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 07-12-2009, 08:29 PM   #21
Cormac O'Connor
Member Cormac O'Connor is offline
 
Cormac O'Connor's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tokyo  Japan
Posts: 253
Re: Games Scoring

Life isn't fair. Sport isn't fair. The competitors were great. The winners deserved to win. The WODs were great. The organizers did a fantastic job.

The scoring system was fundamentally broken and needs to be re-thought if something similar is to be implemented in the future.

All of the above are equally true, in my opinion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 07:45 AM   #22
Tom Fetter
Member Tom Fetter is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Fredericton  New Brunswick
Posts: 657
Re: Games Scoring

First things first - hats off to Tanya and Mikko. Stunning athletes, stunning performances. There's no question in my mind that you wear your crowns well.

Yes, scoring practices in any competition will alter the results. They're always a compromise, always have some inherent flaw.

One option for the future would be getting a % score for each event. An event winner gets 100%, and the others a lower %. And the overall winner is the competitor with the highest average %, after all the events are complete. No matter how big or small the field (i.e. you could still cut the number of competitors over the competition), for the finishers ... no WOD would be worth any more than any other.

Of course, you'd still need to decide whether to reward placing more strongly, or work performed. Imagine a Deadlift ladder WOD with 100 competitors, where the winner pulls #700 pounds and the last-place finisher pulls #400. Think about a competitor who pulled #600.
  • To reward placing, assign the % based on who came first/second/third etc. Our imaginary #600-pulling competitor finished 20th out of 100 in that WOD, so would score 80%.

    To reward work performance, assign the winner 100% and the last-place finisher 0%; distribute the other competitors' scores based on where their performance falls as a % within the continuum. Our imaginary #600-pulling competitor would score 66% this time ... 2/3 of the way up between the lowest and highest pull.

It would get complicated, but that's what computers are for.

In no way should this be read as trying to invalidate what happened this weekend - I think the games were hugely successful, and all competitors signed on for the scoring system used. Huge props to the winners, and to all competitors.

Just a couple of thoughts for the future though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 09:02 AM   #23
Stephen Flamm
Affiliate Stephen Flamm is offline
 
Stephen Flamm's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Cincinnati  OH
Posts: 511
Re: Games Scoring

Finishing last out of 75 competitors should be punished more than finishing last out 16. Every time. I suspect that HQ knew exactly what they were doing.
__________________
www.cincinnatistrength.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 09:12 AM   #24
Tom Seryak
Member Tom Seryak is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Dublin  Ohio
Posts: 389
Re: Games Scoring

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Flamm View Post
Finishing last out of 75 competitors should be punished more than finishing last out 16. Every time. I suspect that HQ knew exactly what they were doing.
makes sense. at first it didn't, but now it does. no question, the top 16 men are all extremely fit. no question, mikko is the fittest.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 11:40 AM   #25
Mike Feliciani
Affiliate Mike Feliciani is offline
 
Mike Feliciani's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Perkasie  PA
Posts: 33
Re: Games Scoring

I don't feel that the scoring was broken at all. The main argument against the scoring is the "weight" that the 1st day holds against the 2nd potentially eliminating a come from behind win. There is an emotional draw to giving everyone a shot at any time to take the crown. Even in the olympic decathlon, a person can have such a lead that the gold medal can be won before the running of the 1,500 meters based on points. Does this mean the scoring is broken? I really don't think so. It was said in another post, all the athletes had the same opportunity to gain advantage in day one that could not be easily removed in day two.

Had both the men's and women's scoring been tight with the top ten in striking distance, this disscussion would not be going on. I think it is a credit to the top athletes for performing so well on the first day.

