New Scoring System

[David Horne]

As from now, in the UK we will be using a new scoring system. Well not new really, it is the one the Germans have been using for their comps. So instead of all the constant messing around with updating coefficiants, now it's just a simple maths formula.

Here's an imaginary contest.

Lifter A gets 145k

Lifter B gets 137.5

Lifter C gets 95k

Lifter D gets 88k

The top lift gets a 100 points. The formula for the rest is, their lift (lifter B = 137.5) x 100 divided by 145 (top lift) = 94.82

Lifter A has 100points

Lifter B has 94.82

Lifter C has 65.51

Lifter D has 60.68

It's super easy, so let's hope most contets will use it.

David

[EricMilfeld]

David, this is how we did the scoring for all but one of the Gripboard Grip Bash contests. Now I can't remember exactly why I switched over to the coefficient system for the Show of Hands Grip Cup. But in any event, you've convinced me to return to the system you will be using. It does eliminate the guesswork in determing fair coefficients.

Now I'll go change the scoring rules for the Show of Hands Grip Cup 2.

[Hubgeezer]

In school, they used to call it "grading on the curve".

It's very simple. I am not sure why that had never crossed my mind before. I was never a fan of the "Strongman" method of taking what place you came in and awarding points that way. I am curious if there will be arguments that will convince me that this method is flawed. It seems pretty clean to me...

Hubgeezer

[Scott Styles]

Isn't the point of the coefficients to be able to compare performances across contests? This approach loses that.

I like this approach better though, much easier to understand. Allthough it appears to have been explained well, I could never remember how the coefficients were calculated.

[Mikulich]

In school, they used to call it "grading on the curve".

It's very simple. I am not sure why that had never crossed my mind before. I was never a fan of the "Strongman" method of taking what place you came in and awarding points that way. I am curious if there will be arguments that will convince me that this method is flawed. It seems pretty clean to me...

Hubgeezer

The one issue I see with the scoring system mentioned above is that if someone is light years ahead of the other competitors in one event that event is weighted more heavily than the others (by penalizing the 2nd through last place competitors).

Granted this probably won't happen very often at a big contest, but it would effect small local ones. For example at the only contest I have attended (Power Palace in California) Odd Haugen was WAY ahead of anyone in the DO thickbar deadlift. Therefore in this system he could get 25-30% more points than anyone else in that event.

In a scoring system where each place in every event is assigned the same points this would not happen.

For example in sailing competitions each race in a regatta is weighted equally and the low point system is used. Every competitor gets a number for the place they finish in a race (e.g. if you are first you get 1 point while if you are 52nd you get 52 points.) At the end of the regatta all your points are added up from each of the races and the person with the lowest score wins.

I'm not advocating this system in grip, but it weights each event equally and thus judges a contest differently than the system mentioned above, which I'm sure is a great system since it is advocated by grip's finest.

Also the suggested system assumes that the curve is equally distributed in all events and that the spacing between the marks are the same. If I were to close a COC #3 and the best guy closed a #4 I would get 75% of the max points allowed. Is that equivalent to me pulling 300 lbs on the V-bar while the best guy gets 400? Or better yet what about if the max is 300 lbs and mine is 225? IS the difference between the two equal?

Lastly as grip grows and the events become more standard per contest a scoring system which is similar to the one used by the decathlon would allow people to compare past performances. If the same events and equipment are used in 10 straight contests and one guys scores 3000 points one day while another scores 2000 six months later you could compare the two athletes.

[Bob Lipinski]

I calculated coefficients in the contest I used them by doing a % of the current world record, or best reliable lift I could find.

I like your way Dave. Bending and grippers will have to be calibrated for it to work.

Each system has it's pros and cons. I like the strongman system as it is just very easy, and easy for competitors to tell what they need to win in a clutch performance.

[Florian Kellersmann]

Good changes, David. I've never really understood the coefficient scoring. This system is also better for new disciplines.

[David Horne]

This or the coefficient system rewards excellence, and stops someone just doing enough of a lift to win the points as in strongman scoring. After all we all want to see big lifts and world records, so let's reward them.

This system is as I said just easier for us all, and doesn't require constant changing of the coefficient after contests.

Bob,

Calibration of bars and grippers would be done if included. But Greg's calibrator for grippers look good, aand Eric's calibrator for bars look good, as long as you use the same lengths of bars.

