| |
BGonline.org Forums
Criteria for Giants in US and Overseas
Posted By: Rich Munitz In Response To: Criteria for Giants in US and Overseas (Perry Gartner)
Date: Tuesday, 2 June 2009, at 12:34 a.m.
Perry - good start on a discussion.
I agree that people should be assessing those players with whom they are familiar and ideally have actually played against.
When I voted for the 2007 Giants, I was faced with the dilemma of having those players with whom I was familiar with and had a very good sense of their capabilities, vs. striking a balance and trying to recognize a set of non-US players that must be deserving of inclusion as Giants, but whom my only knowledge is reputation.
Some comments regarding your proposals.
1. Geographic eligibility - This needs to strike a balance between being such small and plentiful regions so as to be absurd (e.g. the Giants of Bhutan [my apology to the backgammon player from Bhutan]), vs. too few that the playing populations do not sufficiently interact (today). I think it is less a question of where people live than where they play open tournaments. Certainly the ABT hosts one large player population. Europe hosts another. Does any other region of the world host enough events to for another "critical mass" of players? Is there simply a third region of "other"? I don't know.
2. Active play. Well if it is an every two year poll, I think a player should not just have 2 events in the prior year, but should AVERAGE 2 events over the past 2 years. Your choice of 13 points as minimum match length is a problem, as I am aware of only 2 ABT events out of 19 on the tour (both LV events) that would meet that standard. 11 is almost a universal standard on the ABT tour. Like it or not, that is the reality. I am very much in favor of the idea of having matches that are identified in advance recorded and submitted for review of the voting community. Rollouts of all errors are essential, but there must be a standard. I favor video friendly events and this will help make that a requirement, and I don't think that anyone should expect to be voted as a Giant without their allowing their play to be available for public scrutiny. Don't like that? You don't have to be a Giant either.
3. Performance assessment. Let's not forget actual tournament results. I'd like to be able to see every candidate on the list along with their live tournament results for say the last 5 years. It is not just what they've done recently that matters, but I think consistency matters as well. A resume of sorts on the player's accomplishments could be helpful in reminding voters of what everyeone has accomplished.
4. Number of Giants. I think it is a stretch for most people today to come up with 32 names that they have good enough knowledge to judge as top in the world as familiarity is mostly local. However, I think it is very reasonable for people to rank 16 players on a regional level (especially seeing 2 major regions at the moment). I think 10 is too few. There are simply too many great players on the regional level. And even though they cannot all be selected, they deserve recognition.
5. Eligibility of Voters. It does not seem just to limit voting to Giants. Then it becomes a mutual admiration society. However, there is something to be said for the idea that to vote, you must have received some minimum number of points in the previous Giants balloting. Or anyone in the top 64 can vote for the top 32. But just maybe - anyone meeting the eligibility requirements for appearing on the Giants ballot (whatever that is) should be allowed to vote.
Out of time. Perhaps I'll post some more thoughts another time.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.