WORLD RANKING - Updated for April 2002

[dEaDfRoG]

I like Kirsty too, but lets face it, with a famous dad there's very little chance of her flopping them out for a wankmag or anything like that.

[Ely]

Hmm, i opened this 10th Page about World Rankings only to find a change Topic that is much more interesting. Seeing as we're putting top 3s in i'll have ;

1. Deborah Gibson
2. Jennifer Love Hewitt
3. Katie Holmes

World Rankings ?? Who cares <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">

[Robert]

Argh! I forgot Liv Tyler! How could I?

Pre-Fellowship of the Ring (i.e. Armageddon) she was generally OK, but since her appearance as 'Arwen' she has climbed rapidly up my personal rankings. I would probably insert her at rank 1.5 after Hurley.

[JamesHBeard]

Glad to see Liv Tyler is getting a bit more respect on this forum. She has been one of my faves since I saw her on Armageddon.

God darn its so hard to choose 3 especially after Ely has reminded me about Katie Holmes and Jennifer Love Hewitt.

World Rankings ???? Women rankings are far more interesting... <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif">

[Robert]

Katie Holmes! NOOOO!

'GO' is flooding straight back to me! How do I sort these women? Some kind of points system is inevitable. But what would the categories be?

[JamesHBeard]

3 points for an A cup and 4 points for a B cup bra.. <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif">

[alkis21]

On 2002-04-02 09:38, VKafiris wrote:

So I say we stick with it at the moment and enhance Robert's idea by adding our opinions in a realistic basis without bearing in mind our individual indulge.

The obvious problem with that is that Robert has so far accepted no other opinions. Sure, he listens to everyone, but he hasn't changed anything and it doesn't look like he will. He thinks his system is perfect.
What we all seem to forget is that when FIFA decided to make a World ranking, they already had a huge number of matches and competitions to process. We only have two competitions. I got very few points because all my victories in Dartford were against unranked players, and so were most in Athens. Bill and Rikki got a shitload of points for beating the same players in Gloucester. How fair is that?
Just so you don't think my only objections are about my place, I'll give you another example. Rikki and Bill have participated in the same tournament. Rikki was first and Bill second, yet in the ranking Bill is first. If that doesn't prove how wrong Robert's rules are, then I don't know what does. I don't care if Robert gives me a huge spreadsheet with analysis and factors and equasions, it's obvious that it's wrong. I'm not so bad with numbers myself; just because someone scribbles some on a piece of paper and makes a spreadsheet, it doesn't prove they're right. Competition winners should be awarded a large number of points, just like FIFA.
Ok, Robert went through all the trouble to make a ranking. He deserves a treat. But that doesn't mean that what he did is correct and that we should all accept it as gospel. Those among you who have been in the KOA long enough know that I have worked my ass off for this community myself, but I don't see you agree with everything I say.

[SimonB]

Although I'm no expert I guess Bill is ranked above Rikki because they fiished the league with almost the same stats and yet:
<ul>
<li>Bill beat Rikki in the league and cup competitions
<li>Rikki was knocked out of the cup competition in the quater finals - hence Bill played 2 more games against Dartford ranked opponents
<li>Bill scored more goals
</ul>
Is this starting to make sense now Alkis?

In fact if you'd bothered to read ANY of the other posts you would have noticed that half way down the very first page - this is all explained - so I suggest you go back over the other 10 pages and see where this discussion has already been before you start your criticism.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SimonB on 2002-04-02 22:49 ]</font>

[JamesHBeard]

Alkis,

Surely you should look at Roberts system and suggest ways of making improvements to it.

That way we all get to discuss it rationally and if we all think there are definate changes that will improve Roberts system I know that Robert will change it accordingly.

Robert has used sound mathematical principles, there is no fiddling going on but what the KOA must decide is wether his principles are correct.

If the principles are not correct we should democratically suggest changes to his BETA version until we get one that suits us all and is not biased towards any member of the KOA.

At present I am examining the impact of using an iterative method on the original Dartford results and will post my findings when I complete my analysis.

We have to start somewhere and Robert is in a good position to produce the spreadsheets for us.

