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 06-13-2011, 10:21 AM   #11
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Montgomery View Post
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.
Both basketball teams have absolutely equal chances to score baskets and frontload their efforts in the first half. Both teams know of it, both prepare for it and execute their strategies to maximize their chance of winning. It would make for a boring second half, but still be fair.

Same thing with wins in the first half of a season. Boring, but fair.

The only way it makes sense is if you look at it from an organizational logistics standpoint - 60 people show up and you have to run heats for all of them over 3 days - much more work than just 60 on day 1, 40 on day 2 and 20 on day 3. Plus the crowd wants to see the final workouts be with all the big names in the same heat.

The current system *does* make it hard to come from behind, and once you hit the last day it's just formalities, more or less. Booooring.

Keep cutting the field and reset the standings for each new day, maybe. Would be a bit of a mind game for the top competitors and force them to pace the first day instead of going all out, but I'm ok with that - it would also please the crowds, I think.

Situation A: Top competitor takes it too easy on day 1 trying to not burn themselves out and misses the cut. Ouch. Well, he misjudged the competitors. Better luck next year.

B: Top competitors all cruise through the first day or two and just make sure to make the cuts. Kinda boring first day, but you can still get excited about who will make/not make the cuts. Then an orgasmic explosion of excitement in the last few workouts where all the top, rested competitors go all out at the top of their game against each other in the same heat.

I'm ok with both A and B happening.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 12:34 PM   #12
Jon Gregory
Member Jon Gregory is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Brisbane  QLD Australia
Posts: 312
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

Agree with eric and katherine. The cut is currently not fair. I was thinking how much of a difference it would make if the games used the system that the world surfing tour uses, ie you drop your worst result to get rid of those really anomalous events that can have a disproportionate impact. You could get 1st all the way but one 45th and you are out!
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 01:34 PM   #13
Dan Schwickrath
Member Dan Schwickrath is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Platteville  WI
Posts: 36
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

I'm in favor of this proposed scoring system because it accurately takes into account the margin of victory in each event while the existing scoring system does not. The margin of victory should be considered because it's directly related to work capacity and that's exactly what we're trying to measure with these events. Ultimately we're trying to find the athlete with the most area under the power curve and this scoring system does a better job measuring that.

Another interesting thing about this scoring system is that it can easily be translated to a single number that can be used to track an athlete's relative ranking in the field over time from the Open, to Regionals, to Games from year to year.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 03:20 PM   #14
Kevin Burns
Member Kevin Burns is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Greenwood Village  CO
Posts: 586
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

The current scoring system obviously not set up to measure on an "every second counts" system because clearly every second does not count. Unlike other events Crossfit claims fame to the fittest person in the world. Shouldn't that yardstick be a measure of who did the "most" work in terms of seconds and reps and not place ???
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 03:21 PM   #15
Sean Andrews
Member Sean Andrews is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lethbridge  AB Canada
Posts: 24
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

Canada West mens Stats with current scoring system including cuts to 14 participants on Sunday:

2nd place finisher: 1st,2nd,7th,1st,9th,10th =30points
4th place finisher: 4th,20th,3rd,4th,1st,1st = 33 points(won the chipper by 41 seconds)

If Thruster ladder was on Sunday 4th place would be going to games. So who should go to the games a guy with 5 top 4 finishes or a dude with 3??

I like the idea of the percentage scoring system. I don't like the idea (even though clearly stated in the rules) That a DNF does not eliminate you from qualifying, especially when there are other athletes that complete all WOD's. I like the idea of scaling people off of the "best performance" and giving people who can't complete wods negatives, why should they get points for a DNF?. People should be rewarded for margin of victory. Doesn't "Every Rep Count" for something?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 03:28 PM   #16
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan McNamar View Post
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.
Could you explain this again? I can't figure out how they would get negative points... 15:38/6:33 (the 6:33 would be the 100%) or is it 6:33/15:38? Iv looked online briefly but I can't find that scoring system

