T&FN Favourite Athletes THE RESULTS No1 Haile Gebrselassie

[LopenUupunut]

Favoritism is an entirely subjective choice for personal reasons.. how can that be debateable?

Surely subjective choices are more open to debate than objective choices would be?

[Conor Dary]

Favoritism is an entirely subjective choice for personal reasons.. how can that be debateable?

Surely subjective choices are more open to debate than objective choices would be?

Unless someone chose an athlete who was a criminal or something similar a favorite is a personal choice. One of my choices was Bob Deines. How do you debate that? He wasn't good enough?
That we should only choose famous athletes. And you don't like some of them?

[72]

Since " favourite" means somebody preferred to another or others there will be favourites chosen for any number of reasons, some silly, some trite and some for objective reason such as their performances, domination, medals, victories, long time at the top, etc.

Mump never stated what consideration/s you must give for your choice, so we all put up those athletes that we prefer for whatever myriad reasons; personally I enjoyed thinking about excellence, and just deserts for my choices, but it will be of great satisfaction to see who the top ten at least are.

[kuha]

Favoritism is an entirely subjective choice for personal reasons.. how can that be debateable?

Surely subjective choices are more open to debate than objective choices would be?

That's exactly wrong. With "objective" choices, the criteria can at least be put on the table and more or less agreed to--"debate" is therefore meaningful. With subjective choices, there are NO common criteria, no consistent measure of significance. One can only explain ones own choices; there can be no meaningful "critique" of anyone else's choices or comparison from one set of choices to another. The "favorites" list says everything about the person doing the choosing, and far less about the "history of the sport." And that's the point.

[Pego]

Up to 13 of my 20 have a legit chance to be among the overall tops. If my top 2 don't make it, i'll kick and scream. .

[LopenUupunut]

Surely subjective choices are more open to debate than objective choices would be?

That's exactly wrong. With "objective" choices, the criteria can at least be put on the table and more or less agreed to--"debate" is therefore meaningful. With subjective choices, there are NO common criteria, no consistent measure of significance. One can only explain ones own choices; there can be no meaningful "critique" of anyone else's choices or comparison from one set of choices to another. The "favorites" list says everything about the person doing the choosing, and far less about the "history of the sport." And that's the point.

You're right, it does indeed help a debate if it has some objectivity to give it a framework. But it also needs a huge helping of subjectivity, otherwise the whole thing would die in its cradle.

Imagine a purely objective question, like a Fastest-100m-Woman-of-All-Time "debate"... totally spoiled by the presence of too much objectivity. Everyone "picks" Florence Griffith-Joyner, the objective choice, end of matter. Not only is there no debate, there's no discussion of any kind.

By comparison, look at a Greatest-of-All-Time discussion. Somebody prefers Ashford over Göhr. That's a subjective pick. Another guy prefers Göhr as GOAT. That's also a subjective pick. There's room for a discussion because neither of them is objectively right... page after page after page, year after year. True, they're both objectively sensible picks, but if it wasn't ultimately down to subjectivity the debate would be a lot less interesting.

Or imagine a "best book ever" thread. No common objective criteria whatsoever, but plenty of room for explaining choices, discussing choices, debating the relative merits and upsides of various books. With a bit of luck people might even learn something.

Perhaps this thread has too much of a good thing, but purely subjective picks leave a lot more room for discussion afterwards than purely objective picks would.

[mojo]

Par..tee on the T&F News board.

You guys know how to have fun!


Thanks to my boys mump and flumpy for hosting this event.


I picture you drunk on a beach...but then that is how I always picture you two. No one can accuse you two of not knowing how to have fun.

[kuha]

Surely subjective choices are more open to debate than objective choices would be?

That's exactly wrong. With "objective" choices, the criteria can at least be put on the table and more or less agreed to--"debate" is therefore meaningful. With subjective choices, there are NO common criteria, no consistent measure of significance. One can only explain ones own choices; there can be no meaningful "critique" of anyone else's choices or comparison from one set of choices to another. The "favorites" list says everything about the person doing the choosing, and far less about the "history of the sport." And that's the point.

