Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Coach_J

It's Hit the Fan!

Recommended Posts

I wish this information have a baseline for comparison.  50% of the matches worked by X official involved RUS, AZE, or UZB...  Removing the officials with direct ties to these three countries, what % of matches would include a wrestler from one of these 3 countries for the remaining referees to work?  This is relatively complex math beyond what I am capable of.

 

Considering that I would assume a reasonably large percentage of matches wrestled had at least 1 competitor from these 3 countries (considering their strength and representation in the brackets), it would be interesting to know how drastic of a deviation from the mean this is.  Considering Flo getting all over Wade for his lack of context for his numbers in a recent article, I would have expected them to have this tightened up.

 

That's not to say this data isn't interesting, and probably telling.  Still, without this context, it is difficult to say it PROVES anything.   I am SURE these assignments were intentional and nefarious.   As a wrestling observer all the proof I needed was what I saw go down and the way it went down in Rio to know it wasn't on the "up & up".  This statistical analysis lacks any form of a control, but maybe somebody can provide these numbers for context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great information being put out by Flo, but it was overly long presented in a pretty disorganized and confusing way. I'm a hardcore wrestling fan with prior knowledge of UWW/FILA corruption and that was hard for me to get through. Also, unfortunately, I doubt that this will incite change from UWW, the IOC or any related party. The 2020 Olympics will likely be just as bad. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure this isn't the last of the articles about this Flo is going to release.  This gets it out there, gets people talking and I'm sure some stat gurus on these here forums will get people crunching more numbers.  It's a great piece of investigation, now lets flesh out the #s a little more to give average context for average folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet this leads the same thing as every other time the US has complained. A bunch of trivial procedural changes which amount to window dressing and nothing more. Nobody really cares once you get outside of the base international wrestling fan. 

 

This isn't like Women's Figure Skating or a similar highly rated event. 

 

 

 

I'd love for the entire system to be blown up and rebuilt with transparency and honesty as the driving force but alas that's just a pipe dream.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish this information have a baseline for comparison.  50% of the matches worked by X official involved RUS, AZE, or UZB...  Removing the officials with direct ties to these three countries, what % of matches would include a wrestler from one of these 3 countries for the remaining referees to work?  This is relatively complex math beyond what I am capable of.

 

Considering that I would assume a reasonably large percentage of matches wrestled had at least 1 competitor from these 3 countries (considering their strength and representation in the brackets), it would be interesting to know how drastic of a deviation from the mean this is.  Considering Flo getting all over Wade for his lack of context for his numbers in a recent article, I would have expected them to have this tightened up.

 

That's not to say this data isn't interesting, and probably telling.  Still, without this context, it is difficult to say it PROVES anything.   I am SURE these assignments were intentional and nefarious.   As a wrestling observer all the proof I needed was what I saw go down and the way it went down in Rio to know it wasn't on the "up & up".  This statistical analysis lacks any form of a control, but maybe somebody can provide these numbers for context.

big fan of flo, but your comments resonate with me: you have to give mathematical context for anything mathematical to make sense.  I struggle to understand the significance of the stats being thrown at me, and I'm a math guy.  Just because it looks bad on the surface (and probably is) doesn't mean emphatic statements make it true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with JHRose on the need for more baseline (or more cowbell). Not because I think otherwise about it but not sure how far off the numbers should be.

One thing that confused me was saying Gaymuzov had 15 of 25 and Snyder had 17 of 20. Did we have 5 more officials that weren't eligible for matches than UZB? 

 

Something else though that may further buttress this whole thing is look at the picture of Aliyev. He stopped wrestling to ask to be put up. Although mentioned that he did this the additional point I see here is that he KNEW to ask this official. Did anyone see anyone else ask the official to be put up>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This needs to be published in a bigger outlet than Flowrestling.  This level of corruption should be in the sports section of some major news papers, or a magazine like SI.  I know wrestling isn't a widely followed sport but this level of corruption is astounding, and should be given better coverage.  With that said, huge props to Flowrestling on a well written story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no matter if the math is involved or not, the reality is that there is too little clarity and too many parts (intentionally) dark and the corruption lurks and grows in the darkness

Edited by beppe2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no matter if the math is involved or not, the reality is that there is too little clarity and too many parts (intentionally) dark and the corruption lurks and grows in the darkness

The math is very important. There's a reason why in most quantitative research publications have a methodology section. So folks get appropriate context to what the methods are. If you don't tell the reader what you did from a methodological standpoint then they might naively believe anything you say or assume you just crapped out any random number that helps your argument.

 

Edited by Smedley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the beginning of the article there's a link to the Olympic site that sums it all up.

 

Between Tickets and Settings.

 

Do you mean the Official Auction link? That sends you to the online Merch Store for the Olympics. I might be able to get some nice beach volleyball bikini bottoms there.

 

200w.gif

Edited by Smedley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The math is very important. There's a reason why in most quantitative research publications have a methodology section. So folks get appropriate context to what the methods are. If you don't tell the reader what you did from a methodological standpoint then they might naively believe anything you say or assume you just crapped out any random number that helps your argument.

 

My post was not related to the analysis, but the fact that wrestling is going through a very problematic situation in which the lack of transparency is the cause of rampant corruption. Then analysts have done an excellent job managing with very effective methods to extract the very eloquent statistics. But the main problem is that today there is too dark in wrestling and someone must clean it up.  Methodological standpoint is an help but not the solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My post was not related to the analysis, but the fact that wrestling is going through a very problematic situation in which the lack of transparency is the cause of rampant corruption. Then analysts have done an excellent job managing with very effective methods to extract the very eloquent statistics. But the main problem is that today there is too dark in wrestling and someone must clean it up.  Methodological standpoint is an help but not the solution.

I am totally lost here. They don't provide any explanation of their methods or mention what type of analysis they utilized. This might seem nit picky, but this ain't a silly high school ranking that they are presenting. They are making conclusions from some sort of quantitative analysis and don't even bother to inform the reader what the hell they did.

Edited by Smedley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with their basic concision but agree with you in that they should be explaining in better detail the probabilities and why it is proof of collusion.  

 

 

Being someone who analyzes a lot of data (it's in part my real job) they are correct as the statistical probability of the same group of people being involved in the same matches is extremely low, especially when you increase the number in the group size from 2 to 3 or as they say in a portion of the article 5 people. . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am totally lost here. They don't provide any explanation of their methods or mention what type of analysis they utilized. This might seem nit picky, but this ain't a silly high school ranking that they are presenting. They are making conclusions from some sort of quantitative analysis and don't even bother to inform the reader what the hell they did.

They weren't using a T-Test or an ANOVA, and I certainly didn't see any p-values.  You should be able to tell from reading that they are just working with the data to produce some basic, though time consuming, percentages that seem to tell a convincing story. Their results definitely look troubling for UWW, but if you want a test of significance maybe you can forward them the link to buy SPSS ($1,170/year).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They weren't using a T-Test or an ANOVA, and I certainly didn't see any p-values.  You should be able to tell from reading that they are just working with the data to produce some basic, though time consuming, percentages that seem to tell a convincing story. Their results definitely look troubling for UWW, but if you want a test of significance maybe you can forward them the link to buy SPSS ($1,170/year).  

you don't need a T-test, a SPSS sub or a varimax rotation to know that the probability of flipping a coin head 20 times in a row is extremely low. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...