Post-Nathan’s Head to Head perfomances of eaters ranked #3-#8
The official IFOCE rankings have not been updated since sometime in July. It is obvious that Joey should retain #2 and reasonably clearcut that Pat should move to #3 if only results from the second half of 2006 are taken into account. Positions #4-#7 are more debatable. To assist in deterning these slots, I have listed the head to head results of eaters currently ranked #3-#8 for post-Nathan’s contests. Click on the results to see the breakdown.
Sonya 2 Pat 2
Sonya 0 Bob 2 Tie 1
Sonya 1 Tim 2
Sonya 1 Chip 2
Sonya 4 Rich 1
Pat 3 Bob 0
Pat 2 Tim 0
Pat 2 Chip 0
Pat 5 Rich 1
Bob 4 Tim 0
Bob 1 Chip 4
Bob 2 Rich 0
Tim 0 Chip 3 Tie 1
Tim 5 Rich 0
Chip 2 Rich 0
Combining all these results gives the following records:
Pat 14-3 .824
Chip 11-4-1 .733
Bob 9-7-1 .563
Sonya 8-9-1 .471
Tim 7-10-1 .412
Rich 2-18 .100
Loading ...
Rhonda Evans said
November 3, 2006 @ 9:29 am
That’s good information OJ. But it’s more complicated than that. The foods that eaters have participated in since Nathan’s represent such a small portion of the overall “menu.” That’s why the IFOCE usually updates them once a year or so, in order to get a better snapshot.
It would be very embarrasing for the IFOCE to change the rankings now, because the validity of the change would be hampered. Wait until after Meatballs, Thanksgiving, and Barrick (and others in between) and then see folks can talk better turkey with the rankings.
For a joke, I wish the IFOCE would put Pat, Bob, and Chip (put Tim above her too) above Sonya right now. Those rankings would be changed again with light speed, because they would look like they didn’t know what they were doing changing them in the first place.
Am I biased, yes! Am I truthful, yes!
Liz said
November 3, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Oooo, I like all the hard numbers here. I have a feeling the IFOCE isn’t half as mathematical when determining ranking.
Anonymous said
November 3, 2006 @ 10:18 am
It shouldn’t be as simple.
We should assign a lot more weight to the majors. Consider Nathan’s, Johnsonville, and Krystal:
Sonya – 3rd, 6th, 7th
Pat – 4th, 3rd, 3rd
Bob – 7th, 4th, 4th
Tim – 5th, 5th, T-5th
Chip – 7th, n/a, T-5th
The little contests, especially with their slim margins of victory, are so much less important than the majors. As in all sports, eaters should be rewarded for showing up and performing their best on the very biggest stages. What’s more impressive to you: a tennis player who performs well in every major and stinks it up at the Tier II events, or a tennis players does well in the Tier II events but stinks it up at the majors?
Rhonda Evans said
November 3, 2006 @ 10:31 am
What’s more important is:
1) Victories in head-to-head competition
2) Quantity of food eaten
For instance, except for Koby, no other eater on this planet would have come come close to Joey’s 212 Gyoza, EXCEPT Sonya.
Also, Except for Koby and Joey, who but Pat could have eaten nearly 80 Krystals in the finals?
It will be Sonya Thomas or Pat that ends Joey’s streak, because they’re the ONLY ones who even come close to Joey. This is especially true of Sonya. That’s why they’re ranked 2 and 3 behind him (in the US), as it should be.
I hope Pat and Joey both go to the Barrick Burger and Meatballs. Those two contests will (help) the rankings story unfold. Maybe Joey will finish the Burger in 12 minutes this time, since he’s improved so exponentially.
Shake and Bake said
November 3, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Even though Sonya has really gone downhill lately, at least by being a female she can still probably say that she’s one of the top 3 or 4 females in the world and she does still remain somewhat competitive. I just hope Gal Sone doesn’t enter any competitons in this country, because I like Sonya and don’t want to see her lose. May since Koby likes Sonya he will try to disuade Gal Sone from doing so.
Anonymous said
November 3, 2006 @ 10:44 am
Ranking should be determined from the last time the rankings were done – that was after Nathan’s this year. I don’t think that you should consider Nathan’s. If you do, why not Krystals 2005, nathans 2005, krystals 2004, … The ranking are not for your career, they are not for the past 5 years, they are not for 2006. They are for the current timerame in ce between the last ranking and the current ranking.
Who knows? In the end who really cares except for those people that are named in this thread and Rhonda Evans. That is not a slam on any of those people.
I am way more interested in who will be the five eaters below those named in this post. They are the HARD ones to rank. I am too lazy to figure out their records head to head, but I would love to see the results if someone did. Is their anyone that I can delegate this too?
NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH said
November 3, 2006 @ 11:00 am
The IFOCE rankings were never based on mathematics . Its determined by who they think sucks and who doesnt .
Steakbellie said (Registered August 11, 2006)
November 3, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
OJ,
You are an androgenous person after my own heart!
I love the hard data comparisons. If the IFOCE starts counting the results of everyone that Eats instead of just the top 3 at the table you could run an analysis of the entire field! Of course tableenders who enter contests that are packed with top 10 would take a beating against table enders that compete in less competitive contests.