You're right, it does indeed help a debate if it has some objectivity to give it a framework. But it also needs a huge helping of subjectivity, otherwise the whole thing would die in its cradle.

Imagine a purely objective question, like a Fastest-100m-Woman-of-All-Time "debate"... totally spoiled by the presence of too much objectivity. Everyone "picks" Florence Griffith-Joyner, the objective choice, end of matter. Not only is there no debate, there's no discussion of any kind.

By comparison, look at a Greatest-of-All-Time discussion. Somebody prefers Ashford over Göhr. That's a subjective pick. Another guy prefers Göhr as GOAT. That's also a subjective pick. There's room for a discussion because neither of them is objectively right... page after page after page, year after year. True, they're both objectively sensible picks, but if it wasn't ultimately down to subjectivity the debate would be a lot less interesting.

Or imagine a "best book ever" thread. No common objective criteria whatsoever, but plenty of room for explaining choices, discussing choices, debating the relative merits and upsides of various books. With a bit of luck people might even learn something.

Perhaps this thread has too much of a good thing, but purely subjective picks leave a lot more room for discussion afterwards than purely objective picks would.

I believe you are confusing the realm of "factual questions" with "judgments based on facts." It is a fact that Flojo has history's fastest time. There's no debate or opinion on that fact. There is, however, plenty of debate and opinion on the value or merit of that time, and even more on the question of "the greatest women's 100m runner in history." But even the latter is based on criteria that we can all deal with--won/loss record; longevity; honors won; fastest times; etc.

The question of "who is your favorite women's 100m runner" has no such objective criteria: it could be Flojo, or it could be your college girlfriend. Every choice in this question is "valid" precisely because there is no clear and consistent set of criteria at work.

So there are at least 3 categories at work here:
-purely factual matters, defined very narrowly
-judgments about relative merit, based on a clear, consistent, and shared set of objective criteria: debate and discussion are completely appropriate here
-utterly personal judgments, based on no clear, consistent, or shared criteria: explanations may be in order, but there cannot really be "debate" since there is no common ground for discussion

[DecFan]

Whether what is coming up is a discussion, a debate, or a debacle, I'm much looking forward to seeing what 50 lists of favorite track and field athletes produce when compiled. Thanks for this thread, guys.

[lonewolf]

Someone here does not understand the meaning of the words "subjective" or "favorite".
I repeat, no one can logically contest someones else's favorite anything. There are too many elements to what constitutes favoritism.
Favoritism can be influence both positively and negatively by quality of performance, good or bad.
I think the results will be interesting but totally meaningless. As mump says, just killing time.

[Per Andersen]

I think the results will be interesting but totally meaningless. As mump says, just killing time.

That's it. If I re-did my list now it would probably be 50% different. I can no longer remember my order outside the top 3. Did I put Bob Richards ahead of Adhemar da Silva? I wouldn't know at this point.

[Pego]

no one can logically contest someones else's favorite anything

Are you suggesting not everybody considers Bernadette Peters the sexiest thing ever ?

[mump boy]

i see my work is done already we're now debating what a debate is and whether it will be possible to have one !!

personallu i think it's perfectly possible to debate/discuss people favourites.

When we've finished the coundown to No1 i will be posting everyone's individual lists one by one. It would be great if people could comment on thier lists and let us know why they made the choices (Some people have already done this when submitting) and in some cases explaining whon their choices are.

If people don't won't to or see nothing to 'debate' then that's fine but i'm sure the rest of us will find lots to talk about

[Daisy]

It would be great if people could comment on thier lists and let us know why they made the choices

Easy, I did it in about 5 minutes, so it was practically the first twenty that came into my head. Presumably, those that made the most lasting impression on me as I grew up.

