I think we are beating a dead horse here when it comes to this "legitimate" vs "illegitimate" games discussion. We've all said that
no one wants to lose any games, that Beaumont vs WRR seems to be less of an issue now, and that more and more heavy events meets are being attached to
non-Highland festivals, which frankly I think is needed to keep the sport itself alive. Concerning the Fredericton marks, they threw a full games but when the
database crashed some of the meets haven't been entered yet and Fredericton is one of them. I believe they're still trying to find the scoresheets ..
but hey we all remember our PRs 
Ok some other points so far .....
Pressure vs non pressure games: I think it's easier to throw farther at a games like Pugwash than it is in Antigonish for the simple fact that
you're more relaxed. Antigonish is the largest games on the east coast and it draws huge crowds. But as far as the National rankings go, I think an athlete
should be able to throw as well under pressure because let's face it, the Canadian Championships is a high pressure event. I myself get tense under
pressure (ie Victoria this year). Sean will tell you I was very nervous. This leads into the PR versus average scenario ...
The 5 game rule: We need 5 games to qualify for a National spot. Gord made a comment that he only had 4 games and was considering hosting an ASAA games
to get his 5th. I think this is a slippery slope. Believe me I know how hard it is to try and make all the games with work and a wife and child but if
you're serious about making move for that spot then you should make it to 5 games. I'm sure my wife and daughter would have liked it better that I use
my vacation time on them but they know it's important to me. We can't start making games to fill numbers because what's next? I don't like my
throws this year so I'll start another OSHA sanctioned games to better them? This also leads into the PR versus average scenario ...
PR system versus Average system: This I think is the only thing we should be discussing. Which is a touchy one I'll agree. No one is suggesting, I
don't think, that we can't include our PR's in the database to show people because they were hard earned but should they be used to give out spots
at Nationals anymore? Sometimes big throws can happen when someone has "peaked" at the right time, or they feel relaxed and are having fun, or they
simply catch a good one at that time. We've all been there. But we aren't in track and field with only 1-2 meets to peak at, some of us throw 10-12
comps in a season or even more like Greg so wouldn't consistency over an entire season be more accurate? It's very hard to peak in this situation I
think and stay strong and healthy at the same time. Using Al MacFarlane again as an example, he threw consistently far all season and it's great and he
should be rewarded for it. I'm not trying to take anything away from anyone who had a PR day(s) this summer but should having one stellar games be good
enough to get you a spot at the Canadian Championships over someone who threw consistent all season at 12 games? Or 20 games? What if someone had a rough
season but runs one more sanctioned games and throws PR's all day and snags a spot in the top 10? Do I then have another OSHA sanctioned games out east to
try and get in? This is where the discussion should take place and not with who's games is more legit than the other. At the WRR this year we threw the
same weights that the World Team Event used so....... I think we need to tighten up the rankings, go with an average system and reward consistency.. I'm
not trying to start any pissing matches or cause any bad feelings either, our community is a close and small one but if we're going to discuss this stuff
let's put it all out there.