I think you would have to add some kind of ‘Strength of Schedule’ weighting to the formula so that an Eater would be penalized less for losing to Koby and more for losing to somebody like me (God Forbid). Perhaps some kind of derivation of the inverse of their prior ranking? Unranked eaters start with a 51.
I think you also need to add some sort of bonus just for eating in a contest. Somebody who is prolific like Erik the Red would get a few bonus points more than somebody who only ate occassionally. I think rankings need to reflect those Eaters who are voracious.
All of that takes away the ‘Fun Factor’ but they could include a field for bonus points that would sway ranking one way or another.
Rhonda Evans said
November 3, 2006 @ 2:53 pm
Shake and Bake, I think your name refers to the condition of your Brain — or it could be fried and died!. That’s all I’ll say, because your logic doesn’t merit a thoughtful response.
Liz said
November 3, 2006 @ 3:13 pm
By the way, if True Fan extends Fantasy Eating for 2007 (building bigger or more teams to compete over the whole season) these are things we would really like to consider. Perhaps we can convince OJ to help out with the score keeping…
SuperPaul said
November 3, 2006 @ 4:26 pm
This kind of effort is better spent on a girlfriend….too much math
Mega Munch said
November 3, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
As a baseball fan, I looooooove numbers like this. Thank you, OJ.
The IFOCE needs to update it’s rankings with some regularity. Twice a year seems fair. Like Rhonda said, you need to allow the eaters to enter enough contests to base new rankings on and six months seems like a good length of time. Personally, as a stat geek, I’d prefer quarterly rankings, but I understand if that’s not possible.
By the way, I don’t think Gal Sone would beat Sonya.
Liz said
November 3, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
Unless your girlfriend likes math.
Pat Bertoletti said
November 3, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
I would love to have the # 3 spot but I don’t think that it should happen yet. For me to beat sonya she has to have a bad day and I have to have a really good day. I don’t think brats and krystal really prove much, I think that I need to compete with her more. Sonya can eat at least 65 krystals. She shocked the world last year with meatballs and the barrack burger when everyone said joey was better than her. She somehow manages to win close contests, that shows what a true champion she is.
Dudette said
November 3, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
It’s androgynous.
Wild Bill said (Registered September 19, 2006)
November 4, 2006 @ 9:14 am
Steakbellie and Anonymous both make good points. If you’re not competing, you shouldn’t be ranked. Also, it should be a point in time rankimg, after Nathan’s 2006, not career. This would drop people who aren’t competing or have retired off the rankings; if they have records, perhaps their Bib Sheet should be displayed with their records, if they are no longer ranked. Dropping inactive or retired eaters off the current list would drop the following eaters (with ranking): Eric Booker (9), Don Lerman (28), Levi Oliver (32), Kevin Lipsitz (38), Eddie Hardy (46)
Relatively inactive (2 contests or less since Nathan’s 2006: Pat Philbin (10) (2), Allen Goldstein (13) (1), Brian Subich (14) (1), Sam Vise (20) (1), Ron Koch (22) (1), Bryan Miller (23) (1), Brickhouse Braunstein (29) (2), Jason Smith (30) (1), Mongo Federighi (34) (2 IFOCE, 1 non-sanctioned), Brian Seiken (37) (1), Micah Collins (43) (1), Eric Livingston (44) (2), Domenico Alesi (45) (1), Eric Broe (47) (1), Nathan Kunce (48) (1), Todd Smith (50) (1).
These numbers were compiled using EatFeats database, which is more accurate than the results posting on IFOCE. During the date span (July 5, 2006 through November 4, 2006, there were 34 contests to compete in.
Mega Munch said
November 4, 2006 @ 10:03 am
It gets tougher when you start ranking eaters after #20 or so because many of those eaters can’t get out to as many contests as the top ranked eaters.
Wild Bill pointed out “Relatively Inactive” eaters, but 3 or 4 events per year (two since Nathans) is still not a bad amount considering these eaters are pretty much limited to events within driving distance and are at the mercy of the IFOCE registration process to get a spot at the table. The top ranked eaters can dip into their winnings and can therefore afford to fly to 10, 12, 15 events a year. They’re also pretty much guaranteed a spot at any table they want.
Yes, this ranking game is a tricky one indeed.
Ed Charles said
November 4, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Wild Bill what astronomical numbers have you put up at the table that makes you an expert as to who should be ranked or dropped. Win a title or two or put up some decent numbers then maybe we wil pay attention to your comment . Until then go to the back of the line because noone cares what you have to say
Wild Bill said
November 4, 2006 @ 7:55 pm
Ed – at least I’m out there, putting up numbers. Why don’t you step up to the table and compete, instead of just sniping at everyone about how badly they do.
Rhonda Evans said
November 6, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
Pat, you are a most wise, gracious, well spoken person with a great attitude. I’m sure that you, Sonya, Bob, Rich, Tim, Chip, and many other top eaters care very little about rankings. That’s because you all are mature and confident enough in your eating abilities that you don’t need a ranking system to dictate your capabilities. Rankings systems are really for the fans.