[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Dude, you’re the most arrogant moron I’ve ever come across. Every single expert and authority is in agreement on the issue. But oh no, they’re all idiots and only the brilliant you understand the the real situation?
Give it a fucking rest. Why don’t you go argue for creationism or debunk global warming or something. You know, because unanimous expert agreement is so meaningless and all.
[/QUOTE]
So you got nothing? Gotcha.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
So you got nothing? Gotcha.
[/QUOTE]
I have common sense, the laws of physics, and every expert in the field on my side.
What the fuck do you have?
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
I have common sense, the laws of physics,
The laws of physics are unfair? All physics does is explains why lighter = faster. Doesn’t tell us why it’s unfair.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
and every expert in the field on my side.
[/QUOTE]
You left out name calling.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
What the fuck do you have?
[/QUOTE]
Reasoning? C’mon, explain how a physical advantage is unfair (I know…“the experts blah blah blah”). Are superior reflexes unfair too?
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
Reasoning? C’mon, explain how a physical advantage is unfair (I know…“the experts blah blah blah”). Are superior reflexes unfair too?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not the driver that is lighter; it’s the car. Allowing competitors to race lighter cars is unfair.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
This new rule doesn’t level the playing field. It does just the opposite. Different weights of drivers have different rules. That’s unleveling the playing field.
[/QUOTE]
They set a minimum weight for all cars as raced. The same rule applies to everyone.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
It’s not the driver that is lighter; it’s the car. Allowing competitors to race lighter cars is unfair.
[/QUOTE]
You keep using this word unfair over and over and over as though it was a judgement handed down from God. It isn’t. You also seem to be operating from the delusion that sports leagues make rules in order to make sure their sports meet some metaphysical level of “fairness”. They don’t. They make rules to ensure the sports are competitive and interesting to fans.
Making all the car/driver combinations the same weight helps to keep the competitors equal with respect to power/weight ratio. Equal does not automatically mean fair, and unequal does not automatically mean unfair. Most competitions have inequalities based on the physical characteristics of the competitors, one player is bigger and stronger, one is faster, one is shorter, one is taller, they are not inherently unfair.
Racing leagues make these rules, not because the alternate is unfair, but because the rules help to keep the races closer, and they think that’s better for business.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
You keep using this word unfair over and over and over as though it was a judgement handed down from God. It isn’t. You also seem to be operating from the delusion that sports leagues make rules in order to make sure their sports meet some metaphysical level of “fairness”. They don’t. They make rules to ensure the sports are competitive and interesting to fans.
Making all the car/driver combinations the same weight helps to keep the competitors equal with respect to power/weight ratio. Equal does not automatically mean fair, and unequal does not automatically mean unfair. Most competitions have inequalities based on the physical characteristics of the competitors, one player is bigger and stronger, one is faster, one is shorter, one is taller, they are not inherently unfair.
Racing leagues make these rules, not because the alternate is unfair, but because the rules help to keep the races closer, and they think that’s better for business.
[/QUOTE]
So let me get this straight. You’re saying the intent is to make the competitors “equal” and the competition “close” and “competitive”, not “fair”? Are you really arguing that there is a distinction?
I have multiple times very clearly established that in my argument, fairness is competitive balance, aka a level playing field. And as for your shorter, taller, and stronger arguments, they don’t offer an advantage to a mechanical device competing against other mechanical devices. Of course being taller is a fair advantage in basketball because the only thing that helps is the human. Being a lighter driver without a weight penalty helps the engine of the car go faster. This is a vast difference.
Also note that Yookeroo’s actual argument is that the existing rule is unfair because the lighter drivers have to carry a weight penalty, resulting in uneven enforcement. He has said that it’s unfair because the competitors aren’t given a level playing field. This is the position that has convinced me he is a moron.
Let’s try an analogy of the NFL’s salary cap. The Giants and Jets have the largest market by far, and could easily outspend every other team if there were no shared revenue system, just like the Yankees do in MLB. Shortsighted people may argue that forcing the Giants to give up their properional share of the tv revenue is unfair to them. Smart people, OTOH, recognize that their market size gives them an unfair advantage in the context of the sport. Thus, while the revenue sharing plan may be unfair to the Giants in one sense, it is fair for the entire sport (and consequently the Giants) in a much more important and relevant way.
