2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

[Ewen Roth]

Originally Posted by Justin McCallon

They addressed the issue with percentage scoring in their scoring post. They were right.

Here's the issue. Take two events: Running 5k and Rowing 5k.
At the elite level, the top 50 5k runners are going to be spread out by maybe 1 minute or so (worst to best) with probably a normal distribution among the top 50. So, let's say #1 is 13:00 and #50 is 14:00. When calculating the last place person's score, 13/14 = .928.

Then, compare a 5k row at the elite level. The times are much closer together. The top place might be 15:30, but the #50 time is probably around 15:50. So, 15.5/15.83 = .979

.979 vs .928. That's why you need to use standard deviation. In the CrossFit world the difference is probably even more drastic. I would guess that the top rower in most affiliates is around 18:00. Probably the 10th best rower is around 19:30. For runners, I bet the top runner is around 18:30, and the 10th best is closer to 22:30. 4 minutes vs 1:30. And other tasks are even more severe. 10th best "Fran" time is probably half as fast as #1 "Fran" times in most gyms (4:30 vs 2:15 sounds reasonable).

I don't see any problem with that. And I certainly don't see how this kind of scoring is more unfair than the plain rank scoring they ended up using, where it doesn't matter if you got blown out of the water or if you got only a few less reps/pounds than the winner.

As for the numbers you use as examples, may I enquire if they were pulled from your behind or HQ's scoring post? It's always better to use actual figures when trying to make a point.

For what it's worth, the top 5k track performance in 2010 is 12:52, and there are over a 100 individual runners within 40 seconds. 50th comes in around 13:17 (.968)
The online C2 rankings are notoriously incomplete at the elite level, so I don't know if the top 50 in the world would indeed be within 20 seconds of 15:30. Maybe, maybe not.

But the only valid metric are the Games, since that's what we're discussing. If I find the time, I'll run the numbers and see.

As it stands, the events aren't weighted evenly anyway. If we need to look at the SD to get a better scoring system, so be it. It's not rocket science.

[Dave Hardy]

so I don't know if the top 50 in the world would indeed be within 20 seconds of 15:30. Maybe, maybe not.

Just as a FYI, the world record for 5k is 14:58 (I think).

[Michael V. Erickson]

Originally Posted by Dave Hardy

Just as a FYI, the world record for 5k is 14:58 (I think).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5000_me...rd_progression [WFS]

12:37.35 is the present world record, set by Kenenisa Bekele of Ethiopia on May 31, 2004 [according to the above link].

I think I've figured out the scoring of the last three events (I'm a little slow). I believe the numbered scores are the projected time in seconds to finish based on the amount of work completed at the end of the time limit. I am in the process of re scoring the games based on relative performance (just for fun).

[Ewen Roth]

Originally Posted by Dave Hardy

Just as a FYI, the world record for 5k is 14:58 (I think).

Originally Posted by Michael V. Erickson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5000_me...rd_progression [WFS]

12:37.35 is the present world record, set by Kenenisa Bekele of Ethiopia on May 31, 2004 [according to the above link].

.

You're both right of course, since Dave was talking about rowing and Michael is talking about running.

In my post, for running I looked at the 2010 season and for rowing I looked at a few recent seasons. In rowing, there are very few recorded times under 16:00 for 5k. But like I said, the C2 rankings are all but useless when researching elite times.

In our context, it's not a matter of how people perform compared to the world record, or even the best performance of the season, but how people perform compared to each other over a given week-end, in several different events. We have to look at actual CF Games performances before we say the distribution is anything like the top 50 runners/rowers/lifters in the world.

[Andy Gann]

I wonder if there's a more fair and balanced way to score along the following lines ... With the crossfit definition of increased fitness (more work completed in same amount of time) then couldn't you come up with a scoring method based on the following logic - tell me what you guys think. FYI - I haven't REALLY thought this out, I just came up with it and want to see what you think.

For amraps - count every single rep. If there are a total of 42 reps in a round (like the DL, pistol, DU WOD) and a contestant gets 5 rounds + 3 DL then their total score is 42 x 5 + 3 = 213.

For timed events - set a cap time and the number of points awarded is equal to Cap Time - Finishing time in seconds. So, for the Hell-en WOD - Cap time set at 25 minutes (1500 seconds). Finishing time of 20:31 (1231 seconds) would be 1500 - 1231 = 269 points.

