Hacker News Reader

Comment by kazinator | Hacker News Reader

I can't agree; the number of kilograms is too simplistic a parameter. I'd be more inclined to agree to some more sophisticated division that takes body composition into account. But that is still too simplistic if it is applied the same way in every sport. In some sports, mass is disadvantageous. In some sports, lean mass is advantageous, fat mass isn't. In some, raw mass is advantageous.

View on HN

Perhaps classes on ability necessary to the sport should be the only way to go?

But that is futile, because ability necessary to the sport is what produces the results, i.e. rankings. So that amounts to just (1) everyone competing together as if there were one category, then (2) being ranked from winner to loser, and (3) we then declare that each rank is its own ability class, so everyone is a winner in their ability class!

Bob is the winner of the #1 division, Amy is the winner of the #2 division, and so on.

All the tuples of athletes who tied get to be in one class; e.g. if three people crossed the 10,000 meter finish at 29:13, they are in that ability class together, tying for that class' first place. :)

Even if you don't go to the absurd extreme you pushed it to, it still doesn't work. Like, say you rank everyone from 1st to 50th, and then break everyone into five divisions (1st-10th, 11th-20th, and so on).

Then you end up with perverse incentives. The #1 person in the 2nd division doesn't really want to work harder to move up to the 1st division, because they're likely to never get beyond 10th or 9th or so. And the 10th place holder in the 1st division might find it more prestigious to slow down a little to try to take the #1 spot of the 2nd division.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com