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 06-12-2011, 03:12 PM   #1
Brendan McNamar
Affiliate Brendan McNamar is offline
 
Brendan McNamar's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Glendale  AZ
Posts: 2,216
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?
__________________
Nomadic CrossFit Coach
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 03:33 PM   #2
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 03:39 PM   #3
Brendan McNamar
Affiliate Brendan McNamar is offline
 
Brendan McNamar's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Glendale  AZ
Posts: 2,216
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.
__________________
Nomadic CrossFit Coach
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 05:32 PM   #4
Nicolas Kizzee
Member Nicolas Kizzee is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nashville  Tennessee
Posts: 193
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.
__________________
"Before CF, I could only last 1 second with Chuck Norris. Now I'm up to 2 seconds." -Armin Heravi
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 06:51 PM   #5
Jarrod Henry
Member Jarrod Henry is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2011
Location: La Vergne  TN
Posts: 75
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 07:20 PM   #6
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarrod Henry View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 07:41 PM   #7
Jason Abney
Affiliate Jason Abney is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Renton  WA
Posts: 6
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 07:57 PM   #8
Pär Larsson
Member Pär Larsson is offline
 
Pär Larsson's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 178
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 08:07 PM   #9
Eric Montgomery
Member Eric Montgomery is offline
 
Eric Montgomery's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: San Diego  CA
Posts: 7,413
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pär Larsson View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2011, 08:30 PM   #10
Katherine Derbyshire
Member Katherine Derbyshire is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Seattle  WA
Posts: 7,596
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Montgomery View Post
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
  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
How can this be??CF Games scoring Sean Andrews Competitions 41 06-11-2011 07:14 AM
Scoring in CF Games Comps Justin McCallon Community 8 07-18-2010 07:02 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 07:35 PM.


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