Adam
Unusual Results - Action Required
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 Ogie |
|||
|
Posts: 192 (09/10/09 11:21:04) |
|
||
|
Curtis |
|||
|
Posts: 5 (09/10/09 11:48:20) |
Thanks for posting the poll Christoph...could I get some clarification before I vote...sorry if it was mentioned in a previous thread. In the case of Warf Rat and Beaumont...was there a judge present who under current CSAF ruling is qualified? (Although I don't really know if that exists...is there a definition of who is qualified to judge? A pro with X number of years experience or is it something more?) Second was there more than 5 competitors? (I think that would stop a person in their back yard with a judge/buddy over for a beer saying they had a 22' WOB) and lastly were all of the weights verified to meet or exceed the current standards for weights. In my humble opinion as long as those three conditions are met the scores should count! I'm not sure why pipers, dancers, money, beer, etc would be relevant although I am fairly new to the sport so maybe there are valid reasons that I'm not aware of. It is important to have some restrictions to make sure some individual isn't just making up numbers with no verification. But too many restrictions will stop new games from starting and the promotion of the sport. I like to imagine new games starting in Cities where the heavies are the showcase and eventually..as interest builds....other components are added (dancing, pipers, etc) On a side note I think more care and due diligence should be taken by the AD's in entering the scores on the database - or at least assigning the task
of entering the scores for the competition to someone else. I end up having to enter most of my own scores because the AD can't or won't enter all of
the scores for the competition. Could this be part of the duties of the qualified judge? It gives the sport more legitimacy when there is a COMPLETE database
with throwers from across Canada from Pro all the way down to the novice or junior who has just finished their very first competition. Speaking on bahalf of
the very new guys it is inspiring and motivating to see your name on a national ranking database! With that said I'm a bit of a database and numbers geek
so I'd be happy to offer my services if any AD's want to send me copies of their results I'd be happy to spend the time adding them on the
database. Thanks! Dean
|
||
|
Slackin Strachan |
|||
|
Posts: 6 (09/10/09 13:22:14) |
Adam,
I understand that there have been problems with the server this summer. Dave Laidlaw has done a good job at setting it up and trying to maintain it. I hate computers myself cause they will crash for reasons unknown to myself. Data gets lost. With Fredricton I know they run a full games and I knew the data would get inputted. I was just using that as an example that could happen. With the issue of Legit vs Illegit. I think everything has been said on the issue. But it is up the CSAF Committee to decide because there are rules already in place that, in my opinion, will have to be amended or not. I still don't agree with the pressure vs non pressure agruement. I throw well in Calgary. It is my home games. I step it up for these games. Grande Prairie I never throw well for 1) first games of the season 2) it is a long drive there and back 3) and with low crowds the focus is just not there. We're just all happy to get out there for another season. I guess what I am saying is that who can decide if one games is no, low or high pressure? Each one of us is completely different! The 'nish is Al's original home games. Maybe that is why he threw better on that day then on any other day. Maybe he had all his family there and he was focused? Maybe another guy in that very same situation would crumble? As for adding additional Association sanctioned games to get enough numbers in. NO. If you know Gord you would know that it was a little tongue in check kind of remark. If the competition was a stand alone comp like our year end event ("The Paul Sims") then is should not count. And let me qualify that a bit more. In the case of Beaumont as it has been mentioned we had sponsor's, had the support of the community, had dancers, etc. We have tried to develop it. One year Jim Garrick also ran a Strongman type of event in addition to the heavy events. In my opinion it is a valid event. If we were to approach the Stampede board about a heavy events to try to develop interest and publicity in the sport ... it should be a valid comp even though it has no other facets of a highland games. It has to be in conjunction with something. But just going out to a field with the boys every weekend to build marks shouldn't be. Even if it is "Sanctioned by an Association". Nobody I know can put together a games at the spur of the moment inconjunction with a non-scottish type festival. There was some grumblings here in Calgary during the CSAF AGM that some OHSA members were not very happy about supporting the comp in Digby. For whatever reasons ... safety, money, etc . So my question is this ... Does your Association as a whole support that competition? If the majority of the membership says yes then it should stand as 1) it had legit weights 2) was in conjunction with another event, festival, etc. 3) I think enough athletes competed but that would have to be looked at by the CSAF committee. Say on July 1st there was a big parade in small town Nova Scotia and there was lots of other local events planned. If your association went out there with 10 guys and put on a competition with legit weights. I would be satisfied that the results could be entered. I think we are on the same page on a lot of this. I just feel the need to express myself to try to get better clarity and discussions going or else decisions will be made that will rip apart everything we have built. As for the averages system. 1) I don't know How, Who, When this type of system will be developed? 2) Is the best 5 games that are averaged? What would the criteria be? 3) Why does the ranking board have to be changed to do a Average Points System over a PR system? Like I said ... it is up to the CSAF Committee to look into this. To look into each individual and their numbers, investigating any "ODD" numbers during the selection process. I do believe they do this to a degree already ??? Maybe it has to be defined so that all athletes know what the exact criteria will be. There is nothing wrong with the database as it stands. But maybe the problem is with the criteria for high level comp's. Which is a whole other discussion that should be addressed without having to change a system that works exactly how we wanted it to when it was developed. Which was to gauge how athletes compare across the country. -Kelly |
||
|
Greg Hadley |
|||
|
Posts: 582 (09/10/09 13:32:12) Here's OPIE! |
Thanks for that, Adam. You took a lot of words out of my mouth and I think cleared up some of the confusion over my previous posts. I agree this issue has
moved away from legit vs. illegit and I think you made some good points.
