Tweet
Simply the fact that the Diamond League is an invitation circuit makes the whole thing unfair. At the US trials over 400m you have to fight your way through two rounds of heats and semis to reach the final and get 100 points for the win. At any DL meet you get 100 points minimum just for being there. And for a win in earlier rounds at US trials, which in some events equal the quality of DL races, you get no points at all.
-
-
-
I think that last part is the concept that should generally underpin the whole scoring system. Or perhaps more the standard of people that the athlete beats. I think an athlete coming 8th out of 8 in a Diamond League should not get many points, especially as that athlete could be from the host country and was fortunate to get a lane. However, an athlete coming 4th out of 8 has probably beaten at least 3 world-class exponents and should get some credit for that.Originally posted by Atticus View Post
The quality of opponent factor would also ensure that the National Champs in the 'off-year' of countries like the USA isn't over-scored.Last edited by Trickstat; 08-05-2019, 10:16 AM.Comment
-
Agree with using the strength of opponents beaten (and lost to) as the primary basis for rankings. That's what any sensible ranking system does if it's not possible to have a season where all contenders compete head-to-head.
And if the Diamond League is going to be weighted higher than other meets, there should be ways for athletes to demand a place in each Diamond League meet based on their performances. Fill 6 spots of each event with automatic entries according to a performance-based formula, with only the remaining 2 or more spots by invitation. If any athlete in the top 6 declines a spot, it goes to #7, then #8 etc.Comment
-
Great points, all. The best solution would be a more thorough scrub of national champs meets, and a grading of the competition that might be revised throughout the season. Obviously this will require a lot of work, but it is far from insurmountable.Originally posted by Atticus View PostComment
-
I don't think it would require much work at all. You simply have the computer assess every event at a particular meet simply on the rankings of the competitors. It would just be part of the algorithm. More/better data in, better data out. GIGO still applies.Originally posted by KevinR View PostComment
-
This was suggested in the early stages. I don't know how easy/hard it would be to build into the system. That I will leave up to coding experts.Comment
-
It may SEEM hard, but I am constantly amazed with the computer systems I have to deal with that COULD use data better, but don't. It doesn't matter how good a coder you have, if you can't see the forest for the trees. The data IS readily available. Once the event is underway, all the start list athletes' ranking numbers are known. If someone is not in the system then they are ignored.Originally posted by gm View PostComment
-
Point taken. Once the algorithm is built, it will need to be revisited by a "person in the loop", too. Using input such as best marks for the year, maybe use a moving average over a three year period, would help keep things leveled, as well.Originally posted by Atticus View Post
It would also be entertaining for those of us who take the time to discuss in here, giving us yet another competition level to follow. Using metrics to assess the rankings of various countries in the various events. I think it would be a great product for the numbers geeks in here. Present company included!Comment
-
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that this was probably implemented to get the best athletes to compete in DL meets on the cheap...Comment
-
Not ignoring, criticizing.Comment
Comment