[RayCun]

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?

[RandyMann]

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

[RayCun]

Originally Posted by RandyMann

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.

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by RayCun

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.

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by RayCun

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).

[RayCun]

Originally Posted by Pisco Sour

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?

[myflipflops]

Originally Posted by Pisco Sour

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.

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by myflipflops

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.

[RayCun]

Originally Posted by Pisco Sour

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)

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by RayCun

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.

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by RayCun

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!

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

[RayCun]

Originally Posted by Pisco Sour

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.

[Pisco Sour]

Originally Posted by RayCun

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?

[RayCun]

Originally Posted by Pisco Sour

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.

[RayCun]

Originally Posted by Pisco Sour

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)