|
|
Post by matman on Feb 21, 2024 22:35:42 GMT -5
I think head to head should factor in. I also think if someone thinks they can do better they should hop in and do it
|
|
luffy
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by luffy on Feb 22, 2024 2:21:08 GMT -5
I think head to head should factor in. I also think if someone thinks they can do better they should hop in and do it H2H should be one of the biggest factors. Everything else is opinion. Style matters so to say well tho kid lost to this kid worst is not a good argument. With that being said I absolutely would not want to do rankings. It’s a no win situation |
|
|
|
Post by jrwrestle on Feb 22, 2024 19:52:58 GMT -5
Rankings are, in essence, seedings. I think you'll find the majority of tournaments do not specifically factor head to head or only factor it as a tiebreaker. There is a place for it but to say that rankings should be based on it for even that it should be a major factor I think isn't true to the spirit of a looking at an overall body of work.
How long ago was the head to head? In other words, what's the window of relevance? What was the significance of the event? Was one sick, or having a bad day?
A good example has been touched on several times in the past few weeks with a couple of pretty good middle weight kids. One beat the other 6 months ago. A week after that the winning wrestler went 0-2 at Super 32 while the losing wrestler went 4-2. Just looking at that small window in a vacuum, as somebody who has ranked and seeded tournaments, I'm not sure that a head-to-head result becomes the PRIMARY factor. And certainly six months later it's difficult to say what that means.
At the end of the day people doing the rankings here are putting in a lot of work and can be either subjective, or objective. But it can't be both and be accurate to everyone. Head to head is an objective measure. Body of work is in the eye of the beholder.
Keep up the great work to our rankers!
|
|
luffy
New Member
Posts: 46
|
Post by luffy on Feb 23, 2024 7:23:01 GMT -5
Rankings are, in essence, seedings. I think you'll find the majority of tournaments do not specifically factor head to head or only factor it as a tiebreaker. There is a place for it but to say that rankings should be based on it for even that it should be a major factor I think isn't true to the spirit of a looking at an overall body of work. How long ago was the head to head? In other words, what's the window of relevance? What was the significance of the event? Was one sick, or having a bad day? A good example has been touched on several times in the past few weeks with a couple of pretty good middle weight kids. One beat the other 6 months ago. A week after that the winning wrestler went 0-2 at Super 32 while the losing wrestler went 4-2. Just looking at that small window in a vacuum, as somebody who has ranked and seeded tournaments, I'm not sure that a head-to-head result becomes the PRIMARY factor. And certainly six months later it's difficult to say what that means. At the end of the day people doing the rankings here are putting in a lot of work and can be either subjective, or objective. But it can't be both and be accurate to everyone. Head to head is an objective measure. Body of work is in the eye of the beholder. Keep up the great work to our rankers! You make some good points but Super 32 is a bad example. If you are not seeded at super 32 or events like it. Then luck is one of the biggest factors. |
|
