Originally Posted by Stu Christensen
Because by eliminating athletes, you are now making the final events worth less than the starting events. The only true way to test the athletes is let everyone go and see where the chips fall in all events. Adding in the "cut" athletes for the final events will most definitely put spaces between the athletes who made the cut - its inevitable that some guys will just be better at some events, and if those events happen last - it truely affects the outcomes and final placings.
I promote and compete in strongman and I see this with every comp I do....you need all athletes for all events for it to be effective. I don't see why people can't see this?? trying to figure out some stupid formula of dividing the total points is BS because it does nothing to fully evaluate the performances. If anything, you are taking away the disadvantage of a poor showing on an event because you are making the defiicit in points someone gets by placing poorly smaller because you've just divided the difference and then let them proceed on the basis that the final event deficits will be taken at full value. It does not work.
(oh, and your other post about 1RM i agree with, so I'm not sure if you were trying to argue with me or what...but whatever).
I don't think you read through my link, because my scoring system (and probably the one embraced by anyone that understood Statistics 101) uses standard deviation and doesn't rank athletes. It's not a rank-scoring system. The last events are worth the same amount as the first events, regardless of whether cuts are made or not.
I should have given more details on how to make the rank-scoring (which is a less-than-ideal scoring system, for the record) system work with cuts, but that was explained in a couple other posts in other threads and I didn't want to repeat it. I'll repeat.
So you have 4 athletes. You cut to 3 athletes after 2 events.
Abby - 1st both times (2)
Beth - 2nd and 3rd (5)
Catherine - 4th and 2nd (6)
Dorothy - 3rd and 4th (7)
Ok, so now you cut Dorothy. She's out. No more even considering her in anything. Now you reassign scores before the next event:
Abby - 1st both times still (2)
Beth - 2nd and 3rd still (5)
Catherine - Changes. Dorothy doesn't get considered, so she gets 3rd and 2nd (5).
So now the next event begins. There's only 3 competitors, and you rank them as you normally would and add their scores to their totals. The difference is that the earlier events don't have any more people because they are fixed to only consider those that advanced. So the next event is:
Catherine - 1
Abby - 2
Beth - 3
So that comes out to be:
Abby: 2+2 = 4
Beth: 5+3 = 8
Catherine: 5+1 = 6
Are there still problems with this? Yeah, because it's rank-order scoring and rank-order scoring sucks and shouldn't be used and they should use a system that uses proportional scoring and standard deviation and normalizes scores to 100 to make things easier. But it's still a way that they can make cuts and make it have only a minimal affect on the legitimacy of the competition.