For max lift events - 1 point per pound.

Just for discussion purposes, let's say that a heavier, stronger athlete can lift 80 lbs more over their head than a smaller opponent. Well, then the smaller opponent had better be able to finish the timed running-type WOD 1:20 faster than the heavier guy!

The winner is the one w/ the most points thus calculating the most work done within the constraints of time ?? I know there are tons of holes in this but I wanted to throw it out there and see how this is anymore unfair than the ranking system.

[Charles Applin]

Would people at least agree that if no cuts were made then the "Point for Place" scoring system is fair?

If that's the case, then what's the best way to both account for how a person did among 45 (or 75 or 300) people both before and after cuts? I don't think re-ranking as if only 16 people were competing against each other is the best answer. There's merit to keeping how well one did among a larger pool to help determine a winner among the smaller pool.

Personally, I looked at what happens when you use a placement's average score at the time a cut to determine the new point awarded for getting that place. That it meshes well with just leaving the "Point for Place" system alone (scores are not reset) makes me think the "Point of Place" is a good system.

[Ewen Roth]

Food for thought:
http://www.ironmind.com/ironmind/ope...cle_Beach.html ----wfs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decathlon_scoring_tables ----wfs

To sum up, standard strongman scoring is a simple "one point per participant" system, ie 45 pts for 1st place down to 1 point for 45th at this year's CF games, with 0 points for no measurable result.
In contrast, decathlon uses complex tables based on the following principles, among others:
- The scores for different events should be comparable, in a manner such that equal skill levels in different events (however difficult it is to define such a concept) are rewarded with equal point levels
- The tables should be applicable to all levels of performance, from youth to elite.
- Men and women should have different tables.
- Specialists' performances should be the basis for the scores in the tables.
- As much as possible, the new tables should ensure that a specialist in one event cannot overcome top performances in the other events.

As a matter of principle, I'm partial to the method used for decathlon. But the CF games format is closer to strongman.

[Justin McCallon]

Originally Posted by Andy Gann

I wonder if there's a more fair and balanced way to score along the following lines ... With the crossfit definition of increased fitness (more work completed in same amount of time) then couldn't you come up with a scoring method based on the following logic - tell me what you guys think. FYI - I haven't REALLY thought this out, I just came up with it and want to see what you think.

For amraps - count every single rep. If there are a total of 42 reps in a round (like the DL, pistol, DU WOD) and a contestant gets 5 rounds + 3 DL then their total score is 42 x 5 + 3 = 213.

For timed events - set a cap time and the number of points awarded is equal to Cap Time - Finishing time in seconds. So, for the Hell-en WOD - Cap time set at 25 minutes (1500 seconds). Finishing time of 20:31 (1231 seconds) would be 1500 - 1231 = 269 points.

For max lift events - 1 point per pound.

Just for discussion purposes, let's say that a heavier, stronger athlete can lift 80 lbs more over their head than a smaller opponent. Well, then the smaller opponent had better be able to finish the timed running-type WOD 1:20 faster than the heavier guy!

The winner is the one w/ the most points thus calculating the most work done within the constraints of time ?? I know there are tons of holes in this but I wanted to throw it out there and see how this is anymore unfair than the ranking system.

Event 1: 100m dash.
Event 2: Max Deadlift
Event 3: 5k run

How does your system score this?

[Justin McCallon]

Originally Posted by Charles Applin

Would people at least agree that if no cuts were made then the "Point for Place" scoring system is fair?

I wouldn't. I think it's a terrible system.

Yeah, they use it in Strongman, and it's a bad system there, too.

The problem is that if you're first place by a mile vs. first place by 2 seconds it makes no difference. Same deal for last place. As an example, people that knew there were going to do poorly on the Helen workout should have not done it at all and then hit a big jerk.

[Andy Gann]

Originally Posted by Justin McCallon

Event 1: 100m dash.
Event 2: Max Deadlift
Event 3: 5k run

How does your system score this?

Set a max time for the dash and the 5k. Anything over those times gets 0 points. Say - 12 seconds for the dash and 25 minutes for the 5k. You would add the total number of seconds (to the hundredth of a second) between the finishing time and the cap to that persons running total. The deadlift would be 1 point per pound.

Hopefully, the guy that DLs 150 lbs less can beat the other by 2:30 in the 5k.