CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > CrossFit Forum > Competitions
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Competitions Competitions, contests & challenges

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-20-2010, 04:04 AM   #71
Charles Applin
Member Charles Applin is offline
 
Charles Applin's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yokosuka 横須賀  Kanagawa 神&#2
Posts: 437
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Flamm View Post
The best solution to the scoring issues is simply to allow all qualifiers to compete in every event. There were only 45 men and 45 women; with intelligent programming and good organization, each athlete could have completed each event. I think they have all earned the right to do so.
This would seem ideal. The problem, like last year, is fairly judging 16 people is much easier than 45 people without doing multiple heats and simpler events. Still, I think the games organizers really wanted to have all 45 till the end. Then again, is it really necessary?

Please realize, CF Games are claiming that a pool of 3000 men that tried out at the sectionals, that led to the 500 regional, the 45 CF games (4 events), the 24 second sets, the 16 third set was a fair way to distill the most fittest man currently on the planet. That's pretty darn good considering you don't have a clue as to what to do until a couple hours ahead of the events.

Now, the next best thing would have been let all 3000 sectional members compete at the games for a more fair estimation of who's more fit. Sadly, that's just not feasible in the current set up.

So is the scoring of the games fair? Should the range be reset to account for the smaller pool? I don't think so as it doesn't punish those that score REALLY low when competing in a large pool of competitors (the better gauge of fitness after all).

However, I ran an experiment on spreadsheet: What if the average event score for a person's current rank AFTER a cut was used to offer points for that position from there on out. Reason being, it made sense that these guys were finishing in the exact same order among the 45 guys. It accounted for how a guy is 12th place at that point was doing so that should be the new score for 12th place after that. Most like the top 16 would not score around the top 45th place guy at the cut had he been allowed to play. If you look at the spread on the sheet you'll notice that the top 24 are not scoring badly on the individual events (maybe one of them scored a 39).

Anyway, how it's done is consider after the FOUR scored events was the first cut, so you divide by 4 for the average:

1. Graham Holmberg (18) - 4.5
2. Rich Froning Jr. (23) - 5.75
3. Matt Chan (24) - 6.0
4. Chris Spealler (37) - 9.25
5. Brandon Phillips (40) - 10.0

The thing is, well, places don't shift very much in the 24 person and 16 person events. In fact, the first seven places remain the same.

Here's the results of the final 16 if you weight the scores:

Competitor Orig Place Orig Scr New Place New Scr
Holmberg, Graham (1) 48 (1) 71.67
Froning Jr., Rich (2) 51 (2) 74.13
Spealler, Chris (3) 69 (3) 88.13
Chan, Matt (4) 73 (4) 94.96
Salo, Mikko (5) 77 (5) 103.79
Malleolo, Austin (6) 84 (6) 112.29
Smith, Ben (8) 93 (7) 115.17 +1 rank
Burke, Patrick (7) 91 (8) 116.17 -1 rank
Phillips, Brandon (11) 121 (9) 133.96 +2 rank
Hackenbruck, Tommy (9) 111 (10) 133.96 -1 rank
Mackay, Chad (12) 123 (11) 138 +1 rank
Warren, Joey (13) 126 (12) 139.75 +1 rank
Egyed, Peter (10) 117 (13) 140.88 -3 rank
Orlando, Rob (15) 134 (14) 146.71 +1 rank
Khalipa, Jason (16) 136 (15) 151.33 +1 rank
Kelsey, Moe (14) 130 (16) 154 -2 rank

Similar results happened with last year's too. What this can mean is the way they score the game is not only simple, but holds well under cuts. Yeah, the best is let every one compete till the end, but it's not essential to get the best CrossFitter or World's fittest man.

PS: The reason why the places are shifting is that the guys at 7th to 16th are competing at a very close level to those near them. ANY changes in how scoring is done will likely shift them. I think how I did it is fair as it takes into account how the players performed against 45 men as well as the final 16.

Here's the points per place for the final 16 using my method if anyone cares.

