CrossFit Discussion Board

CrossFit Discussion Board (http://board.crossfit.com/index.php)
-   Competitions (http://board.crossfit.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   A much better scoring system for the Games. (http://board.crossfit.com/showthread.php?t=67868)

Brendan McNamar 06-12-2011 03:12 PM

A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
***Let me start by saying I have the utmost respect for all the Regional Competitors and I believe the rules are the rules. If you won a spot into the games under the current rules then you deserve it.***

In competitive shooting we use a scoring system where who ever has the best score sets the standard. Their score is 100% or 1.0.

All other scores are a % of this score.

For example best shooter has a score of 100.

The number two shooter has a score of 97.

97/100 = 97% or .97.

After one event the scores would be

Shooter 1 = 1
Shooter 2 = .97

In the CrossFit games this would be scored

Competitor #1 = 1
Competitor #2 = 2

Competitor #2's score is twice as bad even though they did 97% as well as the first competitor.

Apply this to the Nor Cal Women for example and we get big changes:

Nor Cal Regionals Women Total
Elyse Umeda 5.59863
Laurie Galassi 5.39402
Chyna Cho 5.03551
Annie Sakamoto 5.01676
Candace Hamilton Hester 4.57459
Jenny LaBaw 4.25738
Ashley Vrieze 3.85520
Danielle Edmundso 3.80816
Ashley Bakken 3.36536
Taryn Frazelle 2.77292

Mathematically the changes mainly come from Amanda & the Chipper. Jenny Labaw's 15:38 Amanda actually causes her to receive negative points because she took more then twice as long Elyse's 6:33.

If we are testing fitness then how far behind you are should matter!

Chyna's :57 sec better showing in the chipper puts her in front of Annie.

I think there is a feeling that Chyna Cho should be in the Games but no one has been able to mathematically explain why. I can.

I hope this system will be adopted for next year.

*This system also adjust automatically for things like wind, rain, heat and so on. All competitors in a region face the same conditions. For example competing at sea level vs. 5000'+ feet above sea level in Denver. I would expect slower times out of Denver.

Ok fire away, is this a better system?

Eric Montgomery 06-12-2011 03:33 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
I think you can go back and forth on the merits of a placing-based score system (1 for 1st, 2 for 2nd...) versus a percentage-based system like you discussed. The counterpoint to your suggestion would be almost every sport I can think of, for instance:

-In a best of 7 series, a team doesn't get extra credit for margin of victory. A 1 point victory counts the same as a 30 point blowout. There have been plenty of series in which a team was dominated on paper, but won more games--the 1960 World Series being a prime example. Pittsburgh was outscored 55-27 but beat the Yankees in 4 of 7 games.
-Same deal for regular season rankings--point or run differential does not matter (except in some tiebreakers), only won-lost records.
-In preliminary heats for Olympic swimming or track events, the top X runners or swimmers advance to subsequent heats regardless of margin of victory within heats or times compared from one heat to another.

Brendan McNamar 06-12-2011 03:39 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
For a single activity I agree shouldn't produce much different results.

When you are testing capacity over multiple domains and especially if you are going to make cuts so the worst score goes from 60 to 10 then I don't think this is a valid argument.

If the field had been left at 60 Labaw doesn't go to the games due to her Amanda results.

Nicolas Kizzee 06-12-2011 05:32 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
Out of all the possible scoring systems mentioned over the past few years, I have never heard or thought of this. From just an initial reaction I like it. I like the fact that standards are set and everyone else is ranked according to that standard.

Jarrod Henry 06-12-2011 06:51 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
I think I have a bigger problem with the points being from 1-30 on day one and two and 1-10 on day 3 (or 1-14) than I do with anything else.

The purpose of the games is to find the fittest on earth, and I think making each workout count as a separate entity is very important. I don't know if I'd eliminate the point scoring based on place

What I would do , though, is make Day 3 double or triple points.

Eric Montgomery 06-12-2011 07:20 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarrod Henry (Post 947450)
I think I have a bigger problem with the points being from 1-30 on day one and two and 1-10 on day 3 (or 1-14) than I do with anything else.

The purpose of the games is to find the fittest on earth, and I think making each workout count as a separate entity is very important. I don't know if I'd eliminate the point scoring based on place

What I would do , though, is make Day 3 double or triple points.

Yeah, I've mentioned in a few other threads how I'm still baffled by the practice of doing cuts after day 1 or day 2. All the cuts end up accomplishing is penalizing people for being better at workouts 4-6 than they are at 1-3, and making the final day carry less weight relative to the first two.

Someone who goes 16-16-16 out of 60 people on the first three workouts then 1-1-1 out of 15 on the last three workouts would lose to someone who finished 1-1-1 then 15-15-15, even though the second person had three straight dead-last finishes. The first person didn't get the reward he probably deserved for going 1-1-1 on the final three.

Jason Abney 06-12-2011 07:41 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
The "curve" scoring system is the exact system that Jeff Vale and I talked about a couple months ago. It allows for the most accurate and fair scoring system, and it can be used in a max effort wod, time based wod, work based wod or pretty much any other domain or modality. Making it almost impossible for people to come back on the day three because of cuts is really unfair. Another huge disadvantage to the current scoring system is how ties work. It 20 people tie on a wod on day one then the person right behind them gets a huge point penalty even though their performance may have been only 1 rep less. Gotta use percentages of 100% to be fair.

Pär Larsson 06-12-2011 07:57 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
Assuming all workouts on day 1 fairly test all modalities of fitness and everyone knows ahead of time that the first day is more important, then it's fair.

Problem comes when the first day doesn't test, say endurance or power - then it's unfair if you cut after one day.

It's not just the scoring system that's a problem here - it's how fairly the workouts in each part of the Games fully test all aspects of fitness. As it stands I don't believe this to be the case.

Eric Montgomery 06-12-2011 08:07 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pär Larsson (Post 947471)
Assuming all workouts on day 1 fairly test all modalities of fitness and everyone knows ahead of time that the first day is more important, then it's fair.

Problem comes when the first day doesn't test, say endurance or power - then it's unfair if you cut after one day.

It's not just the scoring system that's a problem here - it's how fairly the workouts in each part of the Games fully test all aspects of fitness. As it stands I don't believe this to be the case.

I still don't see how that makes it fair--that would be like saying it's ok for baskets to count for 4 points in the first half but only 2 points in the second half, or for wins in the first half of the season to count for twice as much in the standings as second half wins. Either scenario makes it hard to come from behind in the second half of the game/season, and places disproportionate weight on the first half. Just because it's known in advance doesn't mean it makes sense.

Katherine Derbyshire 06-12-2011 08:30 PM

Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric Montgomery (Post 947463)
Yeah, I've mentioned in a few other threads how I'm still baffled by the practice of doing cuts after day 1 or day 2. All the cuts end up accomplishing is penalizing people for being better at workouts 4-6 than they are at 1-3, and making the final day carry less weight relative to the first two.

IMO, if you're going to have cuts, reset the scores, too. So everyone in the final 16 starts back at zero, regardless of how well they did before the cut. When you get to the NBA Finals, no one cares how many games it took to win in the first round, or what your margin of victory was.

Katherine


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:19 AM.

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