[Wonka]

I have to support Alkis on this one. For example, Alkis being 5th is just pathetic, not to mention Bill being ranked higher than me after I have won every tournament I have entered with him, and beating Bill on an all day event in his own home. I personally think these rankings are a load of bollocks and this topic should be dropped. We all know roughly what the rankings are through playing people, seeing results in gatherings and tournaments, and playing each other. This topic should be dropped and I can't believe it has used 11 pages. We obviously have a top 6 which consists of Alkis, Bill, George, FoxSoft, Mr Dig and myself. The order is certainly debatable. Now that's a good debate, who is the best of the elite!

[kofoed]

On 2002-04-02 22:20, alkis21 wrote:
Just so you don't think my only objections are about my place, I'll give you another example. Rikki and Bill have participated in the same tournament. Rikki was first and Bill second, yet in the ranking Bill is first. If that doesn't prove how wrong Robert's rules are, then I don't know what does. I don't care if Robert gives me a huge spreadsheet with analysis and factors and equasions, it's obvious that it's wrong. I'm not so bad with numbers myself; just because someone scribbles some on a piece of paper and makes a spreadsheet, it doesn't prove they're right. Competition winners should be awarded a large number of points, just like FIFA.

firstly the fifa ranking is the absolute worst example of a sports ranking it is not to be trusted for one bit. (Columbia 5th, United States 13th(compared to England 12th)....

http://www.fifa.com/rank/index_E.html

secondly I don't see why rikki should have so many more points from winning the gloucester league event compared to Bill as he won by goaldifference (2 goals)

also he didn't win the cup competition.(he therefore hasn't won every competition with Bill in it.)

[alkis21]

I did read all the pages, Simon, and I do understand why Bill is above Rikki according to Robert's rules. I'm just disagreeing with them (the rules). If you read my last post again, you'll see that my main points are the following:

-Competition winners should get a lot of extra points
-Beating, say, James Beard on November should give you the exact points as beating him on March.

Do they sound wrong to you? (you=all, not Simon).

[Robert]

For the information of anyone who gives a toss, Alkis and I have had an exchange of emails on this subject. There's dialogue, but it's not exactly promising while he stands by this belief that I started this whole project, and resisted any changes, just so I could make him 5th.

Now, at the risk of seeming like I actually care about this topic, Alkis has actually made some concrete points in his earlier post. It's certainly an improvement on the original
"WAAAAAAAAHHHH! WHY I AM NOT TOP! YOU'RE OUT TO GET ME!!!" post.

I have been accused of not answering criticism, so here I go:

Q1. "What we all seem to forget is that when FIFA decided to make a World ranking, they already had a huge number of matches and competitions to process. We only have two competitions. I got very few points because all my victories in Dartford were against unranked players, and so were most in Athens. Bill and Rikki got a shitload of points for beating the same players in Gloucester. How fair is that?"

ANSWER:
YES! It is not fair! We agree on something. This brings into question two principles of the rules; the ranking differential, and the entry level. People seem generally happy with the ranking differential principle (i.e. high ranked players get low points for beating low ranked players, low ranked players get high points for beating high ranked players). So - the issue is the entry level.

The system is designed to accept new players at any time. Everyone starts with a blank record at mean level: 1000. To start someone below this is to handicap them. To start someone above is to favour them. People are defined only by their results, not their reputation. Before Dartford, no-one knew anyone, we were thrown in random unseeded groups. Everyone had an equal start. To start people with 'favoured' or 'handicapped' rankings is against the spirit of our launch event - all men are created equal.

The proposal would be, that we start Gianluca (example) with 1400 points, because we know he is great at KO2. We start Ely (example) with 700 because he's more bothered about filming. As long as we still average 1000 per player, then the system still works fine. And, isn't it great, if Ely beats Gianluca in Dartford, he gets double points! If Gianluca beats Ely, he only gets half points! Yes! It's working!

But - wait a minute - during the competition, Gianluca picks up 400 points. Ely loses 400. So, as we finish, Gianluca is now on 1800 and Ely on 300. Ely can feel a little pissed off with this I think. He deserved to lose the 400; but exactly why must he start with 300 less than average and 700 less than Gianluca? Gianluca hasn't earned all his points! And whose decision was it to give Gianluca 1400 starting? Was it a committee? Who are they? What gives them the right? How long did it take them to agree it?

Another issue: Alkis wants more points for beating George in Athens. But George went into Athens with 1000 points. We could have entered George at 1500 points but on whose say-so? Someone who started Dartford on 1000 and won 500 extra by playing great, might think, who the hell is this guy, that we give 500 points for nothing? And everyone that you overrate, you have to underrate someone else. Hi Durban, you start with 500 points. We decided it. Now fuck off and lose some more.

