In a message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:15:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
<< Garry comes to the list to prove the inconsistency of the rankings comes from
the top.
For every argument he has cited numbers, and races, and even head to head
records. Can you believe it? Head to head records. Those same records they
tell us do not factor heavily in the rankings.
Well, see it depends. It depends on what event, what athlete, and what
argument is put against them. On one hand we have an athlete ranked solely
on his OG performance, but on the other hand we have an athlete that his OG
performance was not a factor at all, and he is ranked, woefully low. I am
talking about Kederis and JD.
Garry, so artfully cited Bernard's season by the numbers, and Conway took
those same numbers and made the picture look markedly different. That is why
the numbers game is a dangerous one. I learned in math that numbers can be
manipulated to mean what you need them to mean. Sorry, that was political
science I learned that in.
The rankings are under attack because they are inconsistent, not because I
disagree with the order. Like DMC said, if the reasons were consistent, I
have an understanding. But the reasons change, and that is the only
consistent thing about them.
DGS
The G.O.A.T.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How can rankings be consistent for all events every year? How each event shakes down
is totally different each year. Some years the top 8 guys go head-to-head a dozen
times. Others, they only might face each other once in the big meet of the year. So
it's impossible to define exactly the criteria for all rankings. You have to look at
how things panned out for that particular event in that particular year.
sideshow (who does not take part in the rankings)
