Iaaf world rankings dalilah muhammad wtf ???

[georgebi]

Bislett Games 2nd 54.35 1193points +170p = 1363p total / USA Ch. WR 52.20 1262p + 100p = 1362p total WTF ??? https://www.iaaf.org/world-rankings/...mitByCountry=0

[Juicy News]

I have no idea what you're talking about but how on earth does Spencer have more points than Mclaughlin when Mclaughlin is more dominant in 2018 and 2019.

[gm]

Spencer has three DL meets, McLaughlin two.

[gh]

I believe what the OP is talking about is that Muhammad got more points for a Bislett 2nd than she did for not only a WR but also beating a far superior field at USATF.

WTF indeed

[cajun5150]

I believe what the OP is talking about is that Muhammad got more points for a Bislett 2nd than she did for not only a WR but also beating a far superior field at USATF.

WTF indeed

It is not only who run against but how big the meets are.

Go find Micheal Norman in the 400m..........

[Atticus]

Muhammad got more points for a Bislett 2nd than she did for not only a WR but also beating a far superior field at USATF.

Ah yes, the IAAF 'world rankings' - a work in progress (we hope).
Talk about a glitch!

[gh]

also helps illustrate why the last consideration in T&FN Rankings has always been marks.

[norunner]

I've been saying this for a long time: These rankings are utter crap. You get more points for a win at any DL meet than you do for a WR. The IAAF tried to hide this fact by not giving any points directly for a WR, but instead adding 20 points to each of the 5 scores, which still totals 100 points for a WR comparing to 200 for a DL win. The rankings are solely designed to increase the importance of IAAF meets, not to give an accurate or fair picture of rankings in any way.
Besides, there are 1000s of results missing, which makes the IAAF rankings even worse.

[donley2]

Besides, there are 1000s of results missing, which makes the IAAF rankings even worse.

How many that would affect who gets ranked in the top 50. Past the top 50 in each event, who cares?

[Atticus]

How many that would affect who gets ranked in the top 50. Past the top 50 in each event, who cares?

If you are touting the accuracy or fairness of the rankings, THEY should care.

[norunner]

Considering there's usually 15-20 American women among the top50 in any sprint event, being outside the top50 still gives you a chance to qualify. Besides, if the rankings are flawed and incorrect, how do you know anyone not in the top50 hasn't that one important result missing that would put them inside? And even irrelevant results can become relevant once older results get removed, but only if they actually have them.

[Wiederganger]

Dare I say, I can kind of understand it. Firstly, it's a rankings system, not performance scoring tables, so they have decided certain meetings are more important than times. This gives them some control (not only over promoting the DL) but ensuring questionable results from dodgy meets like La Chaux-de-Fonds don't get more points that they deserve (remember back in the day when all those fast times used to come out of Lagos & random Soviet meets...)
Secondly, national championships on the whole should not score as much as a DL meet. Just because the w400mh are fantastic in the US at the moment, it doesn't mean it will be in 2 years. Look at the wSP and wTJ that were pretty shite until recently. The rankings can't be 'oh you get 500 extra points in this event at the US champs because it's great, but only 10 extra points in this event, because this year your event is shit'.

The rankings do need to evolve and I'm sure they will. Hopefully in the future it will consider athletes gaining more points when they beat other athletes highly ranked; that way when you do have depth at a national champs like the US does, you can be rewarded for beating them, not just because its the US champs.

[norunner]

None of what you wrote explains giving a DL win more points than a WR. Besides, not all DL events are equal, there were meets with weak fields, yet you still get the full points. The only way to make such rankings "fair" would be to calculate the value of each event at a meet based on the quality of the field, but that is the last thing the IAAF wants because it would make IAAF meets less important.

[Guest]

None of what you wrote explains giving a DL win more points than a WR.

An Olympic victory is comparable to a WR. Any attempt to compare a WR with a victory outside of the Olympics (even by ignoring the fact that the meet is not Olympic) is nothing but self-serving. In my oh-s0-humble opinion of course.

[jb2]

The inequities of the ranking system are even worse for lesser athletes. Lennart Julin wrote a great piece last year (see links) explaining why that's the case.

http://www.runblogrun.com/2018/10/why-the-proposed-iaaf-world-rankings-never-can-be-a-fair-tool-for-determining-championship-entries-p.html

http://www.runblogrun.com/2018/10/why-the-proposed-iaaf-world-rankings-never-can-be-a-fair-tool-for-determining-championship-entries-p-1.html