I have been tempted to go back and add obvious omissions but then who do I throw out? So I just let my original list stand, sometimes not thinking too hard is the best way to go.

[bushop]

It would be great if people could comment on thier lists and let us know why they made the choices

I have been tempted to go back and add obvious omissions but then who do I throw out? So I just let my original list stand, sometimes not thinking too hard is the best way to go.

I thought the same thing... but then I realized that if I need to I can make some big changes in next year's list.

[TN1965]

i see my work is done already we're now debating what a debate is and whether it will be possible to have one !!

personallu i think it's perfectly possible to debate/discuss people favourites.

When we've finished the coundown to No1 i will be posting everyone's individual lists one by one. It would be great if people could comment on thier lists and let us know why they made the choices (Some people have already done this when submitting) and in some cases explaining whon their choices are.

If people don't won't to or see nothing to 'debate' then that's fine but i'm sure the rest of us will find lots to talk about

I will be away from this board next week. So if I don't comment on my own list, that's not because I don't want to. I do want to comment on my own choices.

[mump boy]

i see my work is done already we're now debating what a debate is and whether it will be possible to have one !!

personallu i think it's perfectly possible to debate/discuss people favourites.

When we've finished the coundown to No1 i will be posting everyone's individual lists one by one. It would be great if people could comment on thier lists and let us know why they made the choices (Some people have already done this when submitting) and in some cases explaining whon their choices are.

If people don't won't to or see nothing to 'debate' then that's fine but i'm sure the rest of us will find lots to talk about

I will be away from this board next week. So if I don't comment on my own list, that's not because I don't want to. I do want to comment on my own choices.

don't worry this one's going run and run and run

I'll have 100's of athletes to post and i'm not doing in one go, there will be a few each day so we can have some chat inbetween. Flump and i will be doing the count on our 12 hour xmas day flight, ready to post on Boxing day.

(this is the plan but it may not work out depending on how many different people have been voted for i've only counted 2 lists so far and have 39 different athletes )

We won't get on to individual lists till the new year

[JumboElliott]

I could care less if Adolf Hitler is your favorite athlete. I'm more interested in seeing how many people like specific athletes than debating the merits of particular athletes. This is a list of favorites, not a list of the best.

[lonewolf]

I could care less if Adolf Hitler is your favorite athlete. I'm more interested in seeing how many people like specific athletes than debating the merits of particular athletes. This is a list of favorites, not a list of the best.

Amen!

[72]

But if aposter says liking specific athletes is the criteria, what was the reason to "like" the particular athletes in question, or is it too profound a question on this Forum?

[mump boy]

I know who wins

Out of 1000 votes i've managed to lose 5

i'm going to spend 10 more mins trying to find them and then we get to the coundown

[mump boy]

So i found 4 votes that hadn't been counted but i've lost one as Mojo decided to enter 21 athletes so i've had to DQ one of hers (i should have known she couldn't be trusted.

I'm still missing 2 votes but i can't for the life of me work out where from

All athletes with 1 vote will be posted later today

[kuha]

Oh, no. Another hanging chads situation...

[dukehjsteve]

So i found 4 votes that hadn't been counted but i've lost one as Mojo decided to enter 21 athletes so i've had to DQ one of hers (i should have known she couldn't be trusted.

I'm still missing 2 votes but i can't for the life of me work out where from

All athletes with 1 vote will be posted later today

I'm waiting in breathless anticipation, as I voted for myself ( in 20th).

[lonewolf]

But if aposter says liking specific athletes is the criteria, what was the reason to "like" the particular athletes in question, or is it too profound a question on this Forum?

Yes, it is too profound. More so than the angels on a pin head thing.

[Daisy]

So i found 4 votes that hadn't been counted

Forget hanging chad, this is Wisconsin politics. I'm betting that mump has these all stored on his home computer. That's how the vote tallyer's in WI messed up too.

