Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

some philosophy on the Rankings [split]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • some philosophy on the Rankings [split]

    Originally posted by Smoke
    Let me interject something here, CJ dominated this season overall on the circuit from April through September. She lost 4 races including WC where she took bronze. She medaled, So for those weighting the gold, please include the fact that CJ medaled also.
    Being somewhat confused by the whole #1 ranked thing (because I don't know how it is arrived at) I tend to look at the past for precedent. Examples like winning a national championship, winning a bronze medal in the WC with that race being the only race lost, winning the WAF, winning five GP events plus setting a world record after the WC all resulted in being ranked... #2. At least it did for Asafa. Why is Jeter's case any different? (I ask that in all seriousness, I am NOT against her being ranked #1, am simply trying to understand it all)

    Originally posted by Smoke
    I will also include that if not for SAF winning in Berlin Kerron was the number one Jamaican this summer
    Wait a sec Smoke. I'm pretty sure that I saw (I was there) SAF dethrone Stewart and take away the national championship from her. I'm also somewhat sure (I wasn't present, it was on tv and you know how these things can be faked) that I saw SAF beat Stewart's best time, making herself the fastest Jamaican woman in history while doing so. Surely those two things count toward SAF being the number one Jamaican this summer, or are they to be excluded along with the WC win? Well, I suppose if the win is excluded the time and its significance is excluded as well. Hard to keep up sometimes, forgive me.
    Regards,
    toyracer

  • #2
    Originally posted by toyracer
    Originally posted by Smoke
    Let me interject something here, CJ dominated this season overall on the circuit from April through September. She lost 4 races including WC where she took bronze. She medaled, So for those weighting the gold, please include the fact that CJ medaled also.
    Being somewhat confused by the whole #1 ranked thing (because I don't know how it is arrived at) I tend to look at the past for precedent. Examples like winning a national championship, winning a bronze medal in the WC with that race being the only race lost, winning the WAF, winning five GP events plus setting a world record after the WC all resulted in being ranked... #2. At least it did for Asafa. Why is Jeter's case any different? (I ask that in all seriousness, I am NOT against her being ranked #1, am simply trying to understand it all)

    Originally posted by Smoke
    I will also include that if not for SAF winning in Berlin Kerron was the number one Jamaican this summer
    Wait a sec Smoke. I'm pretty sure that I saw (I was there) SAF dethrone Stewart and take away the national championship from her. I'm also somewhat sure (I wasn't present, it was on tv and you know how these things can be faked) that I saw SAF beat Stewart's best time, making herself the fastest Jamaican woman in history while doing so. Surely those two things count toward SAF being the number one Jamaican this summer, or are they to be excluded along with the WC win? Well, I suppose if the win is excluded the time and its significance is excluded as well. Hard to keep up sometimes, forgive me.
    Asafa's first WRs were incremental; the last one (and the race after at 9.79/0.0) were the ones that were more of an increment in quality (in fact, until that day, he had no marks in the top 5 'basic').

    In contrast, women's sprinting has been buried behind marks, especially by Jones and by FloJo (treating her 10.49 as 10.49/5.5mps). Suddenly, on 'basic' we have a new best of some sort. She was able to best the great Jamaican pair that had made forays into 10.7 territory without the aid of wind and had great marks into winds. Jeter is the culmination of the massive return to the top of the list.

    Again, I think that it will be SAF, but Jeter has made it very interesting and I will be happy with either, especially if they are healthy next year and willing to face each other repeatedly (even if not like the hurdlers do).

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 26mi235
      Originally posted by toyracer
      Originally posted by Smoke
      Let me interject something here, CJ dominated this season overall on the circuit from April through September. She lost 4 races including WC where she took bronze. She medaled, So for those weighting the gold, please include the fact that CJ medaled also.
      Being somewhat confused by the whole #1 ranked thing (because I don't know how it is arrived at) I tend to look at the past for precedent. Examples like winning a national championship, winning a bronze medal in the WC with that race being the only race lost, winning the WAF, winning five GP events plus setting a world record after the WC all resulted in being ranked... #2. At least it did for Asafa. Why is Jeter's case any different? (I ask that in all seriousness, I am NOT against her being ranked #1, am simply trying to understand it all)
      Asafa's first WRs were incremental; the last one (and the race after at 9.79/0.0) were the ones that were more of an increment in quality (in fact, until that day, he had no marks in the top 5 'basic').

      In contrast, women's sprinting has been buried behind marks, especially by Jones and by FloJo (treating her 10.49 as 10.49/5.5mps). Suddenly, on 'basic' we have a new best of some sort. She was able to best the great Jamaican pair that had made forays into 10.7 territory without the aid of wind and had great marks into winds. Jeter is the culmination of the massive return to the top of the list.
      The comparison of Asafa's #2-ranked '07 season is so close to Jeter's '09 season it appears to set a relevant precedent. In reading your post am I to understand that in considering it for the #1 ranking more "weight" is given to a mark that is not a world record than to one that is? Do I understand you correctly that her getting into the top of the 'basic' time list is judged differently than Asafa getting right to the top after not being in the top five?

      Asafa lost one race in '07, just one. In that race he got the bronze medal. Other than that he won everything else entered, as I've previously mentioned. He was still ranked at #2. My questions now become "he was not ranked #1, why not? Was it because of not winning the WC?" I have to ask those because, other than winning that one race, what else could he have done to get the #1 ranking? I feel I must be missing something, and am trying to understand how this all works.
      Regards,
      toyracer

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the relevant comparison is not between Powell and Jeter, but between their rivals for the #1 ranking (Gay and Fraser). In 2007, Gay had a winning record (1-0) vs. Powell and lost only one race all season, at a late September meet in Shanghai. On the other hand, Fraser had a losing record (3-4) vs. Jeter and lost 6 of 10 meets, including all three of her GL races and the WAF.

