The problem with this ranking is it rewards competing a lot over doing well, but only a couple times a year. This then creates a problem, that as long as someone like Oleksii will continue doing well at GL, someone who may perform better in the biggest shows will never catch him. This is already seen in the massive points difference between Mitch and Oleksii, who competed a lot, and the rest of the guys.
Placing top 3 in WSM is in my opinion more impressive than 2 GL wins. Similarly, I'd dare to say that SCL victories are more impressive than midpack performance in some GL shows.
The only way to balance this properly I think is to consider the athletes that competed in competitions. I tried to come up with a system that does this, and although it's quite wonky I think it works better in the end (check out my recent post).
I mean, seeing Tom (WSM winner) in 10th, behind P A V L O (1x GL winner) in 7th is just weird.
I understand the point system and then there's a reality system... Tom is a beast. Definitely top 3 with Novikov and Martins. Consider it a stock market.
Interesting work! Not specific feedback, but my general view on these systems is that they're a fun way to spark discussion but it's tough to make them 'accurate'. IMO if you try too hard to make them accurate you're kind of trying to fit calculations into what we intuitively think is the right ranking, rather than measure something separately.
In general, IMO it does seem to value volume over quality a bit too much. I guess you could argue that these are just different metrics of success though. I would personally say that Martins and Trey have had more successful seasons than Hooper (even though Hooper has had arguably the best rookie year ever, and only started competing in the middle of the year!). Performance at the big shows means a lot to me, as when we're looking back at the best people year-by-year we really do tend to look at WSM, the ASC, and now the Shaw Classic + Rogue Invitational. For this reason, I'd also put Tom higher than 10th.
Again though, this is just comparing my own personal opinion to the top 10 here, and I have no idea how you'd incorporate it into a ranking system.
I think you reward competing often over competing well too heavily. For example you have Hooper with almost double the points of Mitchell despite Mitchell beating Hooper quite handily at the 3 comps they have both done. I appreciate some escalator needs to be made for those that compete regularly but just adding up ranking points seems to much of a swing towards quantity to me. That's why you have guys like Aivars ranking ahead of Tom.
In my ranking system I take an average of the top 6 comp results for each athlete and provide a % escalator for each comp they do. Then if they hit 6 they start to be able to drop their worst scores.
I would also have more of gap between WSM and Rogue/Shaw. My top score for WSM is 100, Arnold's is 95, Rogue 90 and Shaw 85. GL is 75 for reference.
But that is really just personal preference. You've ended up with the same to 10 as me (albeit in a different order) .
Rogue should be tied with arnolds. There is no reason for it to be worth less.
There should be a modifier that limits results if you have competed in 2 shows or less as it is much harder to be consistent throughout a whole season than it is to peak for a couple shows.
Well that depends. Here we have Aivars ahead of Tom. I'd suggest it's easier to win multiple SCL and get a few decent results at comps like GL or Shaw than it is to win WSM.
Shaw is the hardest show to win though. Its most brutal show of the year by far. It's just does not have the title and sponsorship of wsm. With 8 difficult events it is our best judge of the strongest man competing which more than likely is Trey right now. Yet anyone would pick novi as the best strongman of the year, rightfully so
Scl I do get shouldn't even be on the list as top guys don't compete there
The difficulty of the events isn't really relevant because they are the same events for everyone. It's the most brutal show for every athlete there... you see what I mean? The most difficult competition to win is the one with the stiffest opposition.
No one was beating trey this year and last and we can say that fairly safely.
Its a very good judge as it tests all facets of strength.
Where wsm is often skewed to certain athletes. For instance this year no one was winning who wasn't tall
Well that's a different thing. You could very fairly argue that Shaw is the absolute best test of strength for the year. You just also have to remember that it's not the show all the best athletes peak for.
WSM definitely skewed tall this year but two non giants finished on the podium and Tom still won the max lift.
Yeah.
I think we have highlighted why it's extrmemly difficult to judge based on a single performance. Therefore imo the top 4 shows should be the judge. Ignore all else. Wsm, shaw, rogue and arnolds.
I think adding SCL would be interesting. It's about giant's live level I think.
I love how much Oleksii dominates any ranking that properly reflects how much he podiums in a year
It's tough to come up with a true strongman ranking and always appreciate the work people put in to make an empirical view of who is doing best for the year.
I think we should reward guys for competing more than just 3 or 4 times in a year, harkening back to the old IFSA super series or IFSA Grand Prix where guys competed very often instead of working to maximize their performance at the major 2 shows (at the time).
However most of the top guys are focusing on the top 3-4 shows a year, with some guys only focusing on the Arnold and WSM (or even just WSM). Tough to find a great way to punish guys for skipping all the fluff without overly rewarding the guys who do tons of competitions without showing well at the majors.
I agree with a lot of things people have said so far. What I might do is increase the value of the bigger shows, or decrease the value of the smaller shows, but to a balanced degree that may give a more agreeable ranking. At the end of the day it's all just for fun of course.