[gh]

But if aposter says liking specific athletes is the criteria, what was the reason to "like" the particular athletes in question, or is it too profound a question on this Forum?

Yes, it is too profound. More so than the angels on a pin head thing.

One of the classic misquotes of all time: it's actually how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... d-of-a-pin

[Flumpy]

I'm betting that mump has these all stored on his home computer. )

HA!!! As if.

I'm betting mump has them all scribbled on various bits of paper.

[mump boy]

So the results are in !!!

I'm just going to explain how this works once more

All athletes are ranked firstly by the number of votes that they received and then by the amount of points they got, therefore someone who got 2 votes but only 1 point is ranked before someone with 1 vote and 20 points.

I will countdown the athletes from 434-1 in reverse order.

PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS YOUR VOTES UNTILL YOUR ATHLETE HAS APPEARED. THEN FEEL FREE TO TALK ABOUT THEM, YOUT OPINIONS ON THEM AND WHY YOU VOTED FOR THEM.

I have tried to make sure this all adds up correctly but there are sure to be a few mistakes but i don't think any will change the results further up the list. I apologise in advance for my spelling of some of the names.

As we get into the 10 50 i will be posting info on each of the athletes where it is available. If you have voted for a very obscure athlete (you know who you are) then please post to enlighten us

That's all for now

No's 434 coming right up

[mump boy]

435 (1 Vote 1 Point eg 20th favourite of 1 person each)

Asha Hanson
Anthony Famiglianni
Charles Kilpatrick
Dick Fosbury
Dallas Long
Fermin Cacho
George Woods
Ingrid Kristiansen
Adhemar Ferreira da Silva
Joe Green
Jon Powell
Kemal Thompson
Luis Delis
Larry Myricks
Lj Van Zyl
Meserat Defar
Monica Cabbler
Norwood Ewell
Reiko Tosa
Ricky Branch
Ray Ewery
Sammy Wanjiru
Steve Barnes
Shingeru So
Trine Hattestad

[mump boy]

408 (1 vote, 2 points)

Brittany Reece
Chi Cheng
Dennis Carr
Jessica Augusto
Javier Sotomayer
Kayoko Fukushi
Mark Richardson
Marion Kolosa
Paul Wilson
Tatyana Kotova
Thomas Wessinghage
Tom Pukstys
Barbel Wochel

[mump boy]

395 (1 Vote, 3 points)

Armin Harry
Christian Taylor
Francis Obikwelu
Lopez Lomong
Leamon King
Ludivik Danek
Mike Carter
Marcuss O'Sullivan
Mark Plaatjes
Sergie Litvinov
Skip Sheaffer
Quincy Watts
Walter Dix
Ted Corbey

[mump boy]

381 (1 Vote, 4 Points)

Agnes Samaria
Anke Behmer
Alberto Salazar
Al Cantello
Browning Ross
Bridget Foster
Chris Solinsky
Dionne Hemmings
Emma George
Murry Halberg
Kim Batten
Lauren Williams
Natalya Antyuk
Paul Ereng
Rob Milburn
Sally Gunnell
Sydney Maree
Tom Courtney

[mump boy]

363 (1 Vote, 5 Points)

Bob Kennedy
Jutt Heine
Jiri Shobla
Jerome Drayton
Kip Javonin
Lorraine Fenton
Milt Cambell
Mike Boit
Mondo Duplanis !!
Ulf Timmerman
Peter Blank
Sung Kee Chong
Yerelis Barrios
Willie Davenport

[mump boy]

347 (1 Vote, 6 Points)

Andrey Perlov
Anisora Stanciu
Arthur Wint
Eddie Southern
Hayden Jones
Jordan Hassay
John Landy
John Carlos
Jan Johnson
Lynn Davies
Nikki Xanthou
Rosie Ackerman
Ruis Silver
Llewlyn Herbert
Lazaro Borgia
Sean Crawford
Sunder Nix
Vladislav Kozakiewicz