| |
BGonline.org Forums
Maybe it's time for a change?
Posted By: Phil Simborg In Response To: The joke Backgammon Giants list (Sevdalin Tsvetanov)
Date: Thursday, 18 February 2016, at 1:40 a.m.
Since its inception, the Giant list had to be accepted knowing there were serious flaws. We all knew that a lot of the voting is a matter of who you know and like and who you are friends with, and more recently, it is obvious that people are voting for their countrymen in a highly prejudiced fashion. The top of the list has pretty much been able to survive these jaundiced votes simply because people like Mochy, Michy, Falafel and others who have been at or near the top are so clearly deserving After those top ones however, the list breaks down terribly.
If the people who run this list determine not to change, I am convinced the list will have less and less meaning, and more and more people resenting it rather than respecting it. But clearly there are some changes that people have been asking for...mainly that there be more definitive restrictions as to who can get votes and a clearer definition of what we are voting for. Are we really voting for the players we think are the best today, or are we voting for the people who have proven themselves in live events during the past two years?
If it is the second, and that is what I believe most people would want to see and honor, then why not state that in order for a player to get a vote he must have played in at least ____major tournaments and he must have either won an event or come in the top 4 at least ______ times? Why not state whether or not the players "contribution" to the game outside of pure results should be taken into consideration or not?
I know there is tradition here, and that is a strong reason not to change the voting, the rules of the game, tournament structure, etc. etc., but we clearly have a situation where we are getting results that are mixed and not truly representative of what the Giant list is intended to show.
Yes, we know Nack and Sander and Gus could be amongst the best, but should they be on the current list? Yes, there are some great players in Croatia, but shouldn't they have to play in a minimum number of events and take home some hardware to be on the list? Why not spell out the criteria better and make this list meaningful. Otherwise, we have a list that is not very meaningful, and that's a shame, because we should have ways to recognize and honor people who have performed exceptionally well and have done much for the game.
The good news is, at least this time, and in recent years, the top choices have been excellent. Hard to dispute that Mochy, Michy and Akiko deserve special recognition, just as it was hard to dispute the other top players in the past. I believe the way things are headed, without some changes, that will not continue to be the case.
The ONLY good argument I have ever heard for the status quo us that it is the status quo. Change or die, and that is the case with the Giant list in my opinion.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.