2014 SI Swimsuit

[mimosa]

No Bridget Hall,Sarah O´Hare.Fernanda Motta,Fernanda Tavares,Aline Nakashima,Isabeli Fontana,Ingrid Seynhaeve,Juliana Martins or Yesica Toscanini either

[MarVS]

Super surprise about not make in it in the list Esti Ginzburg , Alyssa Miller and Isabeli fontana .

[MarVS]

btw can somebody post the whole list?

[Stormbringer]

The whole list:

50. Genevieve Morton

49. Babette March

48. Roshumba Williams

47. Cintia Dicker

46. Laetitia Casta

45. Hilary Rhoda

44. Noemie Lenoir

43. Yamila Díaz-Rahi

42. Valeria Mazza

41. Kelly Emberg

40. Daniella Sarahyba

39. Stephanie Seymour

38. Eva Herzigova

37. Niki taylor

36. Judit Masco

35. Nina Agdal

34. Daniela Pestova

33. Carolyn Murphy

32. Jessica Gomes

31. Bridget Hall

30. Julie Henderson

29. Chrissy Teigen

28. Ashley Richardson

27. Jessica White

26. Elsa Benitez

25. Veronica Varekova

24. Petra Nemcova

23. Naomi Campbell

22. Ana Beatriz Barros

21. Vendela

20. Angie Everhart

19. Stacey Williams

18. Anne V.

17. Kim Alexis

16. Irina Shayk

15. Molly Sims

14. Rachel Hunter

13. Marisa Miller

12. Carol Alt

11. Rebecca Romijn

10. Paulina Porizkova

9. Bar Refaeli

8. Christie Brinkley

7. Brooklyn Decker

6. Cheryl Tiegs

5. Heidi Klum

4. Tyra Banks

3. Kate Upton

2. Kathy Ireland

1. Elle Macpherson

[MarVS]

thanks storm

[Clauds]

I'm not surprised at all that Isabeli didn't make it, she did the magazine twice and is not like she had this huge impact and/or fanbase within the magazine. Same happens with Esti, she did it three times and is not like she was fan favorite

Alyssa I am surprised for though, when I saw Genevieve & Nina on the list I thought for sure that we would see Alyssa on the list too

[slowen]

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?

[SympathysSilhouette]

18 girls on that list were in the issue less than five years ago.

That would mean that in a magazine issue that is now nearly 50 years old, 36% of the best models appeared in the last half decade.

That can only be true if we have been going through an absurd apex of the issue, which is certainly not the case.

So that list is another instance of extreme over-valuing of recent history. Color me surprised. :yuckky:

[slowen]

18 girls on that list were in the issue less than five years ago.

That would mean that in a magazine issue that is now nearly 50 years old, 36% of the best models appeared in the last half decade.

That can only be true if we have been going through an absurd apex of the issue, which is certainly not the case.

So that list is another instance of extreme over-valuing of recent history. Color me surprised. :yuckky:

[slowen]

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.

[effyja2012]

That's deep slowen but the models per issue aspect is something we may have overlooked. Well done.

I don't have any major issues with the list. I thought Alyssa should have been on their someplace and Marissa should have been in the top 10. But let's face it: these things are somewhat subjective. Elle is #1 which is as it should be

[mbinebri]

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.

Does having more models in later issues make them greater models?

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.

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.

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

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.

[frenchkiki]

^ Some? That's 20 names right there.

But the Swimsuitologist says that Cindy Crawford only had one photo in one issue.

http://swimsuitologi...of-one-hit.html

Thanks for the laughs, SI.

Cindy had an argument with the photographer (or someone else "big" on the SI crew) and she was "punished" by having only one picture in the magazine.

Laetitia 46? I am maybe not partial but top 20 was her place.

oh and she wasn't one of the "5 supers". Cindy, Linda, Naomie, Christy and Tatjana were the original ones. Then Claudia comes along. And of course Stephanie was often part of this group. Paulina Porizkova was a super of her own

[Clauds]

^ I consider Casta a super on her own too, she is/was more popular than 99% models of these days will ever be. I do think she should be higher

As for the list i think the reason why there's so many recent models in higher positions is because the SwimDaily staff is obviously biased towards the girls who they work with instead of the girls who they never even met

[slowen]

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.

Does having more models in later issues make them greater models?

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.

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.

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

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.

[mbinebri]

wow, you don't seem to get it.

I read your response and thought that about you. We obviously have different ways of looking at this, so rather than just restate ourselves over and over, let's just agree to disagree.

[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?

[slowen]

by the way, if you want to give each model a point for an appearance and five points for a cover, then the top 20 looks like this:

1 Elle Macpherson

2 Kathy Ireland

3 Cheryl Tiegs

4 Daniela Peštová

5 Christie Brinkley

6 Yamila Díaz

7 Veronika Vařeková

8 Rachel Hunter

9 Rebecca Romijn

10 Paulina Porizkova

11 Elsa Benítez

12 Tyra Banks

13 Carolyn Murphy

14 Kate Upton

15 Irina Shayk

16 Marisa Miller

17 Petra Němcová

18 Carol Alt

19 Brooklyn Decker

20 Heidi Klum

[mbinebri]

^ Well, I said ten points for a cover and five for a non-cover appearance. On further thought, I'd probably go with a 3:1 point ratio as opposed to 2:1. I'm too lazy right now to figure out how the top 20 would look then. As I've said before though, with these types of rankings, I think there has to be a legacy factor involved, which of course is hard to judge.

[slowen]

^ Well, I said ten points for a cover and five for a non-cover appearance. On further thought, I'd probably go with a 3:1 point ratio as opposed to 2:1. I'm too lazy right now to figure out how the top 20 would look then. As I've said before though, with these types of rankings, I think there has to be a legacy factor involved, which of course is hard to judge.

with a 3:1 ratio, the top ten doesn't change at all. anne v joins the top 20, though.

i'm not sure the number of appearances is necessarily correlated with quality. kim cloutier is a billionty times better than most SI models but she only appeared once.