Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
Netters, I received a comment on my post that I'd like to clarify re: > #5. Jan the man. Worthy of a lifetime achievement award. 7 > panelist > didn't vote for him. I only mentioned the "lifetime award," because someone last month thought JZ should be number one. He had a decent year worthy enough for 36 top 10 votes on the basis of this year alone. His receiving 29 votes is a little low. Instead, I should have said, "Worthy of a lifetime award as someone suggested earlier but #5 is appropriate based on this year. Though, I do question how 7 panelist neglected to list him." I have yet to hear anyone defend or justify the non or low rank votes for Mo and RK. I believe its impossible, that's why no one can back it up, not even gh. Allen BTW- a late add from gh - "For those of you who think that the ballots that omitted Greene or Korzeniowski were somewhere out in space, I agree completely. " That's close and probably the best answer I'll get since those panelist are probably the cowardly sort.
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
In a message dated 1/15/01 5:37:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Darrell- You're right. Next year we should send out questionnaires to all athletes with a possibility of ranking and ask them to explain why they didn't perform well in certain competitions. Then we could alter the rankings to reflect hangnails, breakups and untied shoelaces. sideshow No actually, you should just admit that circumstances matter. That is all. Your assertion that they do not, shows a marked disconnection from the actual sport. As Garry stated, these are numbers geeks that care not for affiliations, and the like. Well, if they are disconnected from the sport in such a manner, how can they rank the performers? We both know there are circumstances that matter from time to time. Circumstances like Gail pulling up in the Games, although she was head and shoulders above the rest. But I see the same was not afforded Anjanette Kirkland, who was injured at trials, and had shown herself to be the second best hurdler behind Gail, in the US. DGS The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
In a message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2001 8:00:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That is not the way the world works, and you know it! The rankers are full of reasons why they did what they did, but the reasons behind the results are not to be considered? What a crock of malarkey! In 1992 Derek Adkins did not win the NCAA final because he fell over hurdle 8, he was 3 meters ahead and pulling away. The results do not include him, but does that make him less than the best IH of that season? I know not. And tell me why the "why" should not matter to the rankers if it matters to everyone else? That is the equivalent of saying the circumstances should not matter to the jury or judge. The G.O.A.T. >> Darrell- You're right. Next year we should send out questionnaires to all athletes with a possibilty of ranking and ask them to explain why they didn't perform well in certain competitions. Then we could alter the rankings to reflect hangnails, break-ups and untied shoelaces. sideshow
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
In a message dated 1/15/01 11:39:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Why" should not matter in rankings. In a given race, somebody wins, somebody else takes second, etc. Why these results occur may be of interest to the athletes, their coaches, their managers, their sponsors, the media, and fans as well. But the medals are not awarded after adjusting the actual results to reflect what the athletes say about why they ran as well or as poorly as they did. Nor should the rankers consider anything but what happened on the track. That is the way the world works, as well it should. Bob H That is not the way the world works, and you know it! The rankers are full of reasons why they did what they did, but the reasons behind the results are not to be considered? What a crock of malarkey! In 1992 Derek Adkins did not win the NCAA final because he fell over hurdle 8, he was 3 meters ahead and pulling away. The results do not include him, but does that make him less than the best IH of that season? I know not. And tell me why the "why" should not matter to the rankers if it matters to everyone else? That is the equivalent of saying the circumstances should not matter to the jury or judge. The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
DGS wrote: > >The benefit I have in ranking their rankings is that I have a general idea > of why they did what they did because they tell us. The athletes are not > afforded that opportunity, judge and jury, are neither their peers, nor are > they asked why.< and Bob Hersh wrote: > "Why" should not matter in rankings. In a given race, somebody wins, > somebody else takes second, etc. I think he was talking about why the judges ranked the way they did, not why the athletes did what they did. Bob is of course right that why an athlete competed the way he/she did is usually not relevent to a ranking. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >The benefit I have in ranking their rankings is that I have a general idea of why they did what they did because they tell us. The athletes are not afforded that opportunity, judge and jury, are neither their peers, nor are they asked why.< "Why" should not matter in rankings. In a given race, somebody wins, somebody else takes second, etc. Why these results occur may be of interest to the athletes, their coaches, their managers, their sponsors, the media, and fans as well. But the medals are not awarded after adjusting the actual results to reflect what the athletes say about why they ran as well or as poorly as they did. Nor should the rankers consider anything but what happened on the track. That is the way the world works, as well it should. Bob H