The main reason i ask is I was going to try it out in the regional world ranking thread iv made.. Would be interesting to see the results. Thanks
__________________
"Before CF, I could only last 1 second with Chuck Norris. Now I'm up to 2 seconds." -Armin Heravi
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 05:15 PM   #17
Christopher G. Woods
Member Christopher G. Woods is offline
 
Christopher G. Woods's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ellicott City  MD
Posts: 2,119
Re: A much better scoring system for the Games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Kizzee View Post
Out of all the possible scoring systems mentioned over the past few years, I have never heard or thought of this.
The scoring software that was provided for the organizers of last years Sectional and Regional qualifiers actually included a standard deviation based system among it's various scoring options, but to my knowledge no one used it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2011, 07:26 PM   #18
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: A much better scoring system for the Games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan McNamar View Post
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.
Not quite. Assume they actually had all 60 athletes, then first place scored 1/60 (.0167) and 2nd place is 2/60 (.033) which is within 2%. Of course, if you had just two competitors then you get your 50% difference.

The problem is this points for placement system works best if you have many players and keep them in for as long as possible. Once you reduce the numbers, then you drastically start changing results. This has been discussed quite a bit.

Personal opinion is the point for placement is best. You don't overly reward a specialist that blows out a particular workout, or punish many people in a poorly thought out WOD that creates lots of low scoring ties (such as Amanda for women).
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2011, 02:25 PM   #19
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Kizzee View Post
Could you explain this again? I can't figure out how they would get negative points... 15:38/6:33 (the 6:33 would be the 100%) or is it 6:33/15:38? Iv looked online briefly but I can't find that scoring system

The main reason i ask is I was going to try it out in the regional world ranking thread iv made.. Would be interesting to see the results. Thanks
Convert to seconds

Elyse Umeda Amanda 6:33 = 393 seconds
Jenny LaBaw Amanda 15:38 = 938 seconds

Then the formula is ((Best Score - Athletes score)/Best Score)+1

Jenny's score = ((393-938)/393)+1 = -0.38677

What this represents is getting lapped and then some. The beauty of this system is it doesn't matter if you make cuts. In a field of 30 or a field of 10 Jenny's awful performance on Amanda will hurt her score the same. This removes the unfair over weighting of the early WODs.

I'm personally against cuts at all. I think the time and dedication required to make Regionals earns the athlete the right to participate in all workouts even if they are mathematically eliminated. There is something about CrossFit that brings us together to give our personal best effort. To deny an athlete that chance is wrong in my opinion.
__________________
Nomadic CrossFit Coach

Last edited by Brendan McNamar : 06-15-2011 at 02:28 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2011, 02:40 PM   #20
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Applin View Post
Not quite. Assume they actually had all 60 athletes, then first place scored 1/60 (.0167) and 2nd place is 2/60 (.033) which is within 2%. Of course, if you had just two competitors then you get your 50% difference.

The problem is this points for placement system works best if you have many players and keep them in for as long as possible. Once you reduce the numbers, then you drastically start changing results. This has been discussed quite a bit.

Personal opinion is the point for placement is best. You don't overly reward a specialist that blows out a particular workout, or punish many people in a poorly thought out WOD that creates lots of low scoring ties (such as Amanda for women).
You are not using the same math I am. The % score is not 1/60. The best result = 100% by definition. All lesser results are a fraction of the first result.

Overly Simple example:
60 Competitor
Dead lift ladder 100, 200, 300 and 400 lbs.
6 people complete 400 lbs. lifts. They all score 100% or 1.0
25 people complete 300 lbs. They all score ((400-300)/400)+1= 75% or .75
25 people complete 200 lbs. They all score ((400-200)/400)+1=50% or .50
3 people complete 100 lbs. They all score ((400-100)/400)+1=25% or .25
1 poor person completes zero lifts. This persons score is zero.

In lifting or events for reps it is impossible to score less then zero. In timed events it is possible to sore less then zero. This might have to be adjusted with a rule that says the worst score you can receive is zero, but for timed events I like the idea that you can score less then zero. I believe how far behind you are matters.
__________________
Nomadic CrossFit Coach
  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 05:30 AM.


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