CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (http://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Competitions (http://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up? (http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=59743)

Andy Gann 07-18-2010 01:30 PM

2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
Ok - so I've been really pulling for Spealler. I love what he stands for and he's showing a ton of heart and style out there ... here's what I'm thinking - tell me if I've got it wrong or if there is a disadvantage to performing poor early ...

Ok - in the first 4 events there were 45 competitors. The competitor received points for their place. 1st place got 1 point, 45th got 45. The goal is to have lower points.

The 3rd event (45 competitors) was poor for Speal (and Austin Malleolo) compared to the others in the top 6. So, speal got 26 points and Austin got 37. After the cut - there were only 24 competitors left which means that a poor performance will at worst get you 24 points and then 16 for the final.

At this point (just before the final (?) event) even if one of the top two athletes came in last and Speal/Austin came in 1st they still couldn't overtake first. Furthermore, Matt chan and Mikko would have hard time doing so.

I guess I'm saying that after the cut, everybody's points should be cut in 1/2 and then after the next cut, they should be cut by 1/3. It is making it impossible to come from behind (even if you're in the top 1/3 of competitors). Or start with a fresh slate after each cut.

Luke Hitt 07-18-2010 01:37 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
I agreed with you at first, assuming that the final event is only "one" event, then nobody from 3rd place on had a chance of winning. But it sounds like there are three segments, so I guess there are a few other people who could still possibly win.

Gaines DuVall 07-18-2010 01:37 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy Gann (Post 812687)
Ok - so I've been really pulling for Spealler. I love what he stands for and he's showing a ton of heart and style out there ... here's what I'm thinking - tell me if I've got it wrong or if there is a disadvantage to performing poor early ...

Ok - in the first 4 events there were 45 competitors. The competitor received points for their place. 1st place got 1 point, 45th got 45. The goal is to have lower points.

The 3rd event (45 competitors) was poor for Speal (and Austin Malleolo) compared to the others in the top 6. So, speal got 26 points and Austin got 37. After the cut - there were only 24 competitors left which means that a poor performance will at worst get you 24 points and then 16 for the final.

At this point (just before the final (?) event) even if one of the top two athletes came in last and Speal/Austin came in 1st they still couldn't overtake first. Furthermore, Matt chan and Mikko would have hard time doing so.

I guess I'm saying that after the cut, everybody's points should be cut in 1/2 and then after the next cut, they should be cut by 1/3. It is making it impossible to come from behind (even if you're in the top 1/3 of competitors). Or start with a fresh slate after each cut.

yep. you are 100% correct and its too bad.

Andy Gann 07-18-2010 01:53 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke Hitt (Post 812691)
I agreed with you at first, assuming that the final event is only "one" event, then nobody from 3rd place on had a chance of winning. But it sounds like there are three segments, so I guess there are a few other people who could still possibly win.

Even if they could catch up ... it seems like an overlooked detail of the scoring system. OTOH - if that's what they intended to do, then cool.

Justin McCallon 07-18-2010 02:05 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
Someone in the Comments area suggested that after each cut, you should reassign ranks for the previous events and ignore the cut competitors.

I think the whole system should change, but that is a good point. It makes the later events worth as much as the early events.

Stu Christensen 07-18-2010 05:14 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
The scoring in this years games is just as messed up as last years and IMO leaves the winner with no true claim to the title in which they are given. What a crock - HQ needs to frickin' wake up....again.

Greg Kemp 07-18-2010 08:45 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
I would have like the times to account for some type of scoring vs just placing. When Kristen smoked the clean and HSPU WOD she was not benefited any additional points for being so fast.

Josh Crawford 07-18-2010 09:08 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
I was thinking the exact same thing, so I made a few calculations of my own. I normalized each event where a cut took place and made the final placement calculation based on that. (The formula isn't in there because I copied the numbers from Excel) Check out the spreadsheet. The Total column is the normal scoring and the Total Alt column is the normalized scoring. In both the men's and women's cases the top three outcomes would have been the same. It would have changed the order lower in the rankings though. For instance compare Kalipa and Rob. Kalipa performed worse than Rob in the first few events, but performed better in the last few events. With normalized scoring he would have placed higher than Rob.

In my opinion the scoring should be normalized in future events. Luckily the top three wouldn't have changed this year.

Lincoln Brigham 07-18-2010 11:49 PM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
What is being suggested her is that if an athlete has a bad event in the beginning of the weekend this problem should be minimized should they survive the cut. What this would allow is for an athlete to have a terrible event, exposing a serious weakness in their fitness, and yet still finish very well. This would allow, for example, a strongman specialist to place highly despite having no capacity for endurance events. (Assuming the endurance event comes up before the cut.)

What is being proposed would only work if there is a certain sameness to all the events, which to my mind would not be Crossfit. Frankly, in Crossfit you're supposed to get punished and punished hard for glaring weaknesses in your fitness. So I don't have a problem with a bad performance in the early going making it impossible to catch up later on. A bad performance should be treated like a bad performance.

Speaking of which, where was the endurance event? Or is 20 minutes the new hour?

Miles Libbey 07-19-2010 01:07 AM

Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln Brigham (Post 812947)
What is being suggested her is that if an athlete has a bad event in the beginning of the weekend this problem should be minimized should they survive the cut. ... A bad performance should be treated like a bad performance.

Agree with the later half, but not the first half. The problem is that later performances might be bad, but since there are less competitors, they are not scored as bad. For instance, if the entire field were to do the last workout (wall burpee/climb), what would Rich's 12th place and Graham's 5th place scores turn into? With 3 minutes separating Speal and Graham, it's not hard to imagine a much bigger differential than 4 or 11 points. Effectively, the current scoring makes you hope that if you suck at an event, that it comes late, where it won't hurt you as much.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.