1 : 6.33
2 : 6.83
3 : 9.71
4 : 10.67
5 : 10.71
6 : 13.13
7 : 13.21
8 : 13.58
9 : 13.79
10 : 14.63
11 : 15.58
12 : 16
13 : 16
14 : 16.67
15 : 17.58
16 : 18.04

Last edited by Charles Applin : 07-20-2010 at 04:25 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 05:21 AM   #72
Andy Gann
Member Andy Gann is offline
 
Andy Gann's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Kodak  TN
Posts: 1,998
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Casiano View Post
Everyone seems to be focusing on big man vs. small man. Fair vs. unfair. Everything is rendered moot when you look over to the woman's side. Kris Clever is one of the smallest female competitors and one of the strongest at the same time. So does anyone want to dispute that she is in fact the fittest female?
She weighs less than 10 lbs less than speal.
__________________
The greatest of journeys began with a single step. LOG
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:57 AM   #73
Jason Casiano
Member Jason Casiano is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Milford  CT
Posts: 10
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Gann View Post
She weighs less than 10 lbs less than speal.
And is 3 inches shorter. I'm only trying to point out that big girl vs. small girl seems to be less of an issue, since Clever showed she could handle pretty much any WOD you threw at her. So all the dudes saying that WODS favor one athlete type over another are not entirely correct. Everything is relative to the amount of training you put into it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 08:19 AM   #74
Thomas Green
Member Thomas Green is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New York  NY
Posts: 1,156
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Casiano View Post
And is 3 inches shorter. I'm only trying to point out that big girl vs. small girl seems to be less of an issue, since Clever showed she could handle pretty much any WOD you threw at her. So all the dudes saying that WODS favor one athlete type over another are not entirely correct. Everything is relative to the amount of training you put into it.
proving my point lol
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 05:00 PM   #75
Miles Libbey
Member Miles Libbey is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mountain View  CA
Posts: 3
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrina A. Burton View Post
So some people have suggested that after cuts the points should reassigned based on their ranking in each event compared to the remaining athletes. I copied the results to a spreadsheet and reassigned the points based on the top 16 competitors only. 1st = 1 pt through to 16th = 16 pts.

In the mens division the results would have been:
1.) Graham Holmberg (40)
2.) Chris Spealler (48) + 1 rank
3.) Rich Froning Jr (50) - 1 rank
4.) Austin Malleolo (57) + 2 ranks
5.) Matt Chan (60) - 1 rank
6.) Ben Smith (62) + 2 ranks
7.) Mikko Salo (65) - 2 ranks
8.) Pat Burke (70) - 1 rank
9.) Tommy Hackenbruck (77)
10.) Peter Egyed (79)
11.) Moe Kelsey (90) + 3 ranks
12.) Brandon Phillips (100) - 1 rank
13.) Chad Mackay (101) - 1 rank
14.) Joey Warren (101)
15.) Jason Khalipa (101) + 1 rank
16.) Rob Orlando (103) - 1 rank

Some changes, but Graham would have still won!
Are you sure -- I think this is the same scoring concept as my comment #18 -- here's the spreadsheet (WFS) with pretty different results:

new name score orig place
1) Spealler, Chris 40 3
2) Egyed, Peter 52 10
3) Froning Jr., Rich 56 2
4) Malleolo, Austin 57 6
5) Holmberg, Graham 63 1
5) Hackenbruck, Tommy 63 9
5) Burke, Patrick 63 7
8) Salo, Mikko 66 5
9) Smith, Ben 76 8
10) Chan, Matt 77 4
11) Kelsey, Moe 79 14
12) Orlando, Rob 92 15
13) Khalipa, Jason 101 16
14) Warren, Joey 103 13
15) Mackay, Chad 106 12
16) Phillips, Brandon 107 11

what accounts for the difference?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 05:32 PM   #76
Benjamin R. Greene
Member Benjamin R. Greene is offline
 
Benjamin R. Greene's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bakersfield  CA
Posts: 337
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

I disagree with the whole thesis that someone should be able to "come from behind" at the very end and make up for poor performances in the beginning. I hate competitions where, for television's sake, the first rounds essentially get ignored to always generate an exciting "photo finish" by stacking all the weight on the final event. It always seemed contrived and gimmicky.