Or you can use whatever method you fancy to score your contest. It was just an idea, and one that we in the UK will be using.

David

[moser1972]

When it's helpful I can send out next week the scoring sheet for the upcoming MGC III.

The promotors can use this as an example....

Just send me a PM when you are interested.

I use the percentage scoring since the beginning and I like it.

But Bob is right - all have pro's and con's.

But with the percentage scoring system you can earn much more points when u are very strong in one or more events.

A very important benefit is that you can make some good points to the next placed lifters when u are outstanding strong in one or more events.

When u close a #4 and the next strongest lifter after you a #2 then you can earn more points as with the strongman scoring system.

Closing a #4 in our example is 1 and the #2 is 2.......without the percenatge scoring system you have no need to close the #4, you can use a gripper rated with 2.1 and you are the winner of the event.......in my eyes its a tactical game, just sit and watch what the other guys close, lift or bend and than do a minimum more to win the event or the comp.

I, as a promoter want to see huge numbers in contests and no tactical games and I like it much more than the strongman system ;-)

ATB

T

Edited March 2, 2007 by moser1972

[jad]

Why can't we just use a system where the top 5, top 3 whatever get points and the rest don't. So 1st place gets 5, second 4, and so on. Whoever has the most points at the end wins. No coefficients, no calibrating, nothing. I do like the way the German system rewards excellence but it allows people to really run up the points and compensate for their weak events. It takes away from having to be an allaround gripster to win contests.

[moser1972]

Why can't we just use a system where the top 5, top 3 whatever get points and the rest don't. So 1st place gets 5, second 4, and so on. Whoever has the most points at the end wins. No coefficients, no calibrating, nothing. I do like the way the German system rewards excellence but it allows people to really run up the points and compensate for their weak events. It takes away from having to be an allaround gripster to win contests.

A good point jad, as I said - all have a pro' and con's

Let us compare both scoring systems:

Lifter1 - Lifter10

Lifter 1 close a #4 and get 100 points

Lifter 2 close a #2 and get 50 points

So Lifter1 was good in grippers and have a distance from 50 points to the next.

Now he loose in vbar against Lifter 2

Lifter 1 lifts in vbar 180K and Lifter 2 200K

Lifter 1 get 90 points; lifter 2 100.

Overall we have now:

Lifter 1: 190 points

Lifter 2: 150 points

You see, 40 points difference because Lifter 1 have the benefit from the outstanding gripper result.....

I think that is the point you mean.

So why not gave the 4 closer some more points? He IS stronger on it and its fair to gave him more points for an outstanding result in my eyes.

When we give 5 for 1st place the result is:

Lifter 1 - 5 points for grippers

Lifter 2 - 4 points for grippers

Lifter 2 - 5 points for vbar

Lifter 1 - 4 points for vbar

So each lifter have 9 points. Its "nearly" the same like the strongman system. Difference is that the highest point number wins, not the smallest!

And its VERY hard for athletes that are weaker in some events to come into the top5 or top3 placings!

To make it drastical:

Lifter 1 -5 place in all events in top 5 and earn points......6 - 10 never get a result.

Who is now 6th place, who 10th?

Edited March 2, 2007 by moser1972

[David Horne]

In the UK, I have chatted to Steve Gardener, and since at this moment were the only people who put on grip contests in the UK, this is how it will run here.

Other countries such as USA, Germany, Sweden, Australia, Switzerland and Uruguay will use whatever system they choose.

David

[mobsterone]

I'm all in favour of the K.I.S.S. system. Plus I have been lucky in getting others to do the scoring so...

I also like the idea of rewarding the big lifts but do not worry about the idea of someone then just pottering along with feeble scores. When this was mentioned recently it was for example purposes only and so far as I know has not happened yet. Closest I've come to it is my beating Dean Bolt by a half kilo in the 2HP in last years British so as to save myself for the later events. I've yet to compete in such a way (apart from when I first started) where I've done anything but try to win (even if only by a half kilo) each event I've entered. Occassionally I'll do enough in attempt 3 and try a big lift with attempt four. This way, if I was successful, would give me more points. And from the examples I have seen so far the overall points would be comparable to those under the old system (about 500 or so possible in a 5 event competition).

Plus anything that takes record keepers from controlling the sport suits me just fine.

