slowen

i actually don't think we're disagreeing. 1. more models does not equal better issues if you divide by the number of models in each issue, as i did. 2. your method (50 pts for cover, 10 for appearance, etc) is more for evaluating models, not evaluating issues. i wasn't going to evaluate the models, but rather work with SI's list, flawed as it may be, and translate that into an evaluation of the issues over time. 3. again, i'm not justifying SI's list. i would agree that it's flawed. but that's now what i was trying to show. i was trying to show that 1) there are a lot more models in recent years than early years, so virtually any distribution will be skewed towards the recent and 2) SI's rankings clearly show that the mid-80s and not the recent decade were the best years based on their rankings of the models. SS interpreted the list by saying SI thinks its in an "absurd apex" in recent times, but the list doesn't bear that out. in fact, the recent years are among the worst, despite the widespread view that recent models are over-represented. only the transition period among editors (cambpell/farley/smith) and the first ten or so years scored worse than the last ten years. if you have a better suggestion, feel free to share! you say you have a different way of looking at it...what is it?

Does having more models in later issues make them greater models? It seems, as indicated by the bolded sentence, that the straight-forward application of a numerical value based on ranking demonstrates the bias you're trying to disprove. But I would argue against the merits of your system, as assigning numerical values based on ranking only works if you assume the rankings are objective in the first place. They're not. In your system, Mcpherson has 50 points and Decker has 44. Does Decker have 88% the greatness as Macpherson as an SI model? If you disagree (as I'm sure most would), this method falls apart. If you applied values to objective criteria - say 10 points for a cover and five for a non-cover appearance - these rankings would likely be very different. Plus, assigning values based on rankings is really only a way of comparing rankings relative to one another, not analyzing a model's worthiness of inclusion on the list in the first place, which is what I and a lot of other people would argue is the problem with having so many newer models who have yet to establish legacies with SI. This is your ultimate method of analysis, but it's irrelevant, IMO. The over-representation of recent models - which is the problem - in the bottom half of the rankings will naturally bring down the average of the most recent decade's models. It doesn't prove that their rankings or inclusion are justified. On top of that, the only reason this over-representation of recent minor models balances out to a seemingly appropriate average is because the more recent covermodels are all ranked suspiciously high. Personally, I still feel SS's point about a third of the listed models having appeared in the issue within the last five years is valid. wow, you don't seem to get it. let's try again. even if they had picked models at random, they would've been weighted towards recent issues, as half of the models have appeared in the last 13 years. and SS didn't count very well: only 14, not 18, of the top 50 have appeared in the last five issues. try looking at the 2nd and 3rd graphs again. one shows the total power rankings per issue. the next one shows that total divided by the number of models in each issue. for instance, 1975 had three models: cheryl tiegs (45 points), christie brinkley (43 points) and barbara minty (0 points). that's 88 total points, but 88/3 or about 29 points per model. low quantity but high quality. then look at 2000, which had six models that appeared on the list, totaling 170 points among them. but since the 2000 issue had 22 total models, that only works out to around 8 points per model in the issue. higher quantity, but lower quality. just looking at the totals, 2000 would be twice as good as 1975 (170 vs 88). but on a per model basis, the 1975 issue blows it out of the water: 29 points versus 8 points per model in the issue. in my opinion, the 1989 issue has the right balance of both quality and quantity: of the 16 models that were in the issue, 10 of them made SI's top 50, and five of them were in the top 10. the issues before that might've had higher per-model scores, but they only had seven or fewer models. the rest of your complaints are irrelevant: i'm only trying to show the distribution of SI's rankings over time, not whether or not a girl made a cover or whatever you said. that's an entirely different metric. and by the way, i don't necessarily agree with some of SI's rankings; i just thought this analysis would be interesting. i would've arrived at different rankings, but the distribution over time wouldn't have changed too much. and unless someone really has a thing for, say, erin gray, libby otis, or lena kansbod at the expense of newer models, then your distribution over time would've similarly been skewed towards recent models. given the number of models per issue, it's practically inevitable.

there's good reason for the bias towards recentness. there are almost as many models in the 13 issues from 2001-2013 than there were in the 37 issues from 1964-2000. the number of models per issue rose from 1-2 in the first years to the steady average of 18-20 of the past decade. a better looking at the rankings would clearly show that the 80s were the peak. but it's not immediately obvious. i translated the rankings to points, giving 50 points to elle, 49 to kathy ireland, etc, down to 1 point for genevieve. then i totaled them by issue. these "power rankings" seem to rise over time. there's a huge peak in 2006 for the reunion issue. without that, the 2nd peak is 1989, perhaps the more legitimate peak given its status as the best-selling issue. but this isn't quite a fair comparison, as there were 25 models in the 2006 issue and only 16 in the 1989 issue. maybe it's more fair to look at the average power ranking per model in each issue. i used a 3-year average to smooth it out a bit. this shows that the peak was really in the mid-80s, which i think most people would agree was the heyday of SISI. by this metric, the most recent decade has only about half the average star power of the peak. recent issues score even less than the late 70s, when there were only three or four models but two of them were cheryl tiegs and christie brinkley.

it's a shame they didn't use an earlier version of elle's shoots. i mean, why use the one from 2006 when they probably have one from the 80s or early 90s somewhere in the vault?

small mark on the shoulder or no, look at a picture of edita and tell me she could fill out a bikini like this: for instance: warning, nudity: also, if you need another reason, look at the mystery model's birthmark just below her right boob, on the inside edge. it's in the shadow above, but it's there. and then try finding that on edita. you won't. i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but it's not her. i really wish it was, though!

yeah, as much as i enjoyed scrolling through the google image search of edita v, i still say there's not a match there.

it's not edita. we're not that lucky. (look at the birthmark on the left shoulder--edita doesn't have that)

ok, maybe america's next muffintop was over the line. girl does need to be taken down a few pegs, though. i just want SI to bring something new. anne v and kate are both old news. anne's been in the last 9 issues and kate is on 9 magazine covers at any given time. and don't pretend just me good luck finding one model in these threads someone hasn't said something negative about. by the way, i was one of the few people to speak up and say the castings they've announced are actually pretty good while you guys were saying NEXT and NOPE to them all...

and kate doesn't wear bikinis so much as she spills out of them america's (muffin)top model

this black bikini? nah, anne v's boobs aren't that big. this is our mystery rookie, likely the rookie of the year if she's not a face. did you mean the black thing that looks like it was made from 20 seat belts? using her sundamaged, freckled arms to push her boobs together in an effort to produce cleavage? yeah, that's most likely anne v. at this point i think anne v is the only model we've correctly identified. edit: perhaps you meant this "black" bikini?

save it for the lisalla thread

it's not genevieve. this is genevieve (from last year's sneak pics) beauty marks don't match kate upton, either.

only julie's clavicle could cast those shadows. damn it.

i'm not 100% convinced it's julie. there's not much to go by, but the belly button looks different, at least. i'm not sure who it is, though, if not julie.

before they get too far with the previews, i wanted to post my top ten from the castings, not really in any order: emily ratajkowski tahnee atkinson violet budd deborah mace lauren layne karla azevedo jayne moore alyssah ali victoria lee heidy de la rosa

doesn't immediately look like a veteran. she looks good, tho

[edit: nevermind, i was gonna pile on that snow comment]

looks they had some issues on the way to peru:

bad news: you can't.

Jessica Rafalowski, yes please

http://swimdaily.si....i-casting-call/ Dana Drori