Have you ever heard someone say something along the lines of “imagine if they did the Olympic 100m race under AV rules you could have the person who comes in third winning it”.
Right now, let’s see how that analogy would actually work in the real world.
So, you already have a series of qualifying rounds for the 100m race where the person who came third in the previous qualifier can win in the final, are they saying that that’s unfair?
Assuming they are talking about the final, it’s hard to know what they mean.
Are they saying that the time of the person who ran last is allocated to the other runners’ times in some way, what?
Or are they suggesting that the race is run seven times and after each race the person in last place gets eliminated and the race is run again?
That would work if the presence on the track of the person who ran slowest would have had any bearing on the speed of the person that ran fastest. The analogy might work if the presence of another Jamaican on the track who finishes near the bottom was able to somehow cause the other Jamaican to slow down. Although the thing is running it 7 times would turn it into some sort of endurance event, and that’s not what the 100m sprint is meant to be.
I do wonder why they don’t bring up the decathlon where the person who wins it could finish second in every event because they were able to consistently do well where other couldn’t, this also applies to the F1 championship and a tennis match where the person who wins could have scored less points overall than the looser. So in short if you want to use a sporting analogy you’re going to have to do better than that.
