Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Suggested changes to the Boards Hall of Fame

  • 27-06-2012 11:09am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭


    When --amadeus-- started the Hall of Fame thread, he picked the top three results in the most common distances. Since then, some better times have been recorded, and the 3k distance added, but the basic idea remains the same. Last month there were requests to add pablo t's Bob Graham round, and some new distances, to the Hall of Fame. Rather than decide myself on what gets in, here are some rules I think we could set in place to decide what qualifies.

    1. The top three times in the existing distances
    2. The top three times in a new distance/event if at least 7 people have recorded times/distances over the last 3 years of the Best of 20xx threads
    3. Any performance voted in by boardsies at the end of the year

    1. What's there stays there, and is updated as normal

    2. I have a terrible 2500m time, but I might be the only poster with a 2500m time at all. That shouldn't be enough to get me on the Hall of Fame. Same if someone turns up at the next graded meet and falls into the long jump pit, or drops a shot putt. It can go into the Best of 2012 thread, but unless it's beating out some competition it shouldn't go into the Hall of Fame.
    Why 7 people? Because the entries in the Hall of Fame should be better than most of the people who have competed in that event. Three entries, so they have to be better than 4 other people. (And it's people, not entries)

    3. On the other hand, if a performance is good enough it should go into the Hall of Fame, even if it's in an event, or over a distance, that other boardsies haven't done. So in with the awards polls at the end of the year we have an 'inductees to the Hall of Fame' poll, and you can nominate performances that don't fit into one of the existing HoF categories. Any run, or throw, or jump, that you think is worthy of inclusion can be nominated. We set up a poll where people can vote for multiple entries, and any performance getting votes from at least one third of voters is added.

    make sense?
    anyone have a better idea?
    or think the numbers (7 people, one third of voters) should be tweaked?


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 920 ✭✭✭RandyMann


    Well I would ask for 100,200 and 400 but there only seems to be 2-3 people doing that on boards :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    RandyMann wrote: »
    Well I would ask for 100,200 and 400 but there only seems to be 2-3 people doing that on boards :)

    There's the same issue with some ultra distances. There might be seven different people who have recorded time for Connemara's 39.3 miles (I haven't checked) but probably not for Donadea's 50k, or Dingle's 50 miles. It doesn't seem right that someone gets into a Hall of Fame by being better than two other people. On the other hand, if someone runs a really good 100m, or 50 miles - really good by the standards of non-boardsies, not just by the standards of those boardsies who've done the same distance - there should be some way to get them in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    2. The top three times in a new distance/event if at least 7 people have recorded times/distances over the last 3 years of the Best of 20xx threads

    No. The 100m is the blue-ribboned event in the Olympic Games. The 200 and 400 are not far off. Why should there be a certain amount of people attempting it to reach your qualification standards? Sure there are less people doing those events here, but the standard is good and deserves to be listed as much as the "mainstream events" do. And anyway, why list a 5 mile or 10 mile? They aren't even championship events. They are silly distances based on an old measurement system.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    There's the same issue with some ultra distances. There might be seven different people who have recorded time for Connemara's 39.3 miles (I haven't checked) but probably not for Donadea's 50k, or Dingle's 50 miles. It doesn't seem right that someone gets into a Hall of Fame by being better than two other people. On the other hand, if someone runs a really good 100m, or 50 miles - really good by the standards of non-boardsies, not just by the standards of those boardsies who've done the same distance - there should be some way to get them in.

    Yes, but most boardsies haven't a clue how fast a 12.5 100m, 25.5 200m or a 56 400m actually is (random times listed which would be close to a 2:50 marathon).


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    No. The 100m is the blue-ribboned event in the Olympic Games. The 200 and 400 are not far off. Why should there be a certain amount of people attempting it to reach your qualification standards? Sure there are less people doing those events here, but the standard is good and deserves to be listed as much as the "mainstream events" do. And anyway, why list a 5 mile or 10 mile? They aren't even championship events. They are silly distances based on an old measurement system.

    What do you think we should do? Remove the 5 mile, 10 mile, and half marathon distances because they aren't Olympic events, and add the 3000m steeplechase, javelin, and triple jump because they are?

