After looking through the 2000 World Rankings issue of TaFNews ... a
magazine I have enjoyed for twenty years, I was reminded of something that
puzzles me every year this issue comes out.
Why did the powers-that-be decide to remove the World and U.S. top-50
performance list from each event ranking? I don't know what year they
stopped the practice but every time I look at an old ranking issue I enjoy
being able to see how the ranker's marks "fit in" to the overall spectrum of
marks for that particular season. It is also nice for those of us who can't
remember the top 1500 marks in history per event to be able to read what the
WR and AR were at the time this Rankings issue came out.
While I am at it: Why did they eliminate the date of competition for each
performance for each World Ranker? It has always seemed to me to be one of
the most interesting aspects of an athlete's season to see the chronology of
their top marks. How close together their top marks were, how early in the
season they set their seasonal best, how late in the season they chose to
compete, how many months between marathons, things like that. As it stands
now, you need to read the seasonal records of rankers with a 2000 Indoor and
Outdoor Schedule to see these things.
Changes like these have made the magazine even MORE of something that is
only of interest to the very HARD-CORE stat-oriented fan ... and less
interesting to those without "inside" knowledge. I, for example, have
little idea what order the major European meets occurred last year. I know
that Monaco was before Brussels ... and that they were all in July and
August ... but when did they REALLY HAPPEN? The Ranking issue used to
illuminate all of this for the fans.
And while I'm at it: Why have the Women's and Men's Rankings issue come out
together?
I know the answer to the first TWO QUESTIONS is probably related to saving
space in the Rankings issue ... eliminate the Seasonal list (put it in the
mag a few months later when the 20001 season is starting) and eliminate the
dates of competition and viola` there is oh-so-much-space left to rank the
women.
But, why not rank the women in the next issue? Leave the dates in, leave
the seasonal lists in and make the Ranking more meaningful.
If you want to sell more magazines (and OF COURSE YOU SHOULD!) having TWO
ranking issues would seem to accomplish that more effectively. I would bet
that most fans are more interested in the Men's Rankings (so they would buy
that issue anyway) then fold the women's issue in with late season XC
results or early season indoor results, then they will buy that too.
I don't ask these questions hoping to get a response from Garry H. or Dan L.
... this is not the right forum for a response from them. I ask it here to
see if anyone else STRONGLY prefers the format that used to be: Dates of
meets included and seasonal lists included on each page.
Also, if anyone can give any compelling reasons why these can't be included
in the Rankings issue right now. It certainly seems that the Rankings issue
would be more meaningful and a better "read" on the season if it were
written the old way.
-Brian McEwen
