Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Jun 26 17 2:05 PM

nfm24 wrote:
> and for stated reasons i still stand by the argument that a healthy all time ranking does imply tradition

What reasons?  You haven't given any.  You've just stated it as an axiom, or "just common sense".  What is your definition of "tradition"?


>  any of these countries would be just as worthy (if not more so) of hosting the world cup as Japan, United States, or South Africa.

I see, so you're essentially still saying that *any* team ranked higher than Japan #135 and the USA #153 would be a worthy host.  And in addition, some lower ranked teams (e.g. Mauritius, Luxembourg, ROC) also have enough "tradition" to be worthy hosts too.  

Perhaps you could give some examples of countries which would *not* be as worthy (according to you), and their ranking positions.  


By the way, why haven't you addressed the chronological inconsistencies I mentioned in my first post?

i've explained that a country can't join a highly competitive sport internationally and rank above average without having tradition. it takes tradition to be good at something like that, and as i stated before tradition doesn't necessarily grant success. i also already defined tradition to what i'm assuming we were collectively defining tradition as in this context: "tradition in this context i would assume is referring to maintaining a culture of football."

i think i'm being misrepresented a little... my argument isn't that South Africa, United States et cetera are or aren't worthy to host the cup... but if they are deemed worthy by the international football community, certainly there is no question that Qatar should be worthy (regarding skill).

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Jun 26 17 2:10 PM

LeonardoP wrote:
I'd like to know where the dates on your rankings came from. How did Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay started playing seriously in 1922, if both CONMEBOL and Copa América are from 1916? Copa Lipton is from 1905, and Uruguay's results on 1920s speak for themselves.

this is simply a rating technicality. if i were to include those matches the Elo ratings for South American countries and European countries would not be relative, but derived separately... therefore meaningless. perhaps i can add those matches in the future if i add a "reverse" mechanism.  and to address ctr's defense of me, there actually is relatively sufficient economic data on those countries back then. Argentina and Uruguay were actually relatively wealthy in those times (this was before the United States started economically bullying Argentina and Uruguay, as they were more concerned with the exploitation of the Caribbean and northern parts of South America at that point in history).

Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Jun 29 17 11:37 PM

> i've explained that a country can't join a highly competitive sport internationally and rank above average without having tradition

You haven't explained it, you just stated it without justification (again), and without defining the vague term "tradition" (again).  Hence the statement is meaningless.  We could replace the word "tradition" with "magic" everywhere in this thread, and it wouldn't make any less sense.


> i also already defined tradition to what i'm assuming we were collectively defining tradition as in this context: "tradition in this context i would assume is referring to maintaining a culture of football."

Again "assuming".  Why aren't you able to define what you mean?  The whole point of your argument hinges on it!   And "collectively"!  Clearly we two (at least) don't have the same thing in mind, so to whom are you referring?  At best, you've just replaced "tradition" with the equally ambiguous word "culture".  Meaningless.

This whole discussion is redundant.  You've already retracted half of what you were trying to say at the beginning, because it was patently nonsense.  The remaining half is worthless because (a) you haven't given a worthwhile definition of what it means, and (b) even if we infer contextual definitions, the statement is so weak as to be practically inane.  Hardly compelling.


There are also fundamental issues unaddressed, e.g.:

> Perhaps you could give some examples of countries which would *not* be as worthy (according to you), and their ranking positions. 
(note: "worthy" was your own choice of word - there is no misrepresentation here)

> Why haven't you addressed the chronological inconsistencies I mentioned in my first post?
(note: if anything, I would expect the adjustments to strengthen your case, if you can be bothered to consider them)


Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

Jun 29 17 11:38 PM

Why are the countries' ratings in the tables in your first post here significantly different from those on your website?
E.g. on your website, Qatar is #73 all-time, #109 for 2017. Instead of #62 all-time and #95 now as in your post here.
(note: I don't care about this, so don't bother to answer it)

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#25 [url]

Jul 3 17 8:05 AM

nfm24 wrote:
> i've explained that a country can't join a highly competitive sport internationally and rank above average without having tradition

You haven't explained it, you just stated it without justification (again), and without defining the vague term "tradition" (again).  Hence the statement is meaningless.  We could replace the word "tradition" with "magic" everywhere in this thread, and it wouldn't make any less sense.


> i also already defined tradition to what i'm assuming we were collectively defining tradition as in this context: "tradition in this context i would assume is referring to maintaining a culture of football."

Again "assuming".  Why aren't you able to define what you mean?  The whole point of your argument hinges on it!   And "collectively"!  Clearly we two (at least) don't have the same thing in mind, so to whom are you referring?  At best, you've just replaced "tradition" with the equally ambiguous word "culture".  Meaningless.

This whole discussion is redundant.  You've already retracted half of what you were trying to say at the beginning, because it was patently nonsense.  The remaining half is worthless because (a) you haven't given a worthwhile definition of what it means, and (b) even if we infer contextual definitions, the statement is so weak as to be practically inane.  Hardly compelling.


There are also fundamental issues unaddressed, e.g.:

> Perhaps you could give some examples of countries which would *not* be as worthy (according to you), and their ranking positions. 
(note: "worthy" was your own choice of word - there is no misrepresentation here)

> Why haven't you addressed the chronological inconsistencies I mentioned in my first post?
(note: if anything, I would expect the adjustments to strengthen your case, if you can be bothered to consider them)


lol, i did define it. you keep ignoring my definition. i did not retract "half" my argument. i retracted pretty much the least important element of it. i haven't retracted anything i stated in the video, i did retract a statement i made in the original post here.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jul 3 17 8:11 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   

#26 [url]

Jul 3 17 8:10 AM

nfm24 wrote:
Why are the countries' ratings in the tables in your first post here significantly different from those on your website?
E.g. on your website, Qatar is #73 all-time, #109 for 2017. Instead of #62 all-time and #95 now as in your post here.
(note: I don't care about this, so don't bother to answer it)

tweaking. matches have also been played since my OP, so that could also change 2017 rankings a bit.

Last Edited By: abramjones Jul 4 17 5:45 PM. Edited 2 times.

Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

Jul 3 17 5:03 PM

Nothing you have written constitutes a definition. It's just a desperately bad argument all round.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help