Guys, all of you, I really thought long and hard about this, and decided the simplest, purest, fairest way to solve this problem is for everyone to start on 1000 points. I accept that it is unfair to the stars of Dartford, but I TOTALLY REJECT that I designed it with this motive.


2. "Just so you don't think my only objections are about my place, I'll give you another example. Rikki and Bill have participated in the same tournament. Rikki was first and Bill second, yet in the ranking Bill is first. If that doesn't prove how wrong Robert's rules are, then I don't know what does.....Competition winners should be awarded a large number of points, just like FIFA."

ANSWER:
OK a reasonable point here - partly answered by Simon above. Note that the League Table was almost exactly equal: wins, draws, losses were identical and goals for/against were almost identical. There was little to seperate the guys in the league.

Note also the following:
1) In his two games against Rikki, Bill won. He gains points for this, at Rikki's expense.
2) Bill lost two games - to S.Camber and N.Choudhury. Both were ranked higher than him. So his losses are reduced.
3) Rikki lost two games - to M.Angus and Bill. Both were ranked lower than him. So his points loss is increased.

*****
3b)Hello! Remember this is how we designed the rules??????
*****

4) Although the league was on a knife-edge, Bill won the cup, accumulating a load of points for this, and beating Rikki along the way.

On the basis of the above, this explains how Bill took more points from the tournament. It is not an opinion, just the rules we agreed in application.

Onto Alkis's second point: Tournament winners should get a 'bonus' of points, for the fact that they are THE WINNER.

Well, this challenges another of the core rules: no points are 'created', they are only transferred between players.

Why do we have this rule? At the start, we discussed how many points a win, draw, loss, and goal were worth. There was a loud opinion:
"People who travel around and played the most games will get the most points!" This was unfair on those who couldn't compete regularly. So, I listened to this and applied the principle that every gain for one player is a loss for another. That way, there is no 'points inflation'. You don't get points just for turning up. This means that the total points in circulation is always players/1000 (their initial ranking).

Therefore, tournament winners basically get their points by beating other players. And nothing else.

The way it works out, with goal difference, ranking differentials (i.e. all the other rules we put in) *it may not always be that the tournament winner picks up the most points.* Think about it, if the 1st placed player starts on 1500 points, he may pick up 100 extra. But, the runner up - he may have started on a really crappy ranking of 500, but he played brilliantly, beating some great players. Clearly his ranking needs improvement. So he may pick up 450 points along the way in his victories. Meanwhile the 1500 guy doesn't gain much, he already has a high ranking and has only proved that he deserves to be there.

Now, the suggestion is that we allocate extra points, maybe for 1st, 2nd, 3rd place etc. Nice idea. But where do the points come from? Do we double the points gained in the final? But that means taking twice as many off the losing finalist! Is this fair on him? So where else do we find them? Maybe we could 'tax' everyone entering the tourney 10 points, to make a pool of 320 for the winners. It's an idea. So what do we say to the guys who played OK but not great, and didn't lose any points except the 10 tax? They lost points just for coming! The winner beat them all anyway, he's already taken points from them, why should he get some more?


I don't like being accused of not listening. I listened from the start and tried to please everybody. If I don't answer complaints thoroughly, you may see why. I just had to write 2000+ words to justify the system all over again, because it has bruised some ego. I have a day job you know.

It reaches the point where, like the tournament rules, you think "This will never be perfect, there are difficult choices involved, but this is the best we can do. Let's publish the ranking, and discuss why it has come out like that." This is exactly what I did, but then immediately I get a hate campaign by a number of people who think I conspired to write the whole thing to upset them. Why God, Why!

I have sent the spreadsheet to nearly 10 people. None of you have sent it back with any modifications. All I get is "I don't like my ranking." Because I believe in the system *we* agreed (that's right, it was a debate) I have explained the reasons for some rankings.

All I can say is that, if you propose a change to the system, be thorough in your proposal and make sure it doesn't have worse flaws of its own.

I ENCOURAGE people to make their own, better systems - I am quite happy to send anyone all the results for the 7 tournaments, to save you some effort. You have my email address, which is also the best option if you want to start a character assassination. I can always press delete. As I'm not a moderator, I don't have that power on here.

Thanks all

Robert

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Robert Swift on 2002-04-03 01:05 ]</font>