    Do you want to propose a different way of determining if a time (or distance) recorded on the 'Best of ...' thread is a good enough standard? IAAF points for example? How would that work?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,817 ✭✭✭myflipflops


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    Yes, but most boardsies haven't a clue how fast a 12.5 100m, 25.5 200m or a 56 400m actually is (random times listed which would be close to a 2:50 marathon).

    You really, really have to stop comparing times you have never ran over various distances.

    Run either time (or preferably both) and then compare.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    You really, really have to stop comparing times you have never ran over various distances.

    Run either time (or preferably both) and then compare.

    Just going by the IAAF tables. Many people agree with the tables. You don't. Fair enough. It's not exactly the point of this though is it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    Yes, but most boardsies haven't a clue how fast a 12.5 100m, 25.5 200m or a 56 400m actually is (random times listed which would be close to a 2:50 marathon).

    What does it matter how many boardsies appreciate how fast a time is? The question is, is a performance good enough for a Hall of Fame?

    (incidentally, the slowest marathon time recorded is 2.35. I don't know how that compares to a 12.5 100m, or a 15.42 5000m, and I don't care. I'm not trying to rank the times)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    What do you think we should do? Remove the 5 mile, 10 mile, and half marathon distances because they aren't Olympic events, and add the 3000m steeplechase, javelin, and triple jump because they are?

    Do you want to propose a different way of determining if a time (or distance) recorded on the 'Best of ...' thread is a good enough standard? IAAF points for example? How would that work?

    No, just list the top 3 in each event. No stupid qualification criteria. No stupid votes. Just fastest 3 in each event get listed. Simple. If the competition is higher in one event than another so be it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    What does it matter how many boardsies appreciate how fast a time is? The question is, is a performance good enough for a Hall of Fame?

    Well seen as you are suggesting boardsies vote in a fast time then yes it does matter how many boardsies appreciate how fast a time is! Yes lets get a bunch of marathon and ultra runners to vote whether somebody who runs a good 100 or 200 is worthy of being on the list. Makes perfect sense that! :rolleyes:

    List 1, 2 and 3 in each event and there'd be no need for this thread and this argument we are currently having.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    No, just list the top 3 in each event. No stupid qualification criteria. No stupid votes. Just fastest 3 in each event get listed. Simple. If the competition is higher in one event than another so be it.

    It's not a back-slapping pink fairy thread, it's a Hall of Fame.
    It should take a high standard performance to get in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    It's not a back-slapping pink fairy thread, it's a Hall of Fame.
    It should take a high standard performance to get in.

    Well then just set a points standard from the IAAF tables as a minimum requirement to reach the tables. Straightforward, fair across the board, and no need for stupid votes. Treat all the events equally.

    EDIT: For example 500 points. To reach the "Hall of Fame" you need to achieve at least 500 points on the IAAF Men's Scoring Tables. You can set the standard as whatever you want but keep things equal. You're hardly doing a good job of raising the profile of other aspects of athletics here are you?


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    Well seen as you are suggesting boardsies vote in a fast time then yes it does matter how many boardsies appreciate how fast a time is! Yes lets get a bunch of marathon and ultra runners to vote whether somebody who runs a good 100 or 200 is worthy of being on the list.

    As with all such threads, there'd be an opportunity when nominating, and/or in the thread itself, to explain why a performance is worthy of a vote.

    The reason I'm proposing this change is that Slogger Jogger suggested pablo t's Bob Graham run was worthy of inclusion. Hill runners are a minority of the forum, and hill runners who run that kind of distance are a smaller minority. But I would expect that most posters could understand an explanation of why a sub-19 Bob Graham round is so impressive and decide for themselves if it should be included. If someone nominates a 100m time, or a javelin throw, or some other performance, I would expect posters to give it equal consideration.

    It would have been easier for me to ignore the suggestions and stick with the existing categories, but this way some other types of performance have a chance of recognition.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    Well then just set a points standard from the IAAF tables as a minimum requirement to reach the tables. Straightforward, fair across the board, and no need for stupid votes. Treat all the events equally.