I know I'm biased, but it was consistantly scored for all the athletes involved. A similar argument was made last year about the final event and the desire to see Speal hang on to his lead.
__________________
http://www.crossfitapex.com 36yo M 200lbs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 12:08 PM   #26
Dimitri Dziabenko
Banned Dimitri Dziabenko is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Toronto  ON
Posts: 1,080
Re: Games Scoring

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Feliciani View Post
I don't feel that the scoring was broken at all. The main argument against the scoring is the "weight" that the 1st day holds against the 2nd potentially eliminating a come from behind win. There is an emotional draw to giving everyone a shot at any time to take the crown. Even in the olympic decathlon, a person can have such a lead that the gold medal can be won before the running of the 1,500 meters based on points. Does this mean the scoring is broken? I really don't think so. It was said in another post, all the athletes had the same opportunity to gain advantage in day one that could not be easily removed in day two.

Had both the men's and women's scoring been tight with the top ten in striking distance, this disscussion would not be going on. I think it is a credit to the top athletes for performing so well on the first day.

I know I'm biased, but it was consistantly scored for all the athletes involved. A similar argument was made last year about the final event and the desire to see Speal hang on to his lead.
Based on the elimination of competitors, it is true that first day events should count more (coming first out of 76 is more impressive than out of 16). Yet, even events in day 1 were weighed differently, not just due to the ties. Point is, why should the sandbag sprint be worth so much more than that last Chipper from hell? It makes no logical sense why, from a performance perspective, these workouts should receive different weights in that "index" by which the competitors were ranked. Why not just let everybody that qualified, actually compete. That may mean that approaching the chipper, many many people will be out of the running for first place. So what, let them compete.

Just as they should have the right to make a showing in the last event, so should the front runner from day 1 be allowed to lose. An "exaggeration" of this is counting workouts from day 1 out of 100 points (think CF2007), but then second day events out 5 points, and then wondering why people couldn't catch up to those at the top. Although all of them had the same chance, this weighing actually emphasized different people's strengths more so, and that, unintentionally, made the scoring askew.

And by the way, the scoring for the decathlon is completely standardized. It is calculated by a specific formula based on your objective results (like time on the 100m), not on your relative position to other competitors. That's what makes our events more tricky to score.

I would like to congratulate all the competitors on a fantastic/inspiring weekend, and hopefully next year will be even bigger (televised?).

Last edited by Dimitri Dziabenko : 07-13-2009 at 12:11 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 12:19 PM   #27
Wayne Larsen
Member Wayne Larsen is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Saskatoon  SK
Posts: 2
Re: Games Scoring

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Fetter View Post
One option for the future would be getting a % score for each event. An event winner gets 100%, and the others a lower %. And the overall winner is the competitor with the highest average %, after all the events are complete. No matter how big or small the field (i.e. you could still cut the number of competitors over the competition), for the finishers ... no WOD would be worth any more than any other.
That was my first thought as well. I ran the numbers for that for the men, you can see the result here: http://www.quicksnapper.com/wvl/imag...rnate-scoring/.YOU MUST ENSURE YOU ANNOTATE ALL LINKS WHETHER WORK AND FAMILY SAFE. Note, that I used a percentage number based on placement, not scoring, which would have been slightly different. It gave Khalipa a bigger disadvantage after the run, but he still came in first with Salo second in that scenario. The numbers ended up very similar to just straight reranking of the top 16. YOU MUST ENSURE YOU ANNOTATE ALL LINKS WHETHER WORK AND FAMILY SAFE.

Using a percentage ranking like that actually lowers the impact of the first events, since it is likely that our top competitors placed well in them. That, combined with the fact that the reranking has the benefit of being conceptually simpler makes me like it better as an alternate scoring method. On the other hand, though, it would let you keep a running score throughout that wouldn't change, as the before and after reranking scores are markedly different.

