Another thing. The prestige factor- even if you were to do this, do you realize how much this complicates things? Who's to determine exactly how prestigious one event is over the other? Just how much more prestigious is the Olympics over the Worlds? 1.5x? 2x? 4x? 10x? (See how subjective this gets?)
What about the Nationals? How much prestige do you assign to THOSE events? And will those numbers be different from mine or other posters'?
When you use raw numbers, there's no discrimination whatsoever. They speak for themselves. To add complications just throws in more subjectivity and bias.
I hope you see now how crazy this would get if you were to do all this. But I hardly see how we can say that Cohen "ate Sarah's dust". You might be able to say that about a skater in 20th place, that she "ate Sarah's dust". Why? Cause she was WAY behind! You make it seem as if Cohen did so poorly at all her events that she was last or near last in all of them. hwell:
I'm not surprised in the least.
This is my last post on this matter. I'm through discussing this topic.
What about the Nationals? How much prestige do you assign to THOSE events? And will those numbers be different from mine or other posters'?
When you use raw numbers, there's no discrimination whatsoever. They speak for themselves. To add complications just throws in more subjectivity and bias.
I hope you see now how crazy this would get if you were to do all this. But I hardly see how we can say that Cohen "ate Sarah's dust". You might be able to say that about a skater in 20th place, that she "ate Sarah's dust". Why? Cause she was WAY behind! You make it seem as if Cohen did so poorly at all her events that she was last or near last in all of them. hwell:
I'm not surprised in the least.
This is my last post on this matter. I'm through discussing this topic.