Why shouldn't each event get the same weight? If one athlete has a wonderful series of performances and is running away with the competition, how is that bad? The logic escapes me. In team sports, touchdowns don't count for 2 points in the first quarter, 3 in the second, 5 in the third, and fifteen in the fourth so as to ensure every game will remain competitive until the final seconds because any team could come from behind.

In CrossFit, where we are crowning the fittest man and woman on Earth, the rationale behind having the various events all count the same is even more important. If the final event is a deadlift, should the powerlifter who can't do a double-under or a muscle-up win because he crushes that event? If the final event or events was given all or most of the weight, there would be an element of gambling injected into the Games: The goal would be just to survive the cut and pray the final event was something you were great at.

If someone wants to win the CrossFit Games, they need to be good at everything and do well on the initial workouts as well as the final ones. The scoring system needs to stay like it is.
__________________
Ben 5'9"/204/41 yrs FS:255
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 05:42 PM   #77
Nicolas Kizzee
Member Nicolas Kizzee is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nashville  Tennessee
Posts: 193
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin R. Greene View Post

Why shouldn't each event get the same weight?

If someone wants to win the CrossFit Games, they need to be good at everything and do well on the initial workouts as well as the final ones. The scoring system needs to stay like it is.
You say that each even should be weighted the same yet you also say the scoring system should stay...

The way it is at the moment it is not weighted the same in each event. After every cut the points are worth less and less... Getting last place in event 1 is 48 points but after the first cut getting last only gets you 24 points..

One of the most logical ways to solve this is to rerank the scores after each cut
__________________
"Before CF, I could only last 1 second with Chuck Norris. Now I'm up to 2 seconds." -Armin Heravi
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 05:56 PM   #78
Justin McCallon
Member Justin McCallon is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta  GA
Posts: 551
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

To the person that posted the spreadsheet: You're doing it the right way, but you miscounted the Max OH and Pistol Events. Spealler is given 3rd and Graham is given 15th in the max OH. I think you gave the MINs better ranks than the Maxes. You need to change it to be Descending in those events, so use a "0" instead of a "1." =RANK(D3,D$3$18,0)

BTW, assuming your numbers are correct, and just making the change from "1" to "0," I am getting different results than the other guy. I am showing the first 3 being the same, and then some changes after that.
Edit: Nvm I think a bit of your original data is wrong, and I guess you also need to fix the ranks for PU/OHS and T2B/GTO



Anyway, here is a long-winded explanation of what is going on, copy-and-pasted from the other thread:

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
__________________
My Workout Log

Last edited by Justin McCallon : 07-20-2010 at 06:10 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:31 PM   #79
Joe Mercurio
Member Joe Mercurio is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oklahoma City  OK
Posts: 81
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

I disagree in principle. The events should only have the same weight if the events are equal indicators of overall fitness. Unfortunately not all events are created equal. Taking the 09 games as an example:

The first few workouts were low-skill but tested a broad range (short & heavy, long & light). Of course a weakness exposed in one of those events should be more heavily penalized than a weakness during the hopper workout at the end. If you take a funneling approach to programming the games than it makes sense for the events and scoring to initially stratify the competitors and then fine-tune the results.

I also don't think changing the scoring system will make much of a difference. Like iterations, the more events that you have the less drastic any changes will be near the end. After 9 events it seemed fairly stable (+/- a spot or 2), which is why it seems that everyone's alternate scoring system is showing the same winner.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:48 PM   #80
Justin McCallon
Member Justin McCallon is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Atlanta  GA
Posts: 551
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

So, last year, the Deadlift event should be worth more than the Snatch event?

I can understand different events being worth less than others, but just because the events happened to come early doesn't mean CFHQ intended the event to be worth more or less than other events... This year, I don't see why the RHSPU event would be worth any less than the Muscle-up event...
__________________
My Workout Log
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Scoring in CF Games Comps Justin McCallon Community 8 07-18-2010 07:02 AM
2010 CF Games Volunteers Britt Dowling Competitions 0 06-28-2010 06:33 AM
2010 Crossfit Games Scoring Rolf Whitney Competitions 2 05-05-2010 01:19 PM
Games Scoring Tom Seryak Competitions 112 02-01-2010 12:27 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 PM.


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