In a message dated Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:55:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< I was looking
through the magazine and saw something you would particularly dislike. Sharon Couch
whom probably lost almost all head to heads with Anjanette Kirkland got ranked ahead
of her. Kirkland beat Couch all over the world this year (not to mention a faster
seasons best). I am assuming that she was picked ahead of her by virtue of her place
on the Olympic Team>>
Allow me to suggest you go back and read p. 11 of the magazine, where it lists the
criteria we use (and have used for more than 50 years) in order to determine the
Ranking order. You have cited the two of least import (head-to-head meetings and
times). How you perform in big meets is the big one, often outweighing the other two
categories combined.
Yes, Jewell did make the Olympic team, but just by making the Sacto final (which
Kirkland didn't) was of equal import. And Jewell went onto finish 5th in the
season-ending GP Final. How did she get to the final? By performing better than
Kirkland in the year's GP meets.
Jewell had placings of 1-3-3-6-6-7-7-7
Kirkland placed 2-2-5-5-5-8
Which set looks better to you?
Having said that, I can look at the Rankings and probably make a fairly convincing
argument to reverse them. They're that close. But to suggest that the ordering as it
was somehow constitutes a crime against humanity is just silly.
A gruesome decision, as I said earlier in a private post to Darrell, is Boldon not No.
1 in the 200. I don't see how he couldn't have been, but I don't have 51% of the votes.
gh
