranking Athletes Who Rarely Compete is a Crock

    Originally posted by CookyMonzta
    Originally posted by Marlow
    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.
    Interesting point. I know I've entered this conversation very late, but I couldn't help but recall another situation in which 2 races was enough to rank in the top 5.

    Let's see: She ran 48.97 at her nationals, then ran 47.60 at the World Cup, and that was enough to rank number 1 in the 400. Even if both of those performances were 48.97, I think she still would have ranked number 1.

    Which probably exemplifies perhaps the most important aspect that I'm afraid this magazine sometimes overlooks when it comes to the rankings: Honors won. On the international stage, the World Cup was the biggest meet in 1985. If Koch had run 47.60 in East Germany, she might have had a little more trouble taking the top spot with only two 400s under her belt.

    I share the opinion that the biggest meet of the year, or the biggest meet of all, can't simply be dismissed as just another meet. In fact, it is far from it. That is why I give the Olympics 4 or even 5 times the weight of a top-tier Grand Prix or Golden League meet. That is where the very best of the very best compete (that is, if all of the very best are able to qualify for their national teams). The World Cup back in 1985 would have been worth 3 times the weight of a major meet.

    Given the controversy involving the rankings in the men's 1,500, assuming the outdoor season for many begins in April and ends in September, it is my opinion that 6 races in that event should be considered a full season. I would have though 9 races in the 400 would have been enough to earn a top ranking, but it would have been impossible for anyone to ignore the extraordinary circumstances of Koch's 1985 season in that event.
    T&FN's rules are very clear & have been similar in the 50 years that I've been a reader. Koch in 1985 was difficult because she defeated ranked 400 sprinters 5 times & won the biggest meet. Olga Vladykina lost only the WCup & won her other 7 meets, but defeated ranked 400 sprinters only 6 times. This case is atypical because prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, East Bloc athletes rarely competed in Grand Prix meets which I think began in 1985.

    Koch did compete in Zurich (200) & Stockholm (100) so she didn't duck her competition in the few available major meets then. Ramzi had far more Grand Prix meets available in 2008 than Koch had in 1985. He & Willis (2 @ 2nd & 4 @ 3rd) are the only milers with no placings below 4th. I count OG/WCh as 4 times Golden League/Super Grand Prix, so Ramzi's 2nd is reasonable IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • CookyMonzta
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    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.
    Interesting point. I know I've entered this conversation very late, but I couldn't help but recall another situation in which 2 races was enough to rank in the top 5.

    Let's see: She ran 48.97 at her nationals, then ran 47.60 at the World Cup, and that was enough to rank number 1 in the 400. Even if both of those performances were 48.97, I think she still would have ranked number 1.

    Which probably exemplifies perhaps the most important aspect that I'm afraid this magazine sometimes overlooks when it comes to the rankings: Honors won. On the international stage, the World Cup was the biggest meet in 1985. If Koch had run 47.60 in East Germany, she might have had a little more trouble taking the top spot with only two 400s under her belt.

    I share the opinion that the biggest meet of the year, or the biggest meet of all, can't simply be dismissed as just another meet. In fact, it is far from it. That is why I give the Olympics 4 or even 5 times the weight of a top-tier Grand Prix or Golden League meet. That is where the very best of the very best compete (that is, if all of the very best are able to qualify for their national teams). The World Cup back in 1985 would have been worth 3 times the weight of a major meet.

    Given the controversy involving the rankings in the men's 1,500, assuming the outdoor season for many begins in April and ends in September, it is my opinion that 6 races in that event should be considered a full season. I would have though 9 races in the 400 would have been enough to earn a top ranking, but it would have been impossible for anyone to ignore the extraordinary circumstances of Koch's 1985 season in that event.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    But so long as the OG/WC have 3-per-nation rule, they lose their import the farther down the line you get and fourth people from the rich nations get squeezed out.
    That is indeed a valid point, and I'm sure it's why CC got his #1 ranking despite his lack of 'follow-through'. I just think that in the cases of CC and NC, their rankings fly in the face of common sense. But that's just one man's opinion and I have no problem deferring to a group of much more qualified individuals.

    Leave a comment:


  • tandfman
    replied
    Originally posted by gh
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Carter raced Martina twice last year at 100m and beat him both times. He was 7-3 against Frater. (He didn't race Gay.)
    too . . . much . . . emphasis . . . on . . . head-to-head (total record). If you don't race/place at the most important meets, it really doesn't matter how well you ran in the smaller ones. . . . IMO.
    But so long as the OG/WC have 3-per-nation rule, they lose their import the farther down the line you get and fourth people from the rich nations get squeezed out.
    In Carter's case it wasn't a matter of finishing fourth. He was injured and didn't even start the final of the Jamaican Nationals, which is why he didn't make the team. He won his semi-final, beating Frater.

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by sprintblox
    How in the world can they rank Nesta Carter at #5, above Martina #6, Frater #7 and Gay #9??? He wasn't even on the Olympic team in the individual 100m, and those guys have better times than Carter.
    Overall records against the rest of those in our top 10:

    Carter 15-14
    Martina 9-14
    Frater 14-28
    Gay 4-5

    Carter's the only one of the four with a winning record.

    (as noted earlier, AI gave Gay a lot more credit for a domestic-only season than did T&FN, and made him No. 5, but they too see Carter ahed of both Martina and Frater)

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Carter raced Martina twice last year at 100m and beat him both times. He was 7-3 against Frater. (He didn't race Gay.)
    too . . . much . . . emphasis . . . on . . . head-to-head (total record). If you don't race/place at the most important meets, it really doesn't matter how well you ran in the smaller ones. . . . IMO.
    But so long as the OG/WC have 3-per-nation rule, they lose their import the farther down the line you get and fourth people from the rich nations get squeezed out.

    Leave a comment:


  • donley2
    replied
    Originally posted by Marlow
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Carter raced Martina twice last year at 100m and beat him both times. He was 7-3 against Frater. (He didn't race Gay.)
    too . . . much . . . emphasis . . . on . . . head-to-head (total record). If you don't race/place at the most important meets, it really doesn't matter how well you ran in the smaller ones. . . . IMO.
    Great let's just rank the guys that win one race out of say 15 #1. That makes a lot of sense. Head to head is an excellent criteria. They use it quite well IMHO.

    Leave a comment:


  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by tandfman
    Carter raced Martina twice last year at 100m and beat him both times. He was 7-3 against Frater. (He didn't race Gay.)
    too . . . much . . . emphasis . . . on . . . head-to-head (total record). If you don't race/place at the most important meets, it really doesn't matter how well you ran in the smaller ones. . . . IMO.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X