    The existing events aren't broken, there's no need to change them. (And there is no scoring table for 5 miles)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    The existing events aren't broken, there's no need to change them. (And there is no scoring table for 5 miles)

    You sound like some auld lad in the AAI set in his ways! :rolleyes:

    Look, it stands to reason that all IAAF Standard events should be listed. If you want to draw up qualification standards for each event then fire away. How about Olympic A-Standard multiplied by a certain percentage. That will save you having to actually have a clue about these events that you are not treating equally.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    EDIT: For example 500 points. To reach the "Hall of Fame" you need to achieve at least 500 points on the IAAF Men's Scoring Tables. You can set the standard as whatever you want but keep things equal. You're hardly doing a good job of raising the profile of other aspects of athletics here are you?

    Then the most popular distances would have far more entries than they have at the moment. And we couldn't use that for the 5 mile, possibly other distances. And it would be more hassle to compile the tables (and to revise them when the scoring tables are revised)

    The whole point of setting out a transparent, rule-based method for qualifying for the Hall of Fame is to keep things equal.

    It's not actually my role to raise the profile of athletics, I don't know why you keep acting as if it was :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Right, bored now.

    Anyone else have an opinion?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    Late to the party on this one. Have to say I am in agreement with Raycun here. ART is poster driven and as such it makes sense that it appeals to the demographics.

    If we cannot get 7 participants over a three year period then it stands that there is not enough interest which ultimately is the aim of ART. There are more Ultra runners than track athletes here so if we put in the minority events (in this case 100 is a minority event here) then to keep things fair the Ultra running events would need to be put in. This way it creates a fair popularity driven criteria


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    Then the most popular distances would have far more entries than they have at the moment. And we couldn't use that for the 5 mile, possibly other distances. And it would be more hassle to compile the tables (and to revise them when the scoring tables are revised)

    The whole point of setting out a transparent, rule-based method for qualifying for the Hall of Fame is to keep things equal.

    It's not actually my role to raise the profile of athletics, I don't know why you keep acting as if it was :rolleyes:

    Your comprehension is poor.

    I said minimum entry requirements for each event. For example 600 points. Suppose only 2 people get over 600 points in the 400m then only those 2 will be listed. If 13 get over 400 points in the marathon, then that doesn't matter as just the top 3 will be listed. Sort of like the US Olympic Trials. Top 3 of those who reach the standard. If nobody reaches the standard then nobody gets listed. That sounds fair to me. Sure it takes a bit of work, but certainly a lot more consistent and not reliant on being voted in by the board of Boards!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    Pisco Sour wrote: »
    You're hardly doing a good job of raising the profile of other aspects of athletics here are you?

    Contrary to belief this is not the job of a moderator its to facilitate discussion for the posters. Some of us use it as a tool to try and do this but this is our own personal perogative


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,492 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    Add 100m, 200m, 400m, and round ultra distances, e.g. 50k, 100k, 100mile and leave it at that. It's not a big deal. Just another thread that few people revisit. Half of the achievers don't post on Boards any more (but did at the time the records were achieved). Nobody will go out of their way to get their name in the 'Boards Hall of fame'.
    Did I mention I was in there though? :cool::D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    ecoli wrote: »
    Late to the party on this one. Have to say I am in agreement with Raycun here. ART is poster driven and as such it makes sense that it appeals to the demographics.

    If we cannot get 7 participants over a three year period then it stands that there is not enough interest which ultimately is the aim of ART. There are more Ultra runners than track athletes here so if we put in the minority events (in this case 100 is a minority event here) then to keep things fair the Ultra running events would need to be put in. This way it creates a fair popularity driven criteria

    I've no problem with that. Everything should be listed. Top 3 at each distance. Forget this Hall of Fame rubbish. No performances here are worthy of the name Hall of Fame (except maybe Bazman). Just have it as a top 3 in each event. It might encourage people to try new events! That's my suggestion anyway which will fall on deaf ears. I'm out of here as I am all riled up now!


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,340 ✭✭✭TFBubendorfer


    Add 100m, 200m, 400m, and round ultra distances, e.g. 50k, 100k, 100mile and leave it at that.

    You do realise that 39.3 miles would be the most common ultra distance amongst boardsies? ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Add 100m, 200m, 400m, and round ultra distances, e.g. 50k, 100k, 100mile and leave it at that.

    I know the Donadea 50k, but 100k and 100mile?


