With two on first, who's second?

[S.H.]

That’s not it. I’m saying neither are convincingly first. They both have the fastest time. But neither was able to defeat the other, to be The One and Only Champion of the race, and they’re getting rewarded for that. So, it’s really not that it’s unfair Shiffrin gets 60. It’s unfair they got 100 each, rather than 90 each. To make up that unfairness, it would, IMO, be more fair that Shiffrin gets 80, and everyone else gets points associates with the next position

Do you agree that they are both convincingly faster than the 3rd-place finisher?

If yes, why should the 3rd-place finisher be rewarded as if they were in 2nd place?

 

[S.H.]

Do you agree that they are both convincingly faster than the 3rd-place finisher?

If yes, why should the 3rd-place finisher be rewarded as if they were in 2nd place?

... in reality

you are never going to convince me that the third-fastest person on the day is really in second place.

 

[karlo]

Why?

See my additional post above.

A "placing" in a race is determined by [PLACING] = [HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE FASTER] + 1

Yes, for maybe Placing. But, IMO, it’s the points that count. What if it were money. Would the sponsor pony up 20 million extra dollars because they tied?

 

[karlo]

Do you agree that they are both convincingly faster than the 3rd-place finisher?

If yes, why should the 3rd-place finisher be rewarded as if they were in 2nd place?

Again, look at points like money. That’s the reward. You or we, put up the money. Now what?

and the points are money. They affect globe award where the real money is

 

[S.H.]

See my additional post above.

Yes, for maybe Placing. But, IMO, it’s the points that count. What if it were money. Would the sponsor pony up 20 million extra dollars because they tied?

Oftentimes, yes.

But if we look at it like money ... your solution means more money is awarded. You get that, right?

 

[karlo]

Put another way. I don’t care what the Placing is. I care about the Money, the Points

 

[karlo]

Oftentimes, yes.

But if we look at it like money ... your solution means more money is awarded. You get that, right?

My solution is that the two split 180 pts, each getting 90. Shiffrin gets 60

 

[S.H.]

My solution is that the two split 180 pts, each getting 90. Shiffrin gets 60

I get that. But your solution if that isn't going to be the case, because it never is, is that winner1 =100, winner2 = 100, 3rd place = 80, which disproportionately benefits the 3rd place finisher

 

[James]

Why should the third-fastest person be rewarded as if they were in 2nd?

Because they had the 2nd fastest time.

 

[S.H.]

Because they had the 2nd fastest time.

No they didn't.

They had the third fastest *unique* time. But who cares about unique times?

 

[S.H.]

If this were golf, in a tournament of 5 players
A. -4
B. -3
C. -3
D. -3
E. +5

Are you saying it's fine for E. to claim that they finished 3rd in this tournament of 5?

 

[BrianB]

This is an interesting discussion and I don’t have any strong opinion but if you tie for first and therefore didn’t beat every single other person do you really still deserve the same 100 points as if you were the sole victor?

 

[S.H.]

This is an interesting discussion and I don’t have any strong opinion but if you tie for first and therefore didn’t beat every single other person do you really still deserve the same 100 points as if you were the sole victor?

FIS, and literally every other race that's determined by a clock in every other sport ... says yes

 

[James]

No they didn't.

They had the third fastest *unique* time. But who cares about unique times?

It's the 2nd fastest time. Two people had the fastest time.

So, if they're third fastest, who's second fastest?
If you make your logic, then some of @karlo 's logic comes in play.

Btw, I agree winners should get the full 100. But, if you follow that, the 2nd fastest should get 80.

 

[S.H.]

It's the 2nd fastest time. Two people had the fastest time.

So, if they're third fastest, who's second fastest?
If you make your logic, then some of @karlo 's logic comes in play.

Btw, I agree winners should get the full 100. But, if you follow that, the 2nd fastest should get 80.

I maintain it is the 3rd fastest time. It's the second-fastest *unique* time.

You look at the board.
There are two finish times faster than yours. You are third-fastest. This isn't hard.

What does it matter if those two times are identical?

ETA: Are all sports in the world doing this wrong?

 

[karlo]

I get that. But your solution if that isn't going to be the case, because it never is, is that winner1 =100, winner2 = 100, 3rd place = 80, which disproportionately benefits the 3rd place finisher

Hey, if it were money, it wouldn’t happen. No way is the sponsor going to pony up another 20 for the two, and another 20 for third, and more for anyone else. But, if it were money, the sponsor wouldn’t pony up for the first 20 either. Easy to drop points; it’s no one’s money.

My way, at this race, Vhlova gets 40 pts more if she is very absolutely the fastest, 30 more if she is tied for “first”, 20 more if she was truly second. Is that fair? I think so. But, as is, she gets 40 points more. Now, let’s say at the end of season, Vhlova has 30 pts more than Shiffrin, is that fair, having gotten 40 pts more for not being truly, absolutely first? That’s the objective isn’t it, to “work” to be truly, absolutely first. She failed in that, yet gets rewarded

 

[BrianB]

I was only thinking about World Cup points and personal opinion is 100 points for each of tied first place finishers makes sense plus 60 points for third, but it still seems like an interesting discussion. Prize money seems a more complicated issue as there is a finite amount to be distributed and ties could complicate the distribution. Maybe the sponsors have insurance to cover scenarios where ties would lead to extra payouts?

 

[karlo]

My way, at this race, Vhlova gets 40 pts more if she is very absolutely the fastest, 30 more if she is tied for “first”, 20 more if she was truly second. Is that fair? I think so. But, as is, she gets 40 points more. Now, let’s say at the end of season, Vhlova has 30 pts more than Shiffrin, is that fair, having gotten 40 pts more for not being truly, absolutely first? That’s the objective isn’t it, to “work” to be truly, absolutely first. She failed in that, yet gets rewarded

I was in a bit of a rush. Hard to understand. Here’s an edit

My way, at this race, Vhlova gets 40 pts more (than Shiffrin, 100 vs 60) if she is very absolutely the fastest. Tied for first as she is, 30 pts more (than Shiffrin, 90 vs 60). If she comes in 2nd, she would have 20 more (than Shiffrin, 80 vs 60). As it is now, she gets 40 points more (than Shiffrin, 100 vs 60). Now, let’s say at the end of season and Vhlova has 30 pts more than Shiffrin. Is that fair, having gotten 40 pts more (than Shiffrin in this race) for not being truly, absolutely first? That’s the objective isn’t it, to “work” to be truly, absolutely first? She failed in that, yet gets rewarded.

 

[karlo]

If this were golf, in a tournament of 5 players
A. -4
B. -3
C. -3
D. -3
E. +5

Are you saying it's fine for E. to claim that they finished 3rd in this tournament of 5?

These points don’t add up for the real prize, a Globe. How they want to do it here, its no big deal. It washes out in the end, as those who think they have the raw end of the deal, benefit another time when luck goes their way.

 

[Ross Biff]

It's not a "spot" for the third fastest time. Its a count of people. The person with the third fastest time had three people finish in front of her. Hence she finished fourth.

1st racer has fastest time, 2nd racer has second fastest time, 3rd racer has third fastest time etc, etc. As for a tie in first place...there are 2 RACERS who have a faster time than the racer with the next fastest time, not two faster TIMES. There is only 1 faster time, it just happens to have been set by more than 1 racer. This can all get a little semantic but I wonder if, through the years, there have been globes decided that could have gone to another racer if the points were close enough and a slight variation in how the points were divided in cases of ties etc changed the season end points totals. Perhaps a question for someone with a mathematical bent and more free time than me!