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
DGS wrote: > find it upsetting that the athlete can be called stupid, a buffoon, and > dirty, but anyone else falls under some protection law. Amen to that. Actually any public figure is in the same situation. There are certain limits, and public figures have occasionally been successful in suing. But almost anything goes. Everyone has an opinion, as we all do, and people often don't stop to think before they say something insulting(not that I"VE ever done something like that!). - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
I am glad you enjoy my post, and I understand your point. But I do think it is important that your point is thoroughly examined. I find it upsetting that the athlete can be called stupid, a buffoon, and dirty, but anyone else falls under some protection law. Yes, society has gotten out of hand with attacking people, but not in this case. I am not talking about anyone's personal life, or their person, per se. But just as they judge my job, and the athletes job, I have every right to judge theirs. As long as, it is on a mature level. The benefit I have in ranking their rankings is that I have a general idea of why they did what they did because they tell us. The athletes are not afforded that opportunity, judge and jury, are neither their peers, nor are they asked why. So, I will respect your opinion, and disagree, just as you have done mine. Never personal... DGS The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
on 14/1/01 19:55, Ed & Dana Parrot at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But let's take the rankings > for what they are worth - entertainment value and enjoyment - and not feel > the need to question people's motives, intelligence, etc. Quite right. For several years I was a panel member of the rankings group at Athletics Today magazine - I had to be, I was the editor - but while I was always amazed at how rigorously the rest of the panel could argue over fourth and fifth places in the women's discus, I was always pleased at that point because it meant the day was close to the end. While the rest of the group were all statistically based, I was there as a journalist and editor and I liked my rankings tinged with a touch of something other than the cold light of the figures. For instance one year I voted for Mike Powell to be no. 1 in the long jump because he'd competed everywhere and won all the meets except two, the two in which Carl Lewis competed. Those were the only two long jump competitions that Lewis took part in that year and I argued that he was not worth no. 1 on that basis. I lost. But I always regarded rankings as a good way of providing copy in the winter months when track and field was slow. They might have an affect on contracts etc. but I always doubted that. I don't know who the panellists for the T&FN rankings were this year but I sympathise with them for the attacks they get on this list. It seems a peculariarly American way of arguing, vehemently attacking people for holding a different opinion from one's own. And, for what it's worth if I'd been involved in rankings this year I'd have chosen Kenderis as no. 1 in the 200. The Olympics was the be all and end all of the year as far as I'm concerned and he won on the day in a not particularly good year for the event. Randall Northam
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
I see nothing contradictory about my post. I encouraged disgreement, but discouraged attacks. There is a difference, which is admittedly not something anyone could define in black and white. IMO, several posts staryed over the line, but that it only my opinion. Of course, TFN is public and open to attack, just as just about everything else in our society is. But just because something is open to attack doesn't mean it is mature/appropriate, etc. to attack it. However, I'm sure you won't let me stop you from doing/saying what you think is right, which is as it should be. As for the athletes, I agree 100% that the ultra elite athletes are under a microscope that is often unfair. However, I totally disagree that they are held accountable, at least by my definition of accountable. For what it's worth, I generally enjoy your posts and your perspective even when I disagree with them. - ed Parrot Ed do not get swept away in the flash flood. Your above statement contradicts itself, and you contradict yourself by your subsequent post. They are clearly for entertainment purposes, and I will treat them as such. So allow me to entertain. "The Bible" is a public, and the rankers are as open to opinion and criticism as the athletes. The difference is that they live in obscurity, and shoot from the dark, but the athletes live in the light and our held accountable for every single thing they do. DGS The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
In a message dated 1/14/01 12:08:22 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: But let's take the rankings for what they are worth - entertainment value and enjoyment - and not feel the need to question people's motives, intelligence, etc. Ed do not get swept away in the flash flood. Your above statement contradicts itself, and you contradict yourself by your subsequent post. They are clearly for entertainment purposes, and I will treat them as such. So allow me to entertain. "The Bible" is a public, and the rankers are as open to opinion and criticism as the athletes. The difference is that they live in obscurity, and shoot from the dark, but the athletes live in the light and our held accountable for every single thing they do. DGS The G.O.A.T.