Kelly, When I said "we understand it's easier to throw at the WFF than it is Antigonish", I wasn't implying anything about implements/judges etc. I simply meant that smaller venues often produce bigger throws, for a variety of circumstances, when compared to events with a stacked line-up, bigger prizes, bigger crowds, etc. I was trying to tie it into a backyard games scenario. You know what I mean? Now I know it's tough to define "pressure", but from what I've seen (check the NASGA rankings with some top pros at smaller games) smaller games often produce bigger distances. Also, my point about restricting results entry was made as an extension to that point. If someone throws in a backyard games, should be they able to enter their results? BUT, as this thread has developed it's obvious that there is no backyard games problem in Canada, but that the ranking board itself could be better. As OSHA prez I'll speak to the grumblings about Digby. I can assure everyone they had nothing to do with the competition side of things. Without getting into too much detail, there were concerns about the financial side of Digby as well as some off-field developments from the past. The competition itself was never a source of grumbling, as far as I know. OSHA fully recognizes Digby and Adam did a great job organizing it. In terms of an averages system, I think Adam really hit the nail on the head with his explanation. An average system would reward a thrower who has thrown consistently well all season. Would this not be a better way to judge the true best? I'll use myself for an example. In 2006 Joel T routinely beat me. I think in the 5 or so times we matched up that year he won 3 of them (I think). I was luck to pull off a win at the Canadian championships but in terms of consistent performance that season, Joel was the better man. Now if Joel and I were battling for that 10th spot at nationals, and it's been established that he has had a more successful season, doesn't it seem fair he should get the invite. In my eyes, an averages system would protect throwers against the 'one freak throw' that causes someone to move up on the ranking board. Criteria would have to be flushed out, of course, but I see a PR system as an inaccurate measurement of the best regardless of level.
Last Edited By: Greg Hadley
09/10/09 13:49:44.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Slackin Strachan |
|||
|
Posts: 7 (09/10/09 15:29:05) |
Greg,
I think that maybe the defination of "Backyard Games" as it relates to what is in the CSAF bylaws is what is really the question was. I am completely happy with accepting the Digby games as is in the database. Based upon you bringing some clarity, in my opinion it is a legit competition. I applaud Adam or any athlete that steps up to organize and run a competition. It can be a tiring, taxing and at time an unrewarding experience ... that is until the competition is running smoothly and the competitors say "Hey good job. We appreciate it. Keep up the good work!" But I still have to disagree with the whole pressure vs no-pressure agrument. Sometimes higher distances are generated because of weather, implements and any other number of reasons. How many times have I heard that Ernst Lead Hammers are "Flyers"? Whippy handles, no rain, and a "Flyer" can be at times enough variation to make it look like it was an easy day... when in fact it could have been the highest pressure competiton and guys were just throwing out of their minds. I'm sure that in any competiton guys are throwing to win. It is the competitive nature of this sport. So every games will have a certain amount of pressure built in. And it will be different from thrower A to thrower Z. I now see the point about the PR vs Average system. I see points for both sides in fact. And it is not an easy fix. BUT I still don't see that it is the ranking board that is the problem. It is the criteria in the selection process. I can see how a guy who regularly throw 100-110 in the LH busting out a 120+ PR throw and then dropping back down to 100-110 for the rest of the season could be a problem. May be that happens in 2 or 3 events for the year. Yeah he'll jump up in the ranking. The thrower should be recognized for having all the pieces come together for that one glorious throw... that one throw that makes you keep coming back. On the PR system you could have one of those Faggy Track guys (that one was for you Sean) start out competing and all they have to do is get down the basics because they excel so fast. Maybe that year he ends with top 10 numbers and then the next year he comes out on fire and launches himself into the top 5 at the beginning of the season and stays there all season. But because the average system was used from the year before he ranked 15th and is now on the outside looking in. Is that fair either? A lot of times the selection process is done to allow athletes adequate time to prepare there schedules for the games. If you are like me you have to submit your vacation schedule in January for the year. But not having