An alternative ranking of priority sports has become / Article / LSM.lv

–

The table compiled by Lazdovskis consists of two parts, one third of the total score of 150 points being the achievements in the respective sport, but the others are different indicators of activity.

Lazdovskis considers the recognition of success in the world and in Latvia to be an important argument in evaluating achievements.

For the calculation, he used the tables prepared by the Ministry of Education and Science (MES), but modified the calculation algorithm. For example, if Latvia had success in the world’s most popular sport in football, it is rated at 100% or a coefficient of 100, one percent less is applied to each of the next, while the world’s 100 most popular sport receives a coefficient of 1. Sports below 100th place do not receive any points regardless of success , and this does not allow to rise in the ranking of Lazdovskis specific and little – known sports.

“I do not doubt it [pasaulē populārāko sporta veidu] ranking, “said Lazdovskis.” Whatever it was, the one I use, although in some places it seemed to me that it did not correspond to my idea of ​​what is or is not popular. “

Lazdovskis also used the list of the 50 most popular sports in Latvia prepared by the Ministry of Education and Science,

for the first evaluation, providing 100% and proportionally zero – for the 51st place. In its calculations, the Ministry of Education and Science also determined an 80% result coefficient for all those who are outside the TOP 100 in the world and outside the TOP 50 in Latvia, leaving only 20% for the variable part. The result is a ranking that seems incomprehensible to fans who follow sporting events, the president of LaMSF emphasized.

The other two thirds of the evaluation was modeled by Lazdovskis according to the criteria applied by the Latvian Sports Federation Council when evaluating the activities of the federations. However, Lazdovskis changed the weight of the criteria to highlight the emphasis on mass and youth involvement defined by the Ministry of Education and Science.

The data provided by the sports federations were used in an unchanged form,

although it seems to Lazdovskis that some of the data might not correspond to reality. “I think there are different interpretations – one has put licensed athletes in the competition, another has all the children of sports schools and so on,” explained the author of the alternative ranking.

Ladzowski created a set of criteria, where the fifth part of the remaining 100 points is given by mass. This is the number of legal members in federations, participation of young people, activity in organizing competitions in Latvia in both national and youth championships, as well as international competitions. Also included is the intensity of participation of Latvian athletes in international competitions, as well as a section on folk and veteran sports. The role of federations in educational activities – seminars, coaches’ courses and similar activities – has a role to play, as well as, to a lesser extent, representation in international federations.

In the alternative rank, the first twenty Lazdovskis seems quite logical. According to his applied criteria, football ranks third, although in the success section the result is zero.

Higher in the rank of football would then be the leader in basketball and athletics,

but the top 10 would be followed by volleyball, hockey, motorsport, orienteering, cycling, floorball and motorsport. The top ten would include bobsleigh, tennis, swimming and tobogganing.

“It seems to me that the direction that most of the society would understand is already,” Lazdovskis described his performance in ranking calculations.

A summary of stumbling blocks created by Latvian Television, which has so far prevented the country from determining the priority sports, will be offered by the program “Sports Studio” on November 9 at 21.50.

–