Competitive balance, aka fairness, makes for a better sport overall. It was the Giants owner Wellington Mara who recognized that without legitimate competition from small markets like Green Bay, his team would have nobody to play. Thus, the health of his franchise was dependent on setting up a fair, even playing field. So the money he gave away in revenue sharing was returned to him tenfold by the overall health of the league. All in the name of fairness.
Ellis Dee, you have exhibited the patience of a saint in dealing with the brothers of lekatt in this thread, who have shown themselves to be morons, as you say, or trolls who simply want to provoke a response in any way they can.
Either way, I suggest you stop baiting them. Clearly, nothing will change their tiny little minds.
It should be noted (or rather, reiterated in light of the current argument/discussion) that even when the minimum weight applies to driver+car, there is still advantage in having a lighter driver.
More ballast must be added to get the car up to minimum weight, but it can be placed where it’s wanted, rather than around the driver’s midsection. This usually means extremely low in the car; it may also be moved fore/aft (or laterally) to tweak the car’s weight distribution.
If a driver loses 10 pounds, he does not get the full advantage of running 10 pounds lighter than his non-dieting former self. However, that additional 10 pounds of ballast in his car, put where his engineer wants it, will (if his engineer’s competent) give him an advantage over his previous state, where that 10 pounds of “ballast” was in his gut.
In Formula One (where the minimum weight applies to driver + car), BMW Sauber driver Robert Kubica lost 6 kg over the recent offseason - a somewhat impressive feat given that he was pretty skinny to begin with. As this article mentions, “The minimum weight for car plus driver in F1 is 605kg, but the lighter a driver is, the more ballast can be positioned in key areas for additional performance.”
(Although F1 is far more of an engineering contest than, say, BTCC is. It’s the only major racing series in the world in which each team is required to design and construct their own chassis. The Ferrari and the Force India cars, for example, are nowhere near comparable in performance.)
All major racing series that I’m aware of do it this way (now). That, by itself, isn’t proof that it’s more fair than any other way - it just means there’s consensus. I happen to agree with this method (for what my opinion is worth) - I just wanted to point out that this method of defining the minimum weight reduces, but does not eliminate, the advantage a lighter driver has over an otherwise-equal-in-all-respects opponent.
If one’s definition of “fair” requires no advantage being conferred on lighter drivers, this method is better than minimum-empty-car-weight but still not perfect. The driver is part of the car, dynamically, and his/her weight distribution will affect the car’s performance - no matter how much we might wish it did not.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
So let me get this straight. You’re saying the intent is to make the competitors “equal” and the competition “close” and “competitive”, not “fair”? Are you really arguing that there is a distinction?
[/QUOTE]
Of course there is.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
I have multiple times very clearly established that in my argument, fairness is competitive balance, aka a level playing field. And as for your shorter, taller, and stronger arguments, they don’t offer an advantage to a mechanical device competing against other mechanical devices.
[/QUOTE]
So what. Why the distinction?
Do stronger legs on a cyclist offer an advantage to a a mechanical device competing against other mechanical devices? For that matter, doesn’t a lighter cyclist have an advantage? Is that unfair?
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Of course being taller is a fair advantage in basketball because the only thing that helps is the human. Being a lighter driver without a weight penalty helps the engine of the car go faster. This is a vast difference.
[/QUOTE]
How so? It seems an arbitrary difference.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Also note that Yookeroo’s actual argument is that the existing rule is unfair because the lighter drivers have to carry a weight penalty, resulting in uneven enforcement. He has said that it’s unfair because the competitors aren’t given a level playing field. This is the position that has convinced me he is a moron.
[/QUOTE]
You yourself just called it a “penalty”. But the point is that you can look at it from another angle and it really looks unfair to penalize her for being lighter. You lack the imagination to see it outside of the “they all do it that way!!!” point of view.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Let’s try an analogy of the NFL’s salary cap. The Giants and Jets have the largest market by far, and could easily outspend every other team if there were no shared revenue system, just like the Yankees do in MLB. Shortsighted people may argue that forcing the Giants to give up their properional share of the tv revenue is unfair to them. Smart people, OTOH, recognize that their market size gives them an unfair advantage in the context of the sport.