a top 5 thrower there takes away from any true championship competition. Of course if he happens to be a local and it doesn't cost much to get him there we could allow him to compete. I don't know if there is a set min/max limit ... there probably is a min but would it hurt to add him? Run 11 instead of 10? If it added to the overall competition that I say allow it. But if he is not a local he's screwed! also not the intention of the CSAF. But in any case that's not really the issue in my opinion. The issue should be this ... How in depth does the selection committee dig into during the EVALUATION PROCESS for a championship? And When? The criteria has to be defined. If it was decided that the selections will be based upon an average of x many games or all the games over a season or whatever. It needs to be evaluated, discussed and defined. The ranking board doesn't need to be changed if the selection committee does it's due diligence and is transparent and fair. Alternates can be identified and named in the case of injuries and so forth. If the committee said thrower B was more consistant over the course of the year even though he "Ranked" behind Thrower A on the database and Thrower B got the invite then it would be fair because the criteria was ESTABLISHED AND KNOWN. I am not debating updating the selection process at all. Maybe it would be a great thing. I am debating the need to change the database as it stands. As an athlete, we want the best on the field. As an partime AD of Calgary I know how hard it is to get money to start flying guys in. And putting on my AD hat ... the committee has to work with the individual games to ensure fairness to both sides. As I count it out now in the "TOP 10" .. 5 are from the maritimes (including a certain westerner who defected ... , 2 from Ontario, and 3 from the
west. #11-13 are also from the maritimes. If at some point it so happened that all of the top 10 were from the east coast I don't know of many games who
could fly everyone out to the opposite coast and or provide a certain standard of prize money mixed with travel money. Ideally the best 10 should be there but
CSAF has to work with the games. But that aside as it happened this year there was 2 reps each from west, east, and maritimes and the rest filled in going down
the ranking list. Now if one of those reps was listed far down the ranking list, not mentioning any names ... Mr Langford, the top 10 aren't all there.
Under any system PR or Average the way it was choosen this year does not matter. Unless that is going to change what is the point!
Maybe we just have to agree to the fact that we disagree on cetain issues ... and that's OK by me. I respect your opinion, just like I hope that others respect mine. -Kelly
Last Edited By: Slackin Strachan
09/10/09 16:17:42.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Greg Hadley |
|||
|
Posts: 583 (09/10/09 15:58:47) Here's OPIE! |
Kelly,
All great points and I certainly respect your opinion. There's no doubt this is a tricky topic and hopefully others will chime in. Maybe the consensus is that the ranking system is fine as it stands, if that's the case that's cool, I'd say it's worked very well to-date. I guess my point of view stems from the fact that competition in Canada has really dialed up in the last few years and I know how bad some of the guys just outside the top 10 are training. Here on the east coast we have several athletes training like mad for an invite to the big show...and I know the same is true in Alberta, Ontario, NB. As our sport continues to grow, it's healthy is evaluate our policies. Just a note on "CSAF bylaws" on what constitues a games, is there even one in place? Christoph? |
||
|
Big Daddy T Bone |
|||
|
Posts: 197 (09/10/09 16:18:38) |
Hey, they're talking about me. Thanks Kelly, great season for me, 9 PBs in 5 events. No gravel in the shoulder joint makes all the difference.
Regarding the Fredericton scores, I think they kind of went by the wayside when the database crashed (Thanks again to Paul and Dave). Dirk tells me they'll go in soon. When they do go in I expect to be sitting in 11th place, some few points behind Sean. Bear that in mind: - I absolutely support our current season-best system (why everyone keeps saying personal best, I don't understand) over an "average" system. For this reason: If Joe Schmoe bombs out a 140' LH in Nunavut next year and doesn't crack 50' in the rest of his games, I don't care. He still threw it 140' and we can't take that away from him. Do your best, get rewarded for your best is the way it should be. Bollocks to the rest. We all know anything can happen on a given day, and if it happened once it can happen again. To the previous point that has been somewhat settled, I'd like to reiterate my support for the Beaumont games and add the same for the Wharf Rat Rally. Am I the only ASAA/OSHA member? I'm a lonely %%*##. |
||
|
Slackin Strachan |
|||
|
Posts: 8 (09/10/09 16:39:50) |
Greg I agree. I added a couple of comments to my above post that I thought about after the fact...
