|
|
Post by Derek Smith on Jun 16, 2012 5:16:56 GMT -5
OK so first and foremost i want to thank all people that do rankings. It is a crazy hard job that takes alot of time and dedication. I in no way mean to criticize your methods or come across as negative. I have just been thinking about this for a little while (Josh knows this).
I believe people like 1 of 2 different types or rankings:
Rankings where the 'Ranker' uses his/her Opinion to formulate what they believe is the best rankings. They dont follow an EXACT set of of rules and attempt to fill in gaps by using their judgement (from experience). They try to factor in all variables and create the most fair rankings possible.
OR
Rankings where the 'Ranker' follows a STRICT set of rules like a computer doing the rankings. No excuses no surprises. If the number one guy loses on fouls then he loses his spot. Period. If he gets injured and loses then he loses his spot. End of discussion. No potential for human error or a biased ranking system (not that the current ones are biased but it would eliminate that from ever happening).
I made this poll/thread because i am seeing a growing trend of these 2 types of people. I am interested in seeing what people would view as the correct way to do their own imaginary rankings. I know this has been discussed before but i wanted to make an official thread for it. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Eric Roussin on Jun 16, 2012 9:31:50 GMT -5
A 100% strict rules-based system will not lead to the most representative rankings. A combination of rules, as well as the ability to make adjustments based on other factors (draws, pullers competing in multiple weight classes, etc.) will result in the best outcome. I know the current people doing the In the Hook and WOA World Rankings use a combination of both.
An example would be what happened at the Toronto SuperShow two weeks ago. Tim Bresnan had a phenomenal supermatch with Devon -- a match that clearly took a lot out of both pullers. Soon after their match, just for fun, Tim jumped into the quintuple elimination ironman event where he lost his first match to Mike Gould. Tim had convincingly beaten Mike in a supermatch less than two months prior. Would it make sense for Tim to lose his rank after this loss? I don't think anyone would think that he should. You certainly won't see Josh, Engin, or Fabio making this adjustment.
The rankings will never be 100% accurate, but they are generally pretty close. A strict system based purely on wins and losses wouldn't currently be possible anyway, as some tournament results don't even get posted, let alone the full brackets.
It would be interesting to see what the rankings would look like if it were possible to develop a strict system. I think the result would be that people would think they were less representative than the In the Hook or WOA rankings, but no one would be able to complain given that rules are posted and followed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob Hale on Jun 16, 2012 9:33:59 GMT -5
Armwrestling is so disorganized and has some many random variables (differing formats, guys who pull multiple classes, etc.)that I think having a strickly scientific ranking system is not only impossible but naive. At the end of the day its about who is the best and most of the time there is a lot of guesss work and intuition involved in each decision as well as hard facts.
I personally think the best way to rank AW is to have a committee of 5 guys who follow the sport diligently that would do a monthly conference call to debate and vote on rankings. They would take all things into account and then vote on who they THINK is the best from top to bottom. Odd number ensures no ties.
4 of the 5 guys that come to Mind for such a North American committee would be:
Josh Handland
Todd King
Bob Brown
Eric Roussin
I'm sure there is another guy that would be great but I can't think of any right now.
I think this method would produce rankings that MOST would be happy with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony Edens on Jun 16, 2012 9:47:54 GMT -5
Committee is overrated, Josh does a fine job. If you notice, he always has a reason for where he ranks pullers. He is also open to criticism. Most of the time, the puller questioning their ranking has a flimsy argument.
On a side note: I will say that Jerry Cadorette has a strong case for remaining #1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jacob Hale on Jun 16, 2012 10:00:46 GMT -5
I to think Josh does a fine job and he does always have his reasons for his decisions. I just think 4 other guy's input can only add to the discussion and at the same time take some of the burden of of one guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by TK on Jun 16, 2012 10:15:38 GMT -5
I to think Josh does a fine job and he does always have his reasons for his decisions. I just think 4 other guy's input can only add to the discussion and at the same time take some of the burden of of one guy. i'd agree more opinions are better. Not all will be happy. I would proudly say the SEC works well together to get the proper rankings out there. once we got the right crew in, it's been smooth sailing. TK |
|
|
|
Post by donnycarlise on Jun 16, 2012 10:54:29 GMT -5
We dont do any rankings for rugby we just do personal progress. It works alot better than trying to find out who is ranked what. I have looked at the rankings you all have done and it looks to complicated. Rugby and armwrestling are alot alike with not being a sport that is taken seriously and that has alot to do with how we are all ranked. Personal progress would be more accurate to each of you all
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Barney on Jun 16, 2012 11:46:50 GMT -5
I would say a committee is better than a one man band....... BUT ON MY RUGBY TEAM...!!!! LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Brown on Jun 16, 2012 13:27:28 GMT -5
Well the first thing you need to declare. Is what the ranking system is. Is it who you think would beat who or Opinion based. Or is it who actually beat who or Factual based.
The problem with both is that you dont always get the matches you need to even try to determine either.