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,492 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    You do realise that 39.3 miles would be the most common ultra distance amongst boardsies? ;)
    Ah yes. The Galway Mini-ultra. If we start getting into records for specific races (which the 39.3 most definitely is!), the thread will be as long as the 'when will you hit 3 trillion miles' thread. Next it will be 'what about 24 hours around a track'? What about a female Boards Hall of Fame? What about a 'masters Hall of fame' (cos we're getting too old to compete with the young lads)? Can we have a 'Hall of Fame for people completing the Coach to 5k'? A running backwards Hall of Fame? A Triathlon/Duathlon/Aquathon/cycling/swimming' hall of fame? A hall of fame for the person who can fit the most bicycle pumps up their Arsène Wenger?

    Just so we're clear, as long as my name is still in the list, nothing else is important. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    The easiest thing would certainly be to declare the list of distances closed.
    800m, 1500m, mile, 3k, 5k, 5 mile, 10k, 10 mile, half marathon, and marathon.
    All standard distances, all run regularly by boardsies, so that's it, that's our lot.

    What about the idea of voting other performances into the Hall of Fame? A sprint, throw, ultra, or other thing (Bob Graham round, ocnoc's leg of the WW relay, Magnet's indoor record) that isn't over the distances above but is worth recording?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,029 ✭✭✭Pisco Sour


    RayCun wrote: »
    The easiest thing would certainly be to declare the list of distances closed.
    800m, 1500m, mile, 3k, 5k, 5 mile, 10k, 10 mile, half marathon, and marathon.
    All standard distances, all run regularly by boardsies, so that's it, that's our lot.

    What about the idea of voting other performances into the Hall of Fame? A sprint, throw, ultra, or other thing (Bob Graham round, ocnoc's leg of the WW relay, Magnet's indoor record) that isn't over the distances above but is worth recording?

    Why bother asking us so? You have your mind made up!

    Good to see the sprints being given a nice token award. Kind of like when somebody at a school prizegiving gets "most improved", when everybody knows its a sh1t award for those who didn't get the real prizes.

    Ah why am I bothering anyway. Who cares. "Hall of Fame" is such a poor coin of phrase for such a thing like this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,340 ✭✭✭TFBubendorfer


    Ah yes. The Galway Mini-ultra. If we start getting into records for specific races (which the 39.3 most definitely is!), the thread will be as long as the 'when will you hit 3 trillion miles' thread. Next it will be 'what about 24 hours around a track'? What about a female Boards Hall of Fame? What about a 'masters Hall of fame' (cos we're getting too old to compete with the young lads)? Can we have a 'Hall of Fame for people completing the Coach to 5k'? A running backwards Hall of Fame? A Triathlon/Duathlon/Aquathon/cycling/swimming' hall of fame? A hall of fame for the person who can fit the most bicycle pumps up their Arsène Wenger?

    Just so we're clear, as long as my name is still in the list, nothing else is important. :D

    I was only kidding, but actually there is a point in here.

    '24 hours around a track' IS a standard distance, there is even an official Irish championship (as well as European and worlds) and the reigning Irish champion happens to be on boards, as I'm pretty sure you know.

    And a female boards of fame is definitely worthwhile, so why are you lumping it into the same category as the bicycle pumps unspeakable?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,623 ✭✭✭dna_leri


    Keep the distances as they are - don't add to it unless it meets the random 7 recorded times criteria whether that is a long jog across mountains or a shorter jog up a track. It is bad enough that I can make the cut for this list at middle distances but I would be embarassed to have my 100m times listed in a hall of fame, even a boards one. Jeez if we can't even get 7 times for an event, then it would be a bit sad to list it in a hall of fame; in fact I would raise that criteria to minimum 10 times.

    BTW - I did not even know that thread existed before today, never mind that I was honoured on it, so at least you haev raised its profile.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,441 ✭✭✭Slogger Jogger


    Certain events are rare one offs but others while rare are setting a bar for others to try their hand. Pabtlo-T set the Wicklow way record last year pipping Enduro's time in the process. This week, by coincidence, Caroline Reid (not on boards to the best of my knowledge) also ran the Wicklow way and set a ladies record in the process. So, while these are not your standard distances they are events which themselves merit inclusion on a list for others to aspire to.


Advertisement