As I count it out now in the "TOP 10" .. 5 are from the maritimes (including a certain westerner who defected ... , 2 from Ontario, and 3 from the west. #11-13 are also from the maritimes. If at some point it so happened that all of the top 10 were from the east coast I don't know of many games who could fly everyone out to the opposite coast and or provide a certain standard of prize money mixed with travel money. Ideally the best 10 should be there but CSAF has to work with the games. But that aside as it happened this year there was 2 reps each from west, east, and maritimes and the rest filled in going down the ranking list. Now if one of those reps was listed far down the ranking list, not mentioning any names ... Mr Langford, the top 10 aren't all there anyways. Under any system PR or Average the way it was choosen this year does not matter. Unless that is going to change what is the point! The competiton level rising is very much a good thing. The CSAF is good for the top level guys but we can't allow the aggressive competitive nature to get ahead of the collective good for the heavy events nationally. I understand that guys are jockeying for positions. A few guys might have been bumped down the database with a few questionable games or questionable rankings and hence the discussions. But under the current selection a guy could be #10 and get bumped to allow a regional rep further down the ranking board to compete as the CSAF committee has a resposnibility to work with the individual games to ensure fairness to both sides. -Kelly |
||
|
Slackin Strachan |
|||
|
Posts: 9 (09/10/09 16:52:21) |
Good points AL they are Season Bests and sometimes they are Personal Bests. I never thought about it that way. The Fredricton scores are already posted. Like I
said it was just meant as an example.
Didn't Sean take away your ASAA card when you moved? No? Well he must like you then! lol I just wanted to add that at no point in this thread have I been mad or angry. I don't want it to come across that way. With the year I have been having I have a lot more things to be bitter about than these discussions. I'm just stating my opinion. If anybody else has anything to add I will be reading but I think I have said all that I can say. Laters, Kelly |
||
|
Greg Hadley |
|||
|
Posts: 584 (09/10/09 16:55:19) Here's OPIE! |
Al,
I guess we should call it the "SPR" system. Season Personal Record. Under what I envision an average-based ranking system looks like, Joe S is still recognized for his bomb hammer throw. But he has to back it up with other great throws if we wants a seat at the table at nationals. Consistency is the name of the game in the heavyevents, so maybe our ranking/selection system should take that more into consideration. Kelly, It's funny with all this back and forth I completely forgot about the CSAF regional rule. That really does further complicate this issue, as I generally support the regional rule. Very good point that regardless of which selection process is in place, the top 10 might not even be there. But, there are another 4 spots that need to come from a ranking board so does this debate still apply? I'm not sure else what I can say,...................................................... except that I want to throw in Nunavut.
Last Edited By: Greg Hadley
09/10/09 17:03:05.
Edited 1 times.
|
||
|
Ogie |
|||
|
Posts: 193 (09/10/09 17:20:59) |
I agree with Greg ... consistency should be the measure plain and simple. It's fair and more accurate IMO.
|
||
|
Big Daddy T Bone |
|||
|
Posts: 198 (09/10/09 17:22:23) |
I disagree, I think throwing heavy things far is the name of the game. And I think that's what should be rewarded here. I think excellence, however
fleeting, should be valued over season long consistency in this case.
The point of the exercise is to throw far. The caveats to this are within the standard rules, with standard weights, with standard judging. I don't understand how another qualifier would give a better representation of who is a better thrower. I guess it's a philosophical difference. In my mind a better thrower is the one that throws farther. If the athlete can't put his game face on when the Championship comes around, that's his problem. I think a season-average system would regiment the rankings much more than they are now, at the cost of excitement and the wild-card factor. Consistency may well win the individual competition, but let's keep a few spoilers in there to keep it interesting. |
||
|
Ogie |
|||
|
Posts: 194 (09/10/09 17:58:29) |
I agree that the name of the game is to throw heavy things far but not to throw it far ONCE. If an athlete can repeat that all season long then he should get
the golden ticket. As far as Joe Shmoe throwing the light hammer 140ft ... ain't gonna happen ... that takes serious commitment and training and usually
the guys that throw distances like that are very consistent all season long to within a couple of feet. The average system would make little difference really
to the top 5 or 6, not a lot of shifting would occur but to the remaining 10 or so in the top 15 this might paint a more accurate picture than the thrower that
has that "one freak toss" as Greg called it. I'm not saying that those huge PR throws aren't impressive because they are and are great to see
but should CSAF reward that toss with a trip to Nationals? I dunno ... maybe, maybe not. To me it's a tough one. Maybe a selection committee should look at
the top 15 and select 10 worthy throwers? Select a couple of consistent athletes to go. To me it's those guys who are the potential spoilers. Either way I
can see this discussion going back and forth with good points made on both sides so maybe we should take this to a vote instead of the Beaumont vs WRR poll?
