Nobel laureate R. Feynman believes that two-thirds of any science is in the concepts that it uses. In the film by S. Govorukhin “Vermont recluse”, telling about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the hero of the film speaks about the words that are littering the Russian language. And the first such word in his list is the word “rating”.

Most under the rating, understand the empirical estimates or some quantitative parameters of the ranked objects. Here are the most common definitions of the notion of rating in sports. Naturally, the corresponding analogs are possible in other types of activity.

The rating is an individual numerical coefficient (Elo, 1963). “The individual coefficient (IR) of a chess player is an indicator of his practical strength, expressed in numerical form.” (Chess, 2003).

Rating – the result in a total macro-tournament. This is the result of the participant in the universal hypothetical circular year-old macro-pattern, shifted to the region of positive integers (Polozov, 1995).

Rating is the power of the game, skill. This understanding of the rating is enshrined in the provisions on table tennis, gliding sport, chess, ice climbing, etc. (Polozov, 2007).The player’s rating is a numerical expression of the strength of the game, in which a higher high rating means a stronger game. For players of chess tournaments or rivals in other sports, the greatest charm is measuring their game power “(Glickman, 1998).

Rating is a public recognition. Rating – as a tool for assessing one person against another – is used in many industries and areas of activity. (Bakhareva, 2003). Rating – the evaluation of public recognition of business ability of the subject (Malygin, 2003).

Rating is an average estimate of a group of experts. In many spheres of human activity, there are values ​​(attributes, parameters) that are supposedly of a numerical nature, but the specific values ​​of these quantities, however, do not lend themselves to a direct physical measurement. For such values, expert evaluation methods are used, when a group of “experts” gives an opinion about the nature of the distribution of a quantity over a certain chosen scale of numerical values. Examples can be not only the ratings of athletes when performing at competitions in sports such as artistic and athletic gymnastics, figure skating, jumping, freestyle, but also ratings of the popularity of politicians, individual artists and creative teams, assessment of academic achievement (Pavlov , 2004).

Rating is the share of the conquered information space. The rating of a TV program (for example, sports) is the percentage of the audience of this program to the total number of the population at a given time.

A rating is the amount of work expended. The rating determines the quality of the training of the athlete (student) in all areas (disciplines), considering them equal in importance.

Rating is an incentive. The basis of the R-rating is the principle: not to record the successes or failures of teams in past competitions, but to stimulate an increase in the class of teams in current competitions. For example, in badminton, the participant’s place in the rank list is determined “to assist the organizers of the competitions in drawing up tables, drawing lots, determining the order of numbers in teams, encouraging athletes to compete and improving skills”.

Rating – the place occupied by the athlete. Ranking is the ranking of athletes according to the level of the sports results shown (Krasilnikov, 1998). For example, according to the position in ice climbing, the rating is set to determine the order of distribution of athletes of Russia in terms of their skill, separately for difficulty and speed. The rating should reflect the achievements of teams not in the last month or year, but at least for several years (Bozhkov, 2004).

Rating – the identification of the strongest for the national team. The objective of the rating is “to determine the group of the strongest athletes of Russia as a result of the competition for orienteering in sports”.

Similarly to physical measurements, one can view a rating in sports as an estimate of some random parameter reflecting the strength of the game, the level of skill of the athlete or team. At the same time, the evaluation usually “estimates” (in some sense approximates) one or another parameter of the distribution of the studied quantity.

The rating promotes the establishment of a certain internal order, which has always been a function and attribute of some authoritarian power. It is obvious that player A with a rating of 2398 hardly believes that he plays weaker player B with a rating of 2403. But if by the government’s decision any benefits end in the figure of 2400 and this authority determines according to predetermined rules that A has a rating of 2398, and B – 2403, then A can only complain about luck, at last in the end, but must accept that it will be so. And this despite the fact that everyone – and A, B, and power – understand that rating is a thing that is quite inaccurate and can not be absolutely accurate in principle. But even with all its disadvantages combined with the authoritarian power of the RS, this order is ensured (Korsak, 2004).
Thus, the rating – this is an indicator of the sports form, and a tool for self-esteem, and a benchmark in plans to improve sportsmanship. On the other hand, for the trainers and specialists, the rating gives an objective criterion for selecting players for different teams, or for candidates for a trip to prestigious tournaments. For tournament organizers, the rating helps to correctly form the initial groups on the strength of the game, draw lots in tournaments and generally create the most equal conditions for all participants, thereby improving the quality of refereeing and organizing tournaments in general. Well, another rating helps all – and specialists, and participants, and viewers – to predict the results of players’ performances in competitions. (Pavlov, 2004).
Rating systems are needed to reflect the correlation of forces, the “ranking” of the participants in the competition, and the dynamic tracking of the change in this ratio expressed in the distribution of numerical values ​​of some conditional parameter when there are no direct methods of physical measurement of the estimated value in this or that field of activity. Another no less important task of the RS is the prediction of future results, i.e. Mathematically grounded prediction, with which the Elo-type PCs successfully cope for half a century of their existence (Cipley, 2003).
Summing up, we can state that there is a set of rating definitions, the components of which reflect certain aspects of this integration concept. But in practically all of them there is no integrative component. The definition should form the main, key meaning of the word rating and thus predetermine the direction of the development of the topic, should lead us to the information landmark and therefore should not be enigmatic.
All the above definitions are rated in one way or another. However, most of them look special and do not solve the main problem. Rating should be the opinion of experts only when they do not know how to solve the problem. The rating can also not be a certain, unknown individual numerical coefficient. Rating is, of course, public recognition. But first you need to get it, and recognition will be an effect.
Similarly, we can say about the rating as the conquest of an information field. Rating can be an incentive for this, if it is clear what to stimulate. Rating can not in any way be a place occupied by athletes. Place is determined by rating, but not by rank. Help in the selection of the national team is also an effect, but not a definition. Ranking as an internal order is more like a spell, for which you first need to determine the order. Thus, all of the above ideas about the rating does not approximate the solution of its phenomenon.
More acceptable is the opinion that the rating is the strength of the game, skill.However, this definition does not give us anything constructive, although the truth is true. Determining the rating through the power of the game, skill – this is the right direction for further reflection, but not the result of them. Just some intermediate stage.
With respect to sports, the definition of a rating as a result of a participant in a total macro-tournament summarizes all the above opinions. This is the strength of the game, and recognition, and the composition of the team, the place occupied and so on.At the same time, the use of the word macro terrain makes it possible to use the available knowledge on the basis of local tournaments. The field for further creativity remains wide – a macro-market can be imagined in different ways. However, the search field for possible answers is significantly narrowed. 

Handbook of Ratings. Approaches to Ratings in the Economy, Sports, and Society / A. Karminsky. A. Polozov / International Publishing house “Springer”, 2016., 360c.

Предложить исправление