Edited March 2, 2007 by mobsterone

[The Mac]

I think this system is excellent (perhaps even ideal) for max lift orientated competitions, however it is of course not so good for events where reps/times are contested. However, since I don't like the idea of contests that involve that kind of event, I do not find it a problem.

[The Mac]

And from the examples I have seen so far the overall points would be comparable to those under the old system (about 500 or so possible in a 5 event competition).

Steve,

The overall points may be comparable in terms of amount, but they would not necessarily be comparable in any meaningful way - ie. you could win a comp with a perfect score (500) via a #1 Close, a 40kg 2-Hands pinch, a 50kg V-Var, a 60kg One-Hand Lift and a paperclip bend depending on the level of competition.

Clearly I am exaggerating, but the principle holds true.

[mobsterone]

True but I've yet to enter one not properly contested.

[The Mac]

Well,in truth I was thinking more along the lines of a novice comp etc.

To be honest I can't think of a way to accurately compare across top-level comps apart from the old "Total Weight lifted" principle,which of course requires standardization and allows no flexibility on event selection.

[The Mac]

At one point I was trying to come up with a way of applying an elo-based system (or similar type approach), but then thought "Rats to it" (or words to that effect) and went down the pub instead.

[the swiss]

We have always used this system at the swiss comps. not perfect, but nice and simple, and pushes people to give their best at each event, not just beat the others.

[Hubgeezer]

In school, they used to call it "grading on the curve".

...blah blah blah... I am curious if there will be arguments that will convince me that this method is flawed. It seems pretty clean to me...

Hubgeezer

I think different methods at different communities by different promoters is fine. So far, the closest anyone has come to convincing me the flaws of this method is Mikulich.

I like the way the Southern California contests have been run, using the Harder points system or variations of them. It is an attempt to make the events scored like a Decathlon in Track & Field. I understand that virtually no one else will ever use it. So if I were to attend a contest at a different venue I would like the one the UK will be using.

In the USA, it is obvious we will continue to be using 17 different methods.

Hubgeezer

[mobsterone]

Well,in truth I was thinking more along the lines of a novice comp etc.

To be honest I can't think of a way to accurately compare across top-level comps apart from the old "Total Weight lifted" principle,which of course requires standardization and allows no flexibility on event selection.

We have a decent enough degree of standardization on at least three events and I've looked at the form of others to get an idea fo what I might be up against in the past.

[The Mac]

Well,in truth I was thinking more along the lines of a novice comp etc.

To be honest I can't think of a way to accurately compare across top-level comps apart from the old "Total Weight lifted" principle,which of course requires standardization and allows no flexibility on event selection.

We have a decent enough degree of standardization on at least three events and I've looked at the form of others to get an idea fo what I might be up against in the past.

True, but unfortunately three events alone may not be enough.

Having said that though, the preference seems to be for having a varied pool of events rather than a fixed set, so I don't think this is heading towards a situation where performances overall (ie. not just individual events) will be comparable across competitions.

[mobsterone]

Again I agree - but to go the step we both want requires two more events to be standardized. David Horne has offered 'form' on lifters in the past and some lifts, such as the one hand deadlift for example, can be close from event to event. Often lifts are easily replicated or close enough to offer an insight. This past weekends supermatch used lifts over which, with the new points system working equally well, there were well known co-efficents. It could be argued that it was a good 5 standard lkift event and there are plenty of previous examples against which one can make a meanigful comparision.

I suspect that there will be some more small changes in the next few months and years and we will finally settle on a workable model for a standard 5 lift event. By the same token powerlifters till wonder what a super heavy olympic lifter would do in the squat and are often, as Dale Harder was able, to come up with some workable comparison. We seem to be suggesting we NEED to know how much better we were than our past lifters. It's not a NEED more of an interest. A quick look at the history of Olympic lifting (there is a great book on the 1905 games) shows similar growing pains soon worked out. I find it more interesting to be a part of the history now and to help shape the future.

[The Mac]

Good post Steve and good points made. I guess it is just the way I like to look at things that I feel I have a NEED to look at things in a certain, quantifiable, way.

[Bob Lipinski]

Even though guys in the US will still do whatever the hell they want, I would like to see a recognized standard take place for international standards, and hopefully a US championship which falls under the same rules.