[/QUOTE]
Why is it unfair? I fucking hate salary caps, but they’re really not about fairness, they’re about competitive balance.
[QUOTE=Yookeroo]
Do stronger legs on a cyclist offer an advantage to a a mechanical device competing against other mechanical devices? For that matter, doesn’t a lighter cyclist have an advantage? Is that unfair?
[/quote]
Unless the cyclist has bionic legs, the advantage is muscular, not mechanical. You really don’t see the difference between sinew and an internal combustion engine? Tell you what, I’ll race you with you on a bicycle and me on a motorcycle, and we’ll see if you notice a difference in how tired we both are at the end of the race.
Also, when you finally cross the finish line in second place and complain that it wasn’t fair, I’ll point out how it’s only unfair from the point of view of everybody but me, and inform you that you simply lack the imagination to see how it actually was fair after all. If you counter by saying that you had to peddle using your muscles while I let the engine do all the work, I’ll respond with: “So what. Why the distinction?” or “It seems an arbitrary difference.”
Surely you’ll find those responses compelling, yes?
Competitive balance is all about fairness. That’s the whole point of the phrase “a level playing field.” Is your entire objection really just the piddling semantic bullshit that two synonyms mean markedly different things?
If you are stuck on just the word fairness, I’ll accept competitive balance. All major racing leagues should (and now do) weigh the cars as raced in order to promote competitive balance.
ETA: Level Playing Field:
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
If you are stuck on just the word fairness, I’ll accept competitive balance. All major racing leagues should (and now do) weigh the cars as raced in order to promote competitive balance.
[/QUOTE]
I love this change.
In my thought process, fairness does not concern itself with the results of the competition. Even if the competition results in a particular person (or type of person) having a higher likelihood of winning, it can be fair. As long as the rules apply equally to everyone, and promote valid aspects of one’s overall skill, it should be considered fair.
Competitive balance has more to do with the results of the competition, ensuring that all competitors have an equal opportunity to win.
I see Competitive Balance as un-leveling the playing field in a very precise way so that competitors with disadvantages can still do well, and make for more exciting sport. For instance, having a Draft where the worst teams pick first, we’re giving lousy teams the advantage of first crack at the best young talent, so that they have a better chance to succeed in the future.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
For instance, having a Draft where the worst teams pick first, we’re giving lousy teams the advantage of first crack at the best young talent, so that they have a better chance to succeed in the future.
[/QUOTE]
But they’re not using an internal combustion engine in order to do so, so it’s still fair.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
In my thought process, fairness does not concern itself with the results of the competition.
Competitive balance has more to do with the results of the competition, ensuring that all competitors have an equal opportunity to win.
[/QUOTE]
I completely agree with the first sentence, and have maintained that position throughout this thread.
Your second sentence is contradictory. Competitive balance doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with results; it’s purely about opportunity. Just like fairness. Why you think that “opportunity” is equal to “results” is beyond me.
Just because the Yankees haven’t won a World Series in the last 7 years doesn’t mean that they are more competitively balanced with the rest of the league. They still have vast advantages in opportunity.
As for your example of the draft, I challenge you to craft the fairest possible way to introduce a rookie class into the league and post it for us to see. ETA: For example, giving the champion team their pick of every single player they want, and when they’re done picking however many guys they wanted, the second place team picks everyone they want, and so on, would be extremely unfair. So there are different levels of unfairness in different approaches. I’m asking for you to post the fairest method you can come up with.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
As for your example of the draft, I challenge you to craft the fairest possible way to introduce a rookie class into the league and post it for us to see. I’m asking for you to post the fairest method you can come up with.
[/QUOTE]
Use a random number generator to create a draft order. Use that order for round 1. Reverse that order for round 2. Create a new random draft order for round 3, and reverse it for 4. And so on.
[QUOTE=Taber]
Use a random number generator to create a draft order. Use that order for round 1. Reverse that order for round 2. Create a new random draft order for round 3, and reverse it for 4. And so on.
[/QUOTE]
How is that any more fair than the way the NFL currently does it?
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
How is that any more fair than the way the NFL currently does it?
