Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Fresh rankings:Yu-Na kim is the №1,Rochette second

  1. #16
    Custom Title skatemom1122's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    504
    The thing that really stinks about these rankings is that they are used to do determine skating order. Mirai is still ranked fairly low, forcing her to skate earlier in the event. This hurt her PCS at the Olympics, hopefully it doesn't happen again!

  2. #17
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    19
    Congrats Joannie.

  3. #18
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad View Post
    Well,here is another link about new fresh ranking http://joongangdaily.joins.com/artic...sp?aid=2919135
    thnx, I see ur intention better.
    How about sending an e-mail to ISU?

  4. #19
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by miki88 View Post
    The ISU ranking is kinda strange. I remember for a long time Carolina was ranked first. I think the ranking at Icenetwork is more accurate because it is more reflective of current results.
    Again, I think the two rankings have different purposes. The main goal of the icenetwork rankings is to determine who the best skaters are. The ISU rankings are for the purpose of rewarding skaters who do what the ISU wants them to, in terms of entering many ISU competitions.

  5. #20
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    34
    Generally, the ranking seem to be correct but there are some parts that make me wonder how this was done...

  6. #21
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    30

    icenetwork.com World Skater Rankings

    For those who are interested, a detailed breakdown of the icenetwork.com rankings can be found by going here and clicking the blue "Complete Summary" button on the right.

  7. #22
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by chronos13 View Post
    Generally, the ranking seem to be correct but there are some parts that make me wonder how this was done...
    The way I read the ISU ranking is that the 2007-2008 season result is now dropped, which means only the results from 2008 to 2010 are considered. In the 2009-2010 GP season, Asada bombed, failed to make GPF final. Plus, Rochette did beat Asada at the 2009 Worlds. All things considered, Rochette came out on top due to her 2009 World win over Asada and slightly better results from the GP series in the 2009-2010 season. This seems fair enough, Rochette did score several wins over Asada in the past two years whereas the Kerrs never defeated Virtue/Moir, that ranking was a little whacky and a direct result of V/M missing the 2008-09 GP season entirely due to her injury.

  8. #23
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    The way I read the ISU ranking is that the 2007-2008 season result is now dropped, which means only the results from 2008 to 2010 are considered. In the 2009-2010 GP season, Asada bombed, failed to make GPF final. Plus, Rochette did beat Asada at the 2009 Worlds. All things considered, Rochette came out on top due to her 2009 World win over Asada and slightly better results from the GP series in the 2009-2010 season. This seems fair enough, Rochette did score several wins over Asada in the past two years whereas the Kerrs never defeated Virtue/Moir, that ranking was a little whacky and a direct result of V/M missing the 2008-09 GP season entirely due to her injury.
    After all, ISU ranking does make sense.

  9. #24
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    10
    It seems to make sense, but I have some issues with it, especially regarding the numbers and weights of competitions that can be considered for ranking points. For example, I find the following rules regarding ranking system are interesting:

    1. The fact that you cannot include all of your competitions into calculations for ranking. For example, if I understand things correctly, you can include only 1 ISU Championship (or Olympics) in one year (no more than 2 in past three seasons), 2 Grand Prix events/final in one year (no more than 4 in past three seasons) and 2 other ISU senior events (no more than 4 in past three seasons). This means that there's no added incentive for winning (as far as ranking points are concerned) both Worlds and Olympics in an Olympic Year, or to win 2 GP events and GPF rather than to win one GP event, just get enough placing in second event to qualify to GPF and to win the GPF.

    Perhaps a better method will be to include up to 2 ISU championships per season (probably not three, since 4CC field is often not particularly strong in an Olympic season), 3 GP series events (including GPF), and no limit as to number of other competitions (may have some bizarre or amusing effects, but I think the risk for entering more competitions than other competitors should be awarded). I personally can also do without the rule that limits number of competitions that can be counted over three years-let the athletes compete and gather points from all availble competitions if they are able to.

    2. The gap in points bestowed for different placings in each competition may be too narrow. What I mean is that in ranking-point wise, there's no significant gap between actually winning the championship, coming in second, third, fourth, etc. By my rough calculation, I think point for placing second in a particular competition is 90% of the point for the winner and points for placing second is 90% of that of the silver medalist.

    While others may have different take on this, I think weighting of points similar to the one used in, say Formula 1 Grand Prix may be appropriate. For example, if the points gained for winning the World Championship is 1200 points, the runner-up can receive something like 80% of the points, 70% for bronze medalist, 60% for fourth place, etc. If one constructs the differences well, appropriate points may be awarded to those that placed low even in large competitions like the Worlds, Junior Worlds or Euros.

    3. I think the weighting given to each of three seasons used for ranking system do not serve well in reflecting the true strength of the competitors. As it stands, "the current/upcoming" (2010/2011) and the last (2009/2010) season has same weighting, with the one-before-last (2008/2009) has 70% weighting compared to other two. This means that those who may have retired or has been injured and hasn't competed so well in last one or two seasons could have enough points to figure quite prominently in rankings table over someone who has competed consistently (though not spectacularly) over the entire three-year period. Perhaps the weighting of 3:2:1, or 4:2:1 may be appropriate to reflect the recency of results, rather than current 10:10:7 weighting.

    4. I personally do not like the current weighting of each competitions, but that's quite a subjective matter depending on one's perspective (regarding importance and prestige of each) and will not be involved in that particular debate unless invited.


    All in all, I think the current system need some improvements regarding the number of competitions included, weighting of different places in competitions and weighting of more recent results to be more reflective of the true positions of different competitiors. I myself prefer icenetwork ranking system, though the system regarding 104-week rotation seems somewhat more difficult to understand. I also think only international ISU events should be included.

    Hope others have input and opinions into what I have suggested. Happy Skating!!
    Last edited by sydneyphoenix; 04-16-2010 at 08:56 PM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •