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 07-19-2010, 04:50 AM   #11
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 Miles Libbey View Post
Agree with the later half, but not the first half. The problem is that later performances might be bad, but since there are less competitors, they are not scored as bad. For instance, if the entire field were to do the last workout (wall burpee/climb), what would Rich's 12th place and Graham's 5th place scores turn into? With 3 minutes separating Speal and Graham, it's not hard to imagine a much bigger differential than 4 or 11 points. Effectively, the current scoring makes you hope that if you suck at an event, that it comes late, where it won't hurt you as much.
Exactly!
__________________
The greatest of journeys began with a single step. LOG
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 05:07 AM   #12
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 Lincoln Brigham View Post
What is being suggested her is that if an athlete has a bad event in the beginning of the weekend this problem should be minimized should they survive the cut. What this would allow is for an athlete to have a terrible event, exposing a serious weakness in their fitness, and yet still finish very well....

What is being proposed would only work if there is a certain sameness to all the events, which to my mind would not be Crossfit. Frankly, in Crossfit you're supposed to get punished and punished hard for glaring weaknesses in your fitness.
Not exactly ...

Take for examply Rich Froning's (sp?) poor performance in the final event. Had there been 45 competitors instead of just 16 does he still finish 2nd? What I am saying is that in the later events you don't get punished as bad for a glaring weakness.

IMO - speal and malleolo showed no glaring weaknesses. Speal put about 1.8x bodyweight over his head. Most other competitors were around the 1.5/1.6 mark. How is that a glaring weakness? But, because of the placement of the WOD in the order of events he was punished worse for being middle of the road (26 points out of 45) than Rich was for being in the lower 3rd of the final event (12 points out of 16).
__________________
The greatest of journeys began with a single step. LOG
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 06:33 AM   #13
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: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

This topic was discussed extensively after last years games. The gap was even larger last year, due to the larger number of competitors and and cuts. Going into day 2 of last years competition, more than half of the final 16 were already oit of contention for the podium, and only a the top 4 or 5 actually had a chance of winning. This year there was at least a possibility for a major shake-up in the final series of events, however unlikely. One thing I disliked is that all of the final events seemed to favor the same skill set.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 07:24 AM   #14
Stu Christensen
Member Stu Christensen is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon  SK Canada
Posts: 864
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher G. Woods View Post
This topic was discussed extensively after last years games. The gap was even larger last year, due to the larger number of competitors and and cuts. Going into day 2 of last years competition, more than half of the final 16 were already oit of contention for the podium, and only a the top 4 or 5 actually had a chance of winning. This year there was at least a possibility for a major shake-up in the final series of events, however unlikely. One thing I disliked is that all of the final events seemed to favor the same skill set.
I agree, I was/am really disappointed with the event selection for the entire comp. Disheartening really.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 07:48 AM   #15
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?

I liked the choice of events.


I think that it was a pretty good range of events for a group of crossfitters. I don't agree with testing their crossfit ability by seeing how they compare in the extremes of different disciplines. What I mean is that I don't think that having multiple events that are each focusing on one element (a max lift, a 5k, a 2k row, etc ...) and then combining the results would give an accurate representation of the best crossfitter. I know they are branding the 'fittest person on the planet' but hey - that's just marketing .... what they are really measuring is the best crossfitter and the choice of events was pretty solid.

What more could you really ask for? MUs, DUs, heavy DLs, Cleans, Snatches, KB swings, over 2k of running, 72 pull ups, rope climbs, toes to bar, etc .. I think it hit everything that we as crossfitters do. Seeing who is the best powerlifter, sprinter, etc ... does not measure who the best crossfitter is. At the end of the day you have to throw out all of the talk of metabolic pathways and the length of the WODs etc ... when you are doing THAT MUCH WORK in a 2.5 day period everything is getting hammered. The last event was about guts, who could squeek out just one more rep, I absolutely loved it!

And btw, the coverage rocked!!
__________________
The greatest of journeys began with a single step. LOG
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 08:21 AM   #16
Michael V. Erickson
Member Michael V. Erickson is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Concord  California
Posts: 85
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

I loved all of the events and the coverage. I'm perplexed that the scoring was done the same as last year. I'm guessing a couple of things are in play: 1. It motivates the top competitors to work really hard on day one. 2. It illustrates the "Life ain't fair" aspect of reality.

That said, I would like to crunch the numbers using the proportional points method like I did last year but I don't understand the points given for the last events. Max repetitions should be the higher score for those athletes that didn't finish in the time limit but the higher ranked competitors scores have lower numbers. Can't figure out how that works. I hope its simply a mistake and the official scorers will fix the online numbers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 08:22 AM   #17
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?

While the scoring system was is flawed. I thought they did an awesome job of programming. Events that were supposed to be in someones "wheelhouse" proved to be difficult. And the use of random objects adds to the excitement of the competition. Putting them in seclusion to prevent strategizing was great. Can't level the playing field more than that.

It still needs to be taken into consideration that this is only the 4th games ever. And every year it's getting bigger and better. The event, the number of competitors, the athletic ability of the entrants are jumping by leaps and bounds. That being said, there is still going to be growing pains to get the Crossfit Games to where they want to be.

And kudos to the people behind the live stream of the games. I pretty much was glued to my lap top the whole time, which made for some late nights on the east coast. I hope they can do this every year until they get on television, lol.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 08:58 AM   #18
Jeff Binek
Affiliate Jeff Binek is offline
 
Jeff Binek's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Dublin  OH
Posts: 297
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Graham beat Speal heads up in 2 "Speal events". Spealler wanted RHSPU, well he got them and Graham beat him. Double Helen was one where everyone thought Speal would kill, Graham beat him straight up. If you watched the entire competition then you should have no gripe with the scoring. Graham and Rich were clearly better than the rest throughout the competition, with Speal right behind them. There is no flaw in the scoring system, it awards the most well rounded people. There is no doubt that the final heat was better than the 2nd (In the last event), which was clearly better than the first. It was obvious that the best rose up, so the system (both programming and scoring) worked. I think it was maybe a little too technically oriented, that would be my only gripe, but as you saw RF Jr. didn't know how to do pistols and won that event....so that is a pretty good sign of fitness and adaptation. Any kind of double scoring on Sunday would make saturday pretty pointless, and keeping the lower end guys around for Sunday just to supplement scoring makes things longer and more boring to watch. Why should someone who did poorly in events on day one be given the chance to come back. That is stupid as hell.
__________________
My Numbers: 6'2" 225lbs: DL 565, BS 455, FS 400, Clean 330, Jerk 325, C&J 325, Snatch 250, Fran: 2:27, Helen: 6:43
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:12 AM   #19
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?

I don't mind the point per place scoring method, but, if you change the number of competitors, it's unreasonable to consider the scoring under the past situation verbatim. Instead, I think they should re-score past events as if only the post-cut athletes competed (ignore the raw scores of the people that missed the cut). The top 16 people's score should thus be in the range [1,16] for all 9 events. For example, Khalipa's 1st event received a 28. Amongst the final 16 competitors, it was the 15th best performance, so the score would be changed to 15.

If the top 16 people competed exclusively, the places switch dramatically for the men (WFS) -- Spealler would have won, with Egyed in 2nd and Froning Jr in 3rd. Literally every position would switch. It seems extremely bizarre that scoring a subset would change so dramatically. Are there any other sports where the scoring would have such an internal inconsistency?
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2010, 10:15 AM   #20
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?

Definitely agree. Forget about how fair it is to the competitors - from a spectators standpoint, it just makes it so much less exciting knowing that the last few events are basically meaningless!
  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 04:39 AM.


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