Now the bigger problem and this is directed to all the complainers about the rankings. If you dont like them, then do them your self. Good Luck
By the way, I rank myself #1 in the world. In the Master, one legged, 176 lbs class. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Derek Smith on Jun 16, 2012 15:40:59 GMT -5
Well the first thing you need to declare. Is what the ranking system is. Is it who you think would beat who or Opinion based. Or is it who actually beat who or Factual based. The problem with both is that you dont always get the matches you need to even try to determine either. Now the bigger problem and this is directed to all the complainers about the rankings. If you dont like them, then do them your self. Good Luck By the way, I rank myself #1 in the world. In the Master, one legged, 176 lbs class. lol I agree. I could never do the rankings. These guys do a fantastic job. I do like the committee idea though. |
|
|
|
Post by David Owens on Jun 16, 2012 16:21:04 GMT -5
Well the first thing you need to declare. Is what the ranking system is. Is it who you think would beat who or Opinion based. Or is it who actually beat who or Factual based. The problem with both is that you dont always get the matches you need to even try to determine either. Now the bigger problem and this is directed to all the complainers about the rankings. If you dont like them, then do them your self. Good Luck By the way, I rank myself #1 in the world. In the Master, one legged, 176 lbs class. lol I agree. I could never do the rankings. These guys do a fantastic job. I do like the committee idea though. The committee idea can work but it only takes one person with a screwed up opinion to put things out of wack, I say as long as you are using the same rules all the time there is little to explain |
|
|
|
Post by Fabio Nimis on Jun 17, 2012 9:06:42 GMT -5
A 100% strict rules-based system will not lead to the most representative rankings. A combination of rules, as well as the ability to make adjustments based on other factors (draws, pullers competing in multiple weight classes, etc.) will result in the best outcome. I know the current people doing the In the Hook and WOA World Rankings use a combination of both. An example would be what happened at the Toronto SuperShow two weeks ago. Tim Bresnan had a phenomenal supermatch with Devon -- a match that clearly took a lot out of both pullers. Soon after their match, just for fun, Tim jumped into the quintuple elimination ironman event where he lost his first match to Mike Gould. Tim had convincingly beaten Mike in a supermatch less than two months prior. Would it make sense for Tim to lose his rank after this loss? I don't think anyone would think that he should. You certainly won't see Josh, Engin, or Fabio making this adjustment. The rankings will never be 100% accurate, but they are generally pretty close. A strict system based purely on wins and losses wouldn't currently be possible anyway, as some tournament results don't even get posted, let alone the full brackets. It would be interesting to see what the rankings would look like if it were possible to develop a strict system. I think the result would be that people would think they were less representative than the In the Hook or WOA rankings, but no one would be able to complain given that rules are posted and followed. You just made a PERFECT analyses Eric, I couldn't agree more with you, and I respect you a lot as you always show to be one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable guys about armwrestling. Just want to quote also another post written by my brother Giovanni on the facebook John/Engin group, replying to a person who wanted points system saying that Engin's ranking is only by feelings... my brother thinks exactly same as you Eric, as me too : "The armwrestling sport is not like tennis or football ... the results are not enough. There are too many variables. (for example: in the open of the Russian nationals Liliev beat Ciplenkov and Zoloev beat Pushkar, but only after Ciplenkov and Pushkar had had three wars and were tired! If we care only about placements we can't consider these things). To make a good ranking it's necessary to consider both pure results and various variables using knowledge. This is why a points system for rankings would not be accurate for our sport IMO. Yes, not only feeling...but Engin's ranking is not only feeling but also a lot of knowledge. JMO "Any inactive sportman will lose points from not going to a tournaments worldwide regardless the kind of sports."... I agree, but this already happens in Engin's ranking." |
|
|
|
Post by Josh Handeland on Jun 17, 2012 14:45:28 GMT -5
It's funny that everyone is voting for strict, yet everyone voted for "opinion" when it favored one puller in particular (Chaffee). I wish people would make up their minds... and yet, it seems everybody who is actually posting thinks some opinion is necessary (a combination of strickand opinion)...
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon Berriochoa on Jun 17, 2012 16:19:53 GMT -5
Bob took the words right from me... What do you want these rankings to mean.
Are they how the ranker feels the class would go if the top 30 all met in an event?
Or is it more of an earned position in the top ten, based upon some very specific criteria with very limited speculation. So regardless of any ideas of who might go to or come from what class or who might beat whom you live by matches or past matches and go from there. In the absence of contrary knowledge what is known, prevails.
I used to do the rankings for Gord Squire long ago, it is not easy certainly.
I don't believe in the strict because it is impossible, I believe the punch stat numbers don't lie, I believe that how you beat someone matters as well as how they beat others and I believe that if you are going to speculate you have to really understand the interworkings of the classes and the pullers to properly profess who is going to beat whom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Derek Smith on Jun 17, 2012 19:35:51 GMT -5
I personally would go with strict.
I believe it would weed out all doubt and arguments.
If a team in the NFL loses then you dont rank them higher then the winning team because the losing team star player was hurt or because they had different styles.
In MMA they go by wins(i believe). Doesnt matter if the guy has a hurt toe or his girlfriend broke up with him that day or styles. Its who wins, end of discussion.
Same in Nascar. Points system from winning.
I think if you are hurt then dont pull, if you foul out then its your fault nobody elses, if your style doesnt match up well then it sounds like you are screwed.
Going by 'puller A beat puller B today.....buuuuut puller B beat puller C 2 weeks ago in a dominant fashon (who puller A loses to usually) and and puller B had beaten puller A a while ago too. So we will rank Puller B higher still' is flawed IMO. There are wayyyy too many variables for any one person to process to make a TRULY accurate ranking system IMO. What if some guy doesnt have enough money to buy his steroids one month and loses to another guy... Then 2 months later he can afford them and beats a higher ranked guy and moves ahead. We would never know those hidden facts going off opinion alone so you HAVE to go off wins/losses IMO. Or does all the 'rankers' take into consideration the altitude that a puller lives/trains in? That affects their performance as well. Toooo many things to possibly consider IMO.
There could be a million hidden reasons why someone lost or won, wayy too many for someones feelings or opinions to decipher. Things even the puller themselves might now know about. So the only TRUE way to do it IMO would be a SUPER strict set of rules that judges wins and losses ONLY.
I dont mean to offend anyone this is just how i see it. I am wayy too lazy to do my own rankings though, haha. ;D
|
|
