T&FN Favourite Athletes THE RESULTS No1 Haile Gebrselassie

[Conor Dary]

[
We had decided on no more than 5 from 1 nation. .

I think the 5 person rule is a good one.

Who, when and where did "we" decide on a one athlete per nation limit?

Imo it is a competely illogical rule for purely subjective listing.

Agreed. It would be like choose your favorite 20 books but only five can be in any one language.

I could do that easily .

Helluo librorum.

[Flumpy]

[

Agreed. It would be like choose your favorite 20 books but only five can be in any one language.

No it wouldn't.

[mump boy]

i wish i'd had a country limit and i also wish i'd had an international standard limit but i didn't, so we'll all have to trawl through 1 vote US collegians for the first few days

so my plan is to close voting 12pm GMT next Sunday 18th.

I'm planning on doing no work next week so can concentrate on this and then i'm off to Puerto Rico on xmas day, so i'll either have loads of time to lay in the sun and post lists for you or spend time partying with hot latino boys

we'll have to wait and see

[Daisy]

i wish i'd had a country limit and i also wish i'd had an international standard limit

That can be next year.

but i didn't, so we'll all have to trawl through 1 vote US collegians for the first few days

It will be like a pub quiz while we are all trying to figure out who they are. No Google allowed.

[mump boy]

Not even Google would know who some of the choices are

[dukehjsteve]

[quote="Per Andersen"]Well, I got more than 5 Americans and I even left out Dillard, Oerter, Nehemiah, Stones, Sime, Seagren, Patton, Dumas, Stanfield and Rafer Johnson which for me is a crime [/quote

Replying to Per, yes, from where I sit, leaving Duke's Sime out IS INDEED a crime ! (But he was only 2nd with me.... # 1 was some HJ'er from USSR......)

[gh]

....
Replying to Per, yes, from where I sit, leaving Duke's Sime out IS INDEED a crime ! ....

Sorry, after one chooses Armin Hary the '60 Olympic 100 slot is closed

[Conor Dary]

Five does not make much sense if you take it the way it literally reads. A number of favorite athletes might never have made an international appearance, won or even placed at nationals etc. I was underwater by the time the majority of posters would have recognized anyone (I am sure that Skip Shaeffer was not on anyone's list and I was floored that Deines [and I am still not certain how to spell his name] was). I finally dropped some of the locals to get people that, as I was growing up through the sport that I liked, although I took out a few that I was high on at the time (e.g., MJ).

Besides, a limit of five is more binding on someone from the US that has not gone to a single international meet.

The 1971 RW Marathon Handbook spells it Deines. He was also in Joe Henderson's
1969 book LSD: The Humane Way to Train.

[Conor Dary]

i wish i'd had a country limit and i also wish i'd had an international standard limit but i didn't, so we'll all have to trawl through 1 vote US collegians for the first few days
:

I really don't know what else you could have expected from such an eclectic group at the web site of an American publication. If you really wanted a list from your favorite athletes, why didn't you just say so.

[Daisy]

Not even Google would know who some of the choices are

Where's your sense of adventure? You're sounding like a Tory!

[Conor Dary]

Not being able to google some choices seems like a benefit.

PS For it is worth I think this thread was a fine idea....but just leave it at that.

[26mi235]

Skip Shaeffer was not a world or even national class runner, but he was a very classy runner. And not too bad at it. At 44 he ran a PR 2:27 for the marathon; the next year he got cancer and was never really the same. He died a couple of weeks after attending my wedding in a wheel chair. Marlow, he was a ToE.

[mump boy]

Just to remind everyone i'm closing entries on Sunday 18th at 12pm GMT

My plan is to get everything together next week and start posting the week between xmas and NY while laying on a beach with a cocktail

(you must understand that laying on the beach with a cocktail may get in the way of coherant and consistent posts )

[Pego]

Not even Google would know who some of the choices are

Where's your sense of adventure? You're sounding like a Tory!

Just for the funsies I Wikied my lesser known choices. They all appeared there in some form.

[DrJay]

Just got in for a run with a T&F friend. I told him about this thread, he asked "Did ya put Tim Tebow as one of your choices?!? "

[Daisy]

"Did ya put Tim Tebow as one of your choices?!? "

He didn't quite make my top twenty. You think anyone outside the US knows who Tebow is? If it had not been for Marlow raving about him, he would have been nowhere on my radar.

Mump/Flump? You getting excited about Tebow?

[mump boy]

"Did ya put Tim Tebow as one of your choices?!? "

He didn't quite make my top twenty. You think anyone outside the US knows who Tebow is? If it had not been for Marlow raving about him, he would have been nowhere on my radar.

Mump/Flump? You getting excited about Tebow?

Literally beside myself with excitement

(have no idea who that is and i'm guessing even less interest in finding out)

[DrJay]

Tebow=latest Amercian football diva. Think Alan Webb Hysteria c. 2004.

[mump boy]

A reminder that the poll closes tonight at 12pm GMT

If you want to send your list in or make any ammendements to the one you've already submited please do it today

thanks

[mump boy]

Thanks for all the entries

EEK now i've got some work to do !!

See you next week for

Track and Field News Official Favourite Athlete Coundown

[mump boy]

I've just gone through all the entries and there are 50 of them

Some very interesting choices that i am looking forward to hearing about, some choices that are frankly and some which i LOVE

Thanks for all the entries it far outstripped expectations, this should work fabulously

going to start counting tomorrow and first results posted on Boxing day

[Daisy]

In the how many different athletes category I'm going to guess 341

[26mi235]

Some very interesting choices that i am looking forward to hearing about, some choices that are frankly and some which i LOVE

What has over all level of the athlete got to do with being a favourite? If you wanted them from the top level of athletes than you might have stated so.

[mump boy]

i didn't mention the over all level of the athelete

the whole point of this thread is to try and create some discussion over the slow winter months, in order to do that we are going to have to discuss each others choices, there may even be some disagreement and debate

You may think some of my choices are ridiculous, i'll be very happy to explain myself, some people may want you to explain your choices, others may think you have wonderful taste, either way i hope you won't take it personally.

[lonewolf]

Favoritism is an entirely subjective choice for personal reasons.. how can that be debateable?
My favorite athletes are the late, lamented Mighty X-Men.183-2-2 over five seasons and no one outside the local soccer league would recognize any of them.

[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.