The complete abandonment of algebraic top and representation theory is probably bad for math, ORW and Yun, were obviously qualified ppl for being fields medal worthy. Also not having a langlands or ag person, when it is revolutionizing math is not reflective of the field
Fields Medals predictions for 2022?

mv, jh, and jm all winning in one cycle is abnormal, and points to a bias in the selection committee… anyway all clearly did important work and thoroughly all the adulation they will get… it’s just a bit odd
last chance for MV and JH though, maybe JM should be replaced with Yun

MV was easily the best candidate who won and deserved it, but I thought KAs work on resolving the g conjecture would have cancelled jh. Also thought jm was unlikely since green never won, but I guess Maynard worked alone alot.
Why would KAs work on resolving the g conjecture canceled JH? KA can win in 2026 and JH has many good results other than the paper where he collaborated with KA which I don't think would be negated by the g conjecture, in fact, JH only collaborated with KA on one paper

It was the central problem in their area, but Huh is an amazing writer and speaker, and KA is not. Huhs papers are extremely well written and clear, and his talks are very very good as well
MV was easily the best candidate who won and deserved it, but I thought KAs work on resolving the g conjecture would have cancelled jh. Also thought jm was unlikely since green never won, but I guess Maynard worked alone alot.
Why would KAs work on resolving the g conjecture canceled JH? KA can win in 2026 and JH has many good results other than the paper where he collaborated with KA which I don't think would be negated by the g conjecture, in fact, JH only collaborated with KA on one paper

It was the central problem in their area, but Huh is an amazing writer and speaker, and KA is not. Huhs papers are extremely well written and clear, and his talks are very very good as well
MV was easily the best candidate who won and deserved it, but I thought KAs work on resolving the g conjecture would have cancelled jh. Also thought jm was unlikely since green never won, but I guess Maynard worked alone alot.
Why would KAs work on resolving the g conjecture canceled JH? KA can win in 2026 and JH has many good results other than the paper where he collaborated with KA which I don't think would be negated by the g conjecture, in fact, JH only collaborated with KA on one paper
A possible reason is that KA paper on g conjecture is still under review (it's not published yet), and also it's possible that they chose the winner based on not just a single result except for huge conjecture like the Riemann hypothesis or Poincare conjecture. Did you agree with the laudatio for JH? (https://www.mathunion.org/fileadmin/IMU/Prizes/Fields/2022/laudatiojh.pdf)

Yeah JH is great and like Tim gowers in combining two fields together, though gowers norms had a massive effect in additive number theory and green taos work on progressions in primes… I just thought only one of mv, jh, jm, would’ve won give the similarities between them but all did incredibly impressive stuff

Yeah JH is great and like Tim gowers in combining two fields together, though gowers norms had a massive effect in additive number theory and green taos work on progressions in primes… I just thought only one of mv, jh, jm, would’ve won give the similarities between them but all did incredibly impressive stuff
I honestly don't see the similarities you are repeating again and again. One is applying fourier analysis to geometric problems. Another is applying hodge theory to combinatorics. JM is doing "pure" analytical number theory.

The complete abandonment of algebraic top and representation theory is probably bad for math, ORW and Yun, were obviously qualified ppl for being fields medal worthy. Also not having a langlands or ag person, when it is revolutionizing math is not reflective of the field
JH is an algebraic geometer by training. Also, can you really complain about Langlands and AG being underrepresented overall? Look at any of the top journals and the proportion of each area they publish. Once established in these fields, it is definitely easier to publish in good journals with only incremental progress.
Finally, Langlands isn't revolutionizing math outside of NT. It is pursued for its own sake

Yeah JH is great and like Tim gowers in combining two fields together, though gowers norms had a massive effect in additive number theory and green taos work on progressions in primes… I just thought only one of mv, jh, jm, would’ve won give the similarities between them but all did incredibly impressive stuff
I can see MV and JM work being somewhat similar, but how is JH work similar to JM or MV? its the last chance for MV and JH, but JM should be replaced with Yun in my opinion

I don't mind alg. geo and alg. nt getting passed for one cycle.
I don't see JH's work at all similar to JM and MV and even though the last two work in analytic number theory (broadly speaking), it's quite different flavors.
Anyway, the Fields committee was (if I caught all the names correctly) :
Kenig (chair)
Avila
De Lellis
Hopkins
Kupiainen
Pandharipande
Quarteroni
SaintRaymond
Serganova
Taylor
Weiping Zhang
Ziegler 
All three of those candidates works are heavily related to combinatorics, don’t know what you’re complaining about when I say that is odd
You seem to have a very broad view of what counts as combinatorics.
or most likely a lack of knowledge of what makes two areas of mathematics similar.

Not to take anything away from JM, when I read the article on Quanta about him it seems a combination of working on Prime Numbers, which captures the imagination for the media and general population who don't care for math, and the humility of Terence Tao to withhold an important result which he arrived at the same time as JM, helped JM a little.
The fact that he was beaten by 6 months to a major result on Prime Numbers by Yitang Zhang should add a little weight to this.
Of course he improved upon the result with his own techniques and made major progress o his own so credit where it's due.
If he was working in another field of math and someone made a major breakthrough result and a few months later Peter Scholze ingeniously came upon a solution to a problem within the same field but decided to 'withold' it for fear of overshadowing JM, would he still have won?
Would Peter "I'mtoogoodfortheNewHorizonsPrize" Scholze have shown the same humility as Tao?

One thing is clear, American ugrad programs in math don’t produce FMs… outside of Princeton, the USA seems to be consistently outcompeted by other countries in Europe, like UK, Switzerland, France, Germany, …
Lots of MIT simps in the thread not recognizing that MIT just isn’t good enough to get Fields medalists. No profs since Quillen and not a single alumnus. Their biggest strength is producing quants.