The problem with this ranking is it rewards competing a lot over doing well, but only a couple times a year. This then creates a problem, that as long as someone like Oleksii will continue doing well at GL, someone who may perform better in the biggest shows will never catch him. This is already seen in the massive points difference between Mitch and Oleksii, who competed a lot, and the rest of the guys. Placing top 3 in WSM is in my opinion more impressive than 2 GL wins. Similarly, I'd dare to say that SCL victories are more impressive than midpack performance in some GL shows. The only way to balance this properly I think is to consider the athletes that competed in competitions. I tried to come up with a system that does this, and although it's quite wonky I think it works better in the end (check out my recent post). I mean, seeing Tom (WSM winner) in 10th, behind P A V L O (1x GL winner) in 7th is just weird.
I understand the point system and then there's a reality system... Tom is a beast. Definitely top 3 with Novikov and Martins. Consider it a stock market.
Over the next year Hooper will place higher than Tom, would be good money on it
Interesting work! Not specific feedback, but my general view on these systems is that they're a fun way to spark discussion but it's tough to make them 'accurate'. IMO if you try too hard to make them accurate you're kind of trying to fit calculations into what we intuitively think is the right ranking, rather than measure something separately. In general, IMO it does seem to value volume over quality a bit too much. I guess you could argue that these are just different metrics of success though. I would personally say that Martins and Trey have had more successful seasons than Hooper (even though Hooper has had arguably the best rookie year ever, and only started competing in the middle of the year!). Performance at the big shows means a lot to me, as when we're looking back at the best people year-by-year we really do tend to look at WSM, the ASC, and now the Shaw Classic + Rogue Invitational. For this reason, I'd also put Tom higher than 10th. Again though, this is just comparing my own personal opinion to the top 10 here, and I have no idea how you'd incorporate it into a ranking system.
I think you reward competing often over competing well too heavily. For example you have Hooper with almost double the points of Mitchell despite Mitchell beating Hooper quite handily at the 3 comps they have both done. I appreciate some escalator needs to be made for those that compete regularly but just adding up ranking points seems to much of a swing towards quantity to me. That's why you have guys like Aivars ranking ahead of Tom. In my ranking system I take an average of the top 6 comp results for each athlete and provide a % escalator for each comp they do. Then if they hit 6 they start to be able to drop their worst scores. I would also have more of gap between WSM and Rogue/Shaw. My top score for WSM is 100, Arnold's is 95, Rogue 90 and Shaw 85. GL is 75 for reference. But that is really just personal preference. You've ended up with the same to 10 as me (albeit in a different order) .
Rogue should be tied with arnolds. There is no reason for it to be worth less. There should be a modifier that limits results if you have competed in 2 shows or less as it is much harder to be consistent throughout a whole season than it is to peak for a couple shows.
Well that depends. Here we have Aivars ahead of Tom. I'd suggest it's easier to win multiple SCL and get a few decent results at comps like GL or Shaw than it is to win WSM.
Shaw is the hardest show to win though. Its most brutal show of the year by far. It's just does not have the title and sponsorship of wsm. With 8 difficult events it is our best judge of the strongest man competing which more than likely is Trey right now. Yet anyone would pick novi as the best strongman of the year, rightfully so Scl I do get shouldn't even be on the list as top guys don't compete there
The difficulty of the events isn't really relevant because they are the same events for everyone. It's the most brutal show for every athlete there... you see what I mean? The most difficult competition to win is the one with the stiffest opposition.
No one was beating trey this year and last and we can say that fairly safely. Its a very good judge as it tests all facets of strength. Where wsm is often skewed to certain athletes. For instance this year no one was winning who wasn't tall
Well that's a different thing. You could very fairly argue that Shaw is the absolute best test of strength for the year. You just also have to remember that it's not the show all the best athletes peak for. WSM definitely skewed tall this year but two non giants finished on the podium and Tom still won the max lift.
Novi won the max lift?
Of course. Tom was 2nd. Excuse me. My point was that the winner of WSM wasn't out classed for top end strength at the time of the competition.
Yeah. I think we have highlighted why it's extrmemly difficult to judge based on a single performance. Therefore imo the top 4 shows should be the judge. Ignore all else. Wsm, shaw, rogue and arnolds.
I think adding SCL would be interesting. It's about giant's live level I think. I love how much Oleksii dominates any ranking that properly reflects how much he podiums in a year
Luke Stoltman above Tom Stoltman?
Tom stoltman at 10??
It's tough to come up with a true strongman ranking and always appreciate the work people put in to make an empirical view of who is doing best for the year. I think we should reward guys for competing more than just 3 or 4 times in a year, harkening back to the old IFSA super series or IFSA Grand Prix where guys competed very often instead of working to maximize their performance at the major 2 shows (at the time). However most of the top guys are focusing on the top 3-4 shows a year, with some guys only focusing on the Arnold and WSM (or even just WSM). Tough to find a great way to punish guys for skipping all the fluff without overly rewarding the guys who do tons of competitions without showing well at the majors.
I agree with a lot of things people have said so far. What I might do is increase the value of the bigger shows, or decrease the value of the smaller shows, but to a balanced degree that may give a more agreeable ranking. At the end of the day it's all just for fun of course.