|
||
|
Big Worm |
|||
|
Posts: 149 (09/10/09 18:42:01) |
Well it's about time for someone from the west coast to weigh in!! I believe we should be doing whatever we can to grow the sport as opposed to shrinking
it. By "growing" the sport, I am talking about recruiting the next generation of athletes from the high schools and I am also talking about
"growing" the sport in terms of increasing the number of games in some areas (BC is a great example) where there are not many at present. It may be
reasonable to establish some minimum CSAF standards (# of athletes, experienced judge,etc), but the last thing I want to see is less games.
Let's face it, we all compete in this sport because we love it! Why else would I go out into the rain and throw a 56# piece of lead around a field!! If our sport is being acknowledged with events in Beaumont and at the Wharf Rat Rally, I think that's fantastic! If Adam has a lead on doing something at an agri fair on the east coast, that's great too. Hell, I might even try to get something going at our agri fair as well!! The more exposure we can get, the better. My point is let's embrace the games that are out there, and let's not go and set up so many rules or make it so challenging (with minimum payments to local associations) that those potential AD's of the future decide that's it just not worth it to start a games of their own. Would I like to see more games in BC in the future, HELL YEAH!! So I'm going to do whatever I can to support that goal. Carl AD, Victoria Highland Games Assoc. |
||
|
Berle |
|||
|
Posts: 1 (09/10/09 20:01:53) |
Great debate guys.
I think I like the average system. Although I suspect it wouldn't really change the standings too dramatically. Assuming that we could convince someone to do all the necessary programming, what would it hurt to try it for a season? Or for that matter, run it concurrently with the existing system and compare. As for limiting the 'sanctioned' games. I can't speak for the east or west, but here in Ontario, we don't all have the luxury of competing in any games we choose. I for one am still trying to figure out what the secret handshake is to get into many competitions in Ontario. So, if you restrict the number of competitions that qualify, then who determines who gets to throw at those qualifiers? I think we should reconsider our current train of thought. Having Pipers and dancers as necessary components of heavy events seems a bit to me like requiring figure skaters at hockey games. And I'm pretty sure that the dancers and pipers would continue on just fine if the heavies weren't at their competitions. I think we should be considering the following things: Promotion of the sport and throwers: Is the competition a steady annual event that spectators can attend? Is it advertised? Are competitors chosen fairly?. Is there opportunity for up and coming throwers to gain experience and exposure? (amateurs, women) Safety: Are there hammer cages? Safe distances between the throwers and spectators? Is the event insured? Are the throwers insured? (has anybody ever considered the legal ramifications of the CSAF sanctioning an event where a thrower lobs a hammer into the crowd? Can we be mentioned in the lawsuit?) Is there alcohol present? (not unusual in backyard games) Rules: Is there qualified judging and score keeping, Are proper implements being used? Are the rules strictly enforced? The answers to these questions I believe are the guidelines that we should be endorsing Berle |
||
|
Slackin Strachan |
|||
|
Posts: 10 (09/10/09 21:24:40) |
Adam I think it is too soon to take this to a vote! This issue has only been brought to the forefront for 2 days now. In order for a vote all scenarios need to
be researched, discussed and agreed upon before a vote can be made to determine what is better. Come'on meow. Really a vote? Already? Have you really
looked at the database?