        That's not to say that Jeter should outrank Fraser, but rather that it's not as obvious as Gay over Powell was in 2007.

        Originally posted by toyracer
        Being somewhat confused by the whole #1 ranked thing (because I don't know how it is arrived at) I tend to look at the past for precedent. Examples like winning a national championship, winning a bronze medal in the WC with that race being the only race lost, winning the WAF, winning five GP events plus setting a world record after the WC all resulted in being ranked... #2. At least it did for Asafa. Why is Jeter's case any different? (I ask that in all seriousness, I am NOT against her being ranked #1, am simply trying to understand it all)

        Comment


        • #5
          toyracer you are no more less confused than any of us have been throughout the years. It is the reason this is so interesting. I invite you to review the 96 and 97 seasons and the subsequent rankings. And you will know all you need to about the confusing conversation this is.
          In the end we really do not know who will be number one until they come out. no matter how much ones argument is to themselves

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jb
            I think the relevant comparison is not between Powell and Jeter, but between their rivals for the #1 ranking (Gay and Fraser). In 2007, Gay had a winning record (1-0) vs. Powell and lost only one race all season, at a late September meet in Shanghai.
            So it's possible for a WC winner to lose a race post-WC and still be #1. Interesting.
            Regards,
            toyracer

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by toyracer
              .....

              Being somewhat confused by the whole #1 ranked thing (because I don't know how it is arrived at) I tend to look at the past for precedent. Examples like winning a national championship, winning a bronze medal in the WC with that race being the only race lost, winning the WAF, winning five GP events plus setting a world record after the WC all resulted in being ranked... #2. At least it did for Asafa. Why is Jeter's case any different? ......
              Time for me to issue my annual caution here: while past Rankings can certainly give you a rough idea of how things work, you'll make yourself completely crazy if you try to establish any pattern, either in one event from year to year, or in one event compared to another in the same year.

              Thinking that there are constants in human performance is what led the IAAF Rankers down the garden path to destruction.

              Each event in each year needs to be analyzed as a separate and distinct entity, because there are always little hiccups that make so many of them unique.

              And aside from pure human fallibilty (on the part of those doing the Rankings), the big reason you can't rely too much on the past is that the importance of meets is ever-changing. When the Rankings started 60-plus years ago, there was virtually no internatinoal head-to-head competitition, so marks played a far huger role than they do now.

              When the Euro Circuit took off in the '70s with the arrival of large contingents of Americans (and to a lesser extent, Down Underers), the paradigm changed to give those meets far greater weight. And that weight increased with the IAAF's GP Circuit creation in the '80s.

              And then the Golden League in the '90s.

              Next year will mark one suspects, a huge sea change, not only because there will now be 14 meets in the "top league" but also because there will be no OG/WC to temper them. I'm guessing there will be many decisions made that will lead people to yell, "that's inconsistent with the past!"

              I'd be disappointed if it weren't different.

              Comment


              • #8
                Hopefully, perhaps next year for the reasons given above, the idea that all win-loss records are equal can be tossed out. A win at Meet A can be worth more than B, C, and D combined, because of not only the 'status' of the meet, but the start lists. If, for example, an early 'Diamond' meet's HJ was missing the top rankers, that event should not merit great consideration. Alternately, a win at a smaller meet, later in the season, with a very good field, would 'weigh' more.

                I see win-loss records trotted out an an important criterion, but if Athlete X gets beaten while she is still sharpening for bigger paydays later in the season, it should not be held against her. Similarly losses after the main season, when some athletes have hung up the spikes (figuratively), that should not weigh too heavily against them.

                On the third hand (??!) marks, as just marks, like say f'rinstance, Gay's and Jeter's late season fireworks, DO have some significance in the real world of T&F. Not that they should be the be-all-end-all, but if you can perform a string of great marks, against solid competition (not just in . . . Juarez), that SHOULD be a big feather in your cap.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  Hopefully, perhaps next year for the reasons given above, the idea that all win-loss records are equal can be tossed out.....
                  Where was it ever stated that they were?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gh
                    Originally posted by Marlow
                    Hopefully, perhaps next year for the reasons given above, the idea that all win-loss records are equal can be tossed out.....
                    Where was it ever stated that they were?
                    Many times, in explanation of a ranking, it has been written (passive voice, obfuscating the culprit) that Mr. X beat Mr. Y 4-3, HEAD-TO-HEAD, therefore, ipso facto, e pluribus unum, X MUST rank higher.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      wrong

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Mr. X beat Mr. Y 4-3, HEAD-TO-HEAD, therefore, ipso facto, e pluribus unum, X MUST rank higher.
                        If that was said, was it not for cases of a 'given all else is equal' scenario?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by gh
                          wrong
                          you win . . . but if I should, by some highly unlikely (implied eye-roll) chance, see it again, (and I will) . . . I will draw it to your attention.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Daisy
                            Mr. X beat Mr. Y 4-3, HEAD-TO-HEAD, therefore, ipso facto, e pluribus unum, X MUST rank higher.
                            If that was said, was it not for cases of a 'given all else is equal' scenario?
                            Daisy, Daisy (give me your answer, do), when, in the world of a subject set of rankings, are all other things EVER equal?!

                            And . . . even if they were, the win-loss record should NEVER be taken at face value, as I explained above.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Marlow
                              And . . . even if they were, the win-loss record should NEVER be taken at face value, as I explained above.
                              So do you have a specific example from previous rankings? Just interested to see what other factors would have been in play.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X