As long as all the kids are judged under the same conditions though, comparisons (and thus evaluations) can still be made.
Right. That's why I said relative to others. If a kid runs a 4.2 at The Opening and finishes as the fastest, then we can probably conclude he was the fastest kid at that event. If a kid runs a 4.4 at The Opening and finishes 10th, then we can probably conclude he was the 10th fastest kid at the event.
But it seems we have this conversation every year about The Opening (and in countless other threads) where high school juniors are outperforming many of the athletes at the NFL Combine. So the measurable numbers themselves aren't an actual indicator, and I'll even go so far as to say, bogus.
The relative finish of the individual kid is the only semi-useful information.
The problem for me then becomes if numbers are fudged from the get-go, then how accurate are even the relative finishes?