I will use the light hammer as an example because the farther the distances the greater the ranges. One might be inclined to do a percentage comparison rather than distances but it is easier for now to look at the spread in feet. So ... Looking at Greg's light hammer results this year are as follows in order as the happened ... 133, 121, 136, 128, 129, 131, 138, 128, 133. Now he is the record holder and has the potential to be in the 140's on any given day. But he really isn't hitting the same number within a foot or two or three every single time out. Those numbers are a 17 foot spread. I mean he's good but it just goes to show my point. How do you propose that an average is calculated? What games do you pick? Greg is an unusual case because he does go to alot of games every year but his consistency is not within a couple of feet all season long. And not everybody has the luxary of being invited or attending as many games as he does. Now let's look at say oh.... Matt D. His LH #'s are 115, 122, 126, 125, 127. 12 foot spread. Another guy we can look at ... Dirk's are from 110 to 121. 11 foot spread. JJ's are 120 to 129 for a 9 foot spread. Christoph has a 104 to 118 for a 14 foot spread. Joey T has a 109 to 121 spread which is not much different to Dirk. Berle has a 106 to 116. You yourself have a 108-118 spread. Sean has a 102 to 119 which is a larger spread but he was also coming off of a lower back injury that really hampered him last year. Now he is getting back into top form and getting back to the level that he was a couple of years ago. Are his marks not consistent enough that the average should have to be factored in? A guy shouldn't be punished for coming off an injury. It could happen to any of us. So I pose this question ... According to this data who is considered as having a better average? Who really is the most consistent? Who is the better thrower? All the way down the list I'm sure you will see this trend over and over again! Why? Well for most of us the first couple of games are for shaking the rust off. Hell... It can snow out this way during our first couple of games. I'm sure that is the case across every region. If your games are all front end loaded early in the season your averages will be lower then the guy who has the majority of his games after July 1st. That doesn't sound fair to me. It could be any situation. A guy starts and ends off good but has a couple of bad games where is on the lower end of his range. For any reason bad weather, different implements, etc. Maybe guys peak at other times ... It doesn't really matter to me.... Again I am not trying to be a dink but I am really trying hard to see what the issue is with a "season best" ranking. I am taking a very hard look into the system and trying to understand your concerns. -Kelly |
||
|
Ogie |
|||
|
Posts: 195 (09/11/09 02:36:30) |
I hear you Kelly and each time you've posted you've made some great points. My suggestion of a vote was simply to gauge everyone's thoughts on the
matter because not everyone has chimed in and as far as this having only been discussed for 2 days, we had a vote proposal for Beaumont vs WRR after only one
day .... we could easily discuss this PR vs an average system for weeks or longer.
I agree that Greg, myself, Matt, etc.... haven't all hit hammer distances within a few feet each time (in any event) and there are several reasons for this that we all know, my reason for bringing that up was in response to Al's "Joe Shmoe" hitting 140ft in the light hammer, which is probably not going to happen but if it did and you look at it from the "one freak throw" scenario, his distances might look like this .... 97ft, 102, 105, 98, 110, 140, 105, 95 .... when you're at Greg's level and throw in 25 games a season there's bound to be some separation like his but is a 121-138ft really the same as 95-140ft? Why not take the 5 best games an athlete has and average it? It'd be difficult I agree with the open stone and caber because we use different weights sometimes but for the other events using legit weights what's the big deal? As Berle said "what would it hurt to try it for a season"? Maybe something could be done with the caber and stone, I dunno. If it doesn't work then scrap it. If you're a thrower who only makes it to 3 games a season well then you're out of luck with the 5 game rule but most of us throw in at least 8-10. We all have bad games and good games, I myself don't throw well in the extreme heat and humidity in July/August so my distances are usually better in June and then again in September which sucks because we only have 1-2 games in September. So ... again average your 5 best games and roll the dice. I'm not in Nationals next year as the rankings stand and I still might not be if we go to an average system but in the interest of fairness I'm willing to explore it. I don't think you're being a dink Kelly, everyone who knows you speaks highly of you but if "it doesn't really matter to me" as you said in other posts why do you have so many concerns with the idea? Some of us, including myself, have already said it probably won't change things drastically. There isn't a huge point spread between the 15th ranked thrower and the 10th so let's look at another event as an example .... the 56WFD. Say an athlete who's ranked 10th has consistently thrown the 56# 33-35ft all season and a guy only 20pts behind him in 13th has thrown it 31ft all season ... both good tosses. Now say this 13th ranked thower goes to a local games with a nice little downhill slope, we've all had that and we all say "use the field you're given", and all other things being perfect that day he pops out a 36ft and bumps that guy in 10th into11th and he jumps into 10th? That 36ft toss is a great toss ... he still had to spin with it, throw it, block himself and not foul ... but is he a better thrower than the guy who has been consistent all year? And what if this new ranked 10th thrower goes to a games the next weekend and throws 31ft again? Oh well? I myself had a throw like that in 2007. I had great day threw a big PR in the 56 @ 35'10ft, was fired up and thinking "man I can throw this thing now". Feeling confident I went to my next games the very next weekend and threw 28ft! But my 35'10 bumped a couple guys ahead me. Now my 35'10 was a big toss for me but was it better than the guy I bumped who threw it consistent all season? It might not work at all who knows, we still haven't even checked with the computer guys to see if it's possible but it's doesn't hurt to try.