[/QUOTE]
No team has an advantage going in, as opposed to giving losing teams a step up.
I’ll give you 3 examples of a draft, one unfair, one fair, and one fair with competitive balance added
Unfair:
The draft order is determined by alphabetizing the name of the team, the Bears and Bengals go first, the Texans and Vikings last. Clearly this is a silly way to have a draft, and would make the Texans and Vikings uncompetitive by virtue of nothing but their name.
Fair:
Draft order in each round is determined by random lot. I would consider this fair, though I would not recommend it for anything other than a league’s initial draft.
Fair with competitive balance:
Like we do today, teams with a poor record get to choose first, they get a preferential pick in order to help them become more competitive in the future. The league recognizes that it is in their interest to ensure that bad teams get a boost towards the middle.
I consider both of the last two options “fair”. The final option, with competitive balance added, projects the performance of teams and adjusts the draft order so that the desired result (help the bad teams) is achieved. The second option doesn’t care what the result of the draft order selection is, it’s just as happy if the champion gets the first pick, or the middle pick, or the last pick.
I don’t consider the second option more fair than the third, but I would argue against labeling it “unfair”. Unfair is what the Vikings can say about the first option, they’re penalized by a stupid rule that has nothing to do with the sport. In the second option, nobody is penalized, they just have to deal with the lot their given, even if it happens to suck.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Unless the cyclist has bionic legs, the advantage is muscular, not mechanical. You really don’t see the difference between sinew and an internal combustion engine? Tell you what, I’ll race you with you on a bicycle and me on a motorcycle, and we’ll see if you notice a difference in how tired we both are at the end of the race.
[/QUOTE]
Nice straw man.
Is someone building a faster bike for the Tour de France unfair? Not all bikes are equal.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Also, when you finally cross the finish line in second place and complain that it wasn’t fair,
[/QUOTE]
Why would I do that? If I agreed to a race like that (which I wouldn’t), why would I complain about fairness?
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
I’ll point out how it’s only unfair from the point of view of everybody but me, and inform you that you simply lack the imagination to see how it actually was fair after all. If you counter by saying that you had to peddle using your muscles while I let the engine do all the work, I’ll respond with: “So what. Why the distinction?” or “It seems an arbitrary difference.”
[/QUOTE]
It is. You’re building an argument out of some fantasy of yours as to how I’ll react.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Surely you’ll find those responses compelling, yes?Competitive balance is all about fairness. That’s the whole point of the phrase “a level playing field.” Is your entire objection really just the piddling semantic bullshit that two synonyms mean markedly different things?
[/QUOTE]
They aren’t synonyms.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
I love this change.
In my thought process, fairness does not concern itself with the results of the competition. Even if the competition results in a particular person (or type of person) having a higher likelihood of winning, it can be fair. As long as the rules apply equally to everyone, and promote valid aspects of one’s overall skill, it should be considered fair.
[/QUOTE]
Making lighter drivers add weight doesn’t sound like a rule that applies to everyone.
But I get that the idea is that all car/driver combos must weigh the same. But that’s not inherently more fair than letting lighter drivers keep their advantage.
[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Competitive balance has more to do with the results of the competition, ensuring that all competitors have an equal opportunity to win.
I see Competitive Balance as un-leveling the playing field in a very precise way so that competitors with disadvantages can still do well, and make for more exciting sport. For instance, having a Draft where the worst teams pick first, we’re giving lousy teams the advantage of first crack at the best young talent, so that they have a better chance to succeed in the future.
[/QUOTE]
Right. The draft is an attempt at competitive balance, but what’s fair about rewarding failure? The losers are given a draft advantage. And doesn’t the NFL stack the schedule for stronger teams? That’s to help competitive balance, but can hardly be considered fair.
[QUOTE=Ellis Dee]
Just because the Yankees haven’t won a World Series in the last 7 years doesn’t mean that they are more competitively balanced with the rest of the league. They still have vast advantages in opportunity.
[/QUOTE]
Is this an unfair advantage though? If so, why?
[QUOTE=Taber]
No team has an advantage going in, as opposed to giving losing teams a step up.
[/QUOTE]
The teams that pick first have an advantage.