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
At the risk of beginning to sound like an apologist for T&FN, I have to say it seems inappropriate to insult the people who do the T&FN rankings. Disagree with them, yes, even vehemently. And I know that various sponsor contracts and USOC funds are tied to rankings. But let's take the rankings for what they are worth - entertainment value and enjoyment - and not feel the need to question people's motives, intelligence, etc. That said, I for one can't understand the reasoning why any judge would leave Mo or Jan Z out of their rankings. And while I can guess that the reason RK wasn't ranked by six judges has to do with the unfortunate "image" of walking and disaqualifications, I would have hoped that rankers could look beyond what is at least partially a non-substantive problem. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
Allen James wrote: > Netters, > I guess we all anticipated the fact that the rankings would > smell...welljust a bit rank. In fact after a quick glance I've > determined that they absolutely stink. Yeah, so I'm a walker, who cares, > right. I actually don't mind a thrower getting the vote, he actually may > have deserved it. > > My main issue is what in the h&*% are these panelist thinking. Here are > some interesting numbers > #3. Mo, a legit top 5. 2 panelist didn't vote for him, 3 put him 9th. > #4. RK, the most dominant year ever by a walker and 2 golds. 6 panelist > DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM. > #5. Jan the man. Worthy of a lifetime achievement award. 7 panelist > didn't vote for him. > > Excuse me. I'd rather go to account temps for Bob than ask for these > idiots credentials. No wonder I stopped subscribing to that piece of > trash. There Darrel you have your freakin' storm. I think we both have > right to . I'll stop before I go further and violate my conscience > and the list. > Like Darrell I am wafting for my copy before I make a lot of judgments .. However .. Allen's points are all valid .. How does MJ warrant #2 in the world ?!?! He barely had a season .. Minor European season with nothing outstanding .. a good but not great sequence of marks .. And was just another member of the winning relay at the games .. I mean don't get me wrong he was the best q-miler out there, but not the second best athlete in the world .. MO had a much better overall season on the track and on the clock and yet panelists aren't voting for him or putting him in 9th position .. The walker got no respect .. A one race nobody gets ranked #1 in the 200 off I don't know what yet (since I haven't read the issue) .. And as Darrell said the criteria seems to change from year to year or event to event in order to justify a ranking .. And biases blatantly show .. Historical stars get ranked high .. Period .. I remember Carl Lewis garnering #1's for 2 event seasons .. And I'm sure that helped MJ this year .. I mean come on .. If Capel rated higher than he did in the 200 then the only thing that supposedly made him #2 in the world would have been a good but not great 400 season .. And his gold medal winning performance was no better than what has become expected in the event (many winning 43.8s dating back to 68) .. So nothing spectacular there .. And although a single event is never supposed to be the end all be all it has got to be the only thing Kenteris can hang his hat on .. And while it was "THE OLYMPICS" it was still a weak race .. Anyway, I haven't seen the issue yet, but I am inclined to agree with others that it ain't lookin good so far ... And I am a TFN fan who has every copy printed since I started reading it in high school back in the 70's . Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
netters Allen wrote" > Don't even try to top me Mr. Rohl because I'm on one now. Why would I try Allen? You can only educate the ignorant so much. Then you must let them rot in their own dung and live with the consequences of their own choices.
t-and-f: The storm by the numbers
Netters, I guess we all anticipated the fact that the rankings would smell...welljust a bit rank. In fact after a quick glance I've determined that they absolutely stink. Yeah, so I'm a walker, who cares, right. I actually don't mind a thrower getting the vote, he actually may have deserved it. My main issue is what in the h&*% are these panelist thinking. Here are some interesting numbers #3. Mo, a legit top 5. 2 panelist didn't vote for him, 3 put him 9th. #4. RK, the most dominant year ever by a walker and 2 golds. 6 panelist DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM. #5. Jan the man. Worthy of a lifetime achievement award. 7 panelist didn't vote for him. Excuse me. I'd rather go to account temps for Bob than ask for these idiots credentials. No wonder I stopped subscribing to that piece of trash. There Darrel you have your freakin' storm. I think we both have right to . I'll stop before I go further and violate my conscience and the list. Don't even try to top me Mr. Rohl because I'm on one now. Yours Truly, Allen James Damn Proud member of the GPDW ( a rough slang for us walkers ) At least were not SPR.
