View Single Post
Old 11-08-2009, 12:58 PM   #4
pc1
Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CyBorg View Post
I don't believe SgtJohn claims that the 0.5 value for the Australian is entirely accurate. Rather the value is abstract, approximate - meant to give a rough idea.

It is easy to dismiss this on the grounds that the number allotted is not objectively representative - we know that it is not. However I believe that this is a useful framework that aids in thinking about these events.

In language we constantly use abstraction - for example, I may say that the human body consists of the head, the torso, the arms and the legs. Someone may interrupt me and say that I am wrong for ignoring other parts of the body, such as the eyes, nose, feet and internal organs. But sometimes we cannot list everything and need to rely on a more simple model to grasp complexity in some basic way.

Similarly here, the Australian is in no objective way worth half of Wimbledon. But it is hard to argue that it is worth as much either, and it is also not a good idea to ignore it altogether. In order to avoid unnecessarily complex numbers (0.75 and other varieties) it is probably the best idea to simply allot '0.5', without any pretention of total accuracy.
I guess I can go with that, with reservations. I do like the idea, don't get me wrong. I am concerned with the execution of the idea which can go wrong in many ways.

The great thing about today's tournaments is that they do assign values to tournaments so you can get a better idea of how a player does during the year and in the future for his or her career.

Last edited by pc1 : 11-08-2009 at 03:05 PM.
pc1 is online now   Reply With Quote