Last Edited By: Ogie
09/11/09 04:22:06.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
Slackin Strachan |
|||
|
Posts: 11 (09/11/09 05:56:37) |
Adam,
I really don't care how the selections are made but I care about the database. If I make it out to only 3 games in a year and the first one is the May long weekend where I throw absolute *#$# all day long ... why should I have my marks downgraded for the year? If I throw the LH 82, then increase that to 87 and then get close to my PR at 93 it makes a difference to me. My average is now back at 87 but I threw 93. It does affect me personally in that regard. But in terms of being considered for a championship event it won't matter to me and I think that is why it is being proposed. ALSO... Your proposal for an average system benefits the guys that get's out to more than 5 games. Not everybody can compete in 8-10 games a year. Not even everybody in the top 15. So now certain guys have 3-5 more possible games to increase their average. The more data points that you can pull from gives you a greater advantage. The guy that makes it to 10 games can have one or two bad days while the guy that can only get to 5 can't have any! That is my point. If you think that an average system will level the playing field .... it won't. In fact a better representation is a ranking of each games. Maybe a guy has one bad event in a day but is consistent all day long in the other events. Maybe that changes to another event later on in the season and again after that. Was he consistent on a games to games basis? Enough to win or consistently be in the top running of each competition? Maybe instead of averaging the total distances for 1 event and repeating for all events a better system will be to evalute how a thrower is in each games. All of the events thrown that day. Maybe a decathlon system. If a guy is placing 1st or 2nd all day long and then hurts himself in the last event and has to pull out why should that one low mark affect his standing? Especially if he only gets to 5 games. Guys who are in the top 15 are all very good throwers. They are there for a reason and the chances that the "ONE FREAK THROW" guys can show up are possible but they are obviously strong in all the events to be in the top 15. Like I said I AM NOT against examining the selection process and criteria but I am against changing the database as it stands. And I am agruing the point because I see an average based ranking as being full of flaws. Until somebody comes up with a specific proposal and convinces me otherwise I am against it. -Kelly |
||
|
Frozenkilt |
|||
|
Posts: 1848 (09/11/09 06:26:28) |
Ogie wrote:Name another sport where it's used. I'll wait
I don't agree with the average system. Because it's not the way reality works. You have 3 cruddy years and one brilliant one, what do they call you? Olympic Gold Medal winner. You win 16 games straight, but lose one, guess what? You don't get a Superbowl ring. Any Given Saturday, boys. And all of us know it. |
||
|
Ogie |
|||
|
Posts: 196 (09/11/09 06:33:30) |
Thanks Kelly.
Yes, I think the reason for suggesting the change to an average system was simply improve the selection process for Nationals and not to down grade anyone's throws or PR's on a given day. Don't take any of this personal man, it's never been about diminishing any one throwers hard work. We all work hard in the winter and hope it pays off in season. Like I said, the idea of an average based system was put out there for discussion, some liked it and some haven't. It was proposed, and it wasn't my proposal to begin with but I supported it, to help reward consistency for a spot at Nationals and sure it maybe a flawed idea but our present system of ranking throwers to some of us is also flawed so if there is a third option (like you mentioned) or a 4th or 5th let's discuss it
In one of my previous posts I already said .. "maybe a selection committee should look at the top 15 and select 10 worthy throwers? Select a couple of consistent athletes to go" ..... is that a viable option? I don't know. Or maybe take the top 12 or 15 in Canada to the Big Show if the venue's budget can support it? We don't have to look at only one option ..... |
||