Last edited by Lynne Pitts : 07-13-2009 at 11:05 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 12:29 PM   #28
Mike Feliciani
Affiliate Mike Feliciani is offline
 
Mike Feliciani's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Perkasie  PA
Posts: 33
Re: Games Scoring

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri Dziabenko View Post
An "exaggeration" of this is counting workouts from day 1 out of 100 points (think CF2007), but then second day events out 5 points, and then wondering why people couldn't catch up to those at the top. Although all of them had the same chance, this weighing actually emphasized different people's strengths more so, and that, unintentionally, made the scoring askew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimitri Dziabenko View Post
And by the way, the scoring for the decathlon is completely standardized. It is calculated by a specific formula based on your objective results (like time on the 100m), not on your relative position to other competitors. That's what makes our events more tricky to score.
I'm not really saying that the event couldn't be scored differently. I'm saying that the scoring isn't broken or askew. I understand the desire to see the two days have equal value, but they all knew this going in. No one was wondering why the leaders couldn't be caught on the second day. There wasn't enough points to make-up for the shortfall on day one. This was the twist that HQ put on the scoring. There is some notion that they didn't understand the ramifications of cutting the field. If everyone knew this going in. They also knew that day one was going to be the day you had to place well to give yourself a shot.

Side note: the Decathlon is not scored on a formula it is scored on a point table that was established based on a then world class performance. The point changes are not standard although the tables are. I do understand your point about relative vs performace based scoring though. This is our difficulty in establishing placement from random tasks for a given cohort.

The trouble with equal weight comes from the cut not the system itself. Any system you come up with will unjustly punish a lower finish within a smaller cohort of the more talented athletes given a cut of the lower ones.
__________________
http://www.crossfitapex.com 36yo M 200lbs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 12:49 PM   #29
Marcel Zwinger
Member Marcel Zwinger is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Podersdorf  Burgenland
Posts: 327
Re: Games Scoring

the only real complaint I have is: what's the point in qualifying for the second day if you don't have a chance to win, anymore?

it just feels weird.

either the first and second events were so important that you could really determin a lot about yourself (I could understand WHY the brutal run plus strenth test after a short break would display a lot of your fitness level)

...but then especially the WODs on the second day feel less rewarding.
and shouldn't the last WOD be the ultimate test, anyway?

so, why not let everybody compete in all 5 events on the first day and call it exactly that?

ps: congrats to anyone that survived even day one!

the irony in my rant is that, I really hoped for Tanya, and for Jason, too.
so I'm not biased for one way or the other.

it's just, if the scoring system enforces the importants of the first day, the second day becomes (obviously) more redundant.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2009, 12:57 PM   #30
Ron Wilhelm
Member Ron Wilhelm is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Denver  CO
Posts: 260
Re: Games Scoring

As I said on the Games blog, I ran the entry and calculations of the scores of the Games. I would like to say I support the debate around the scoring system. I don't consider it to be "armchair quarterbacking". It is infeasible someone else to re-stage a Games like event simply for the purposes of testing a scoring system.

In some ways I like the reshuffling of previous events results based on non-completion of subsequent events. In the Northwest qualifiers, the women's results would have shifted slightly with Kallista qualifying in fifth place rather than sixth. This is based on a re-ranking of the strenth events amoungst the women who were able to complete the metcon.

The argument for such a system is that someone who can't complete a workout shoudln't be able to "take points" from someone who is. While such a system would be easy to implement in alorithymically, it would be difficult to explain. The countback system that was used as a tie-breaker (I got it from racing) was implemented in code, so I never "saw" that there was a 5 way tie-breaker to determine 3rd place in the women's final. The calculation was completly automatic. Relying on code allows for many alternative scoring methods to be used. I think it's important that we don't end up with something like the playoff system used in the movie "BASEketball" with "'a blind-choice round robin' and 'the two-man sack race held on consecutive Sundays'".
  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
CrossFit Games v's Regional/State Games? Scot Heyes Competitions 12 08-19-2009 05:32 AM
'Nicole' Scoring Robert Miller Workout of the Day 5 01-21-2008 04:48 AM
How Fit Are You? scoring Erik Tiner Fitness 19 12-07-2007 10:28 PM
Tabata scoring Jeryd Leuck Fitness 4 09-23-2007 04:41 PM
Tabata Scoring Patrick Johnston Exercises 25 02-26-2004 05:57 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:53 AM.


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