A Case For Percentage Based Points Contest Scoring

[climber511]

Could someone explain the German scoring system to me?

It's on the BHSA pages on David's site

Thanks Steve - it appears to be the same as the percentage system with a decimal point shift? Or am I missing something?

[Too Tall]

I have competed under both the German and the strongman scoring systems. The German system makes you go ALL out on ALL the events...no skipping final attempts like I did at BBB3. I do not know how it is calculated exactly...but I do know if I had skipped any attempts or not tried to lift as much as possible in ALL the events...I would have not done as well. I won by like 65 to 70 points...BUT that is because I pushed myself on each event.

In strongman scoring...if I am in the lead and going last on each event...all I have to do is lift enough to win that event and get my 10 points(and that may or may not be my max). I will compete under either one...because if I have a weakness...I will do what I can to bring it up...like I did in DO bending at BBB3. These are some good discussions

[Jedd Johnson]

I prefer the percentage based system over the strongman system.

My reason for this - if you finish last on one event, you get 0 or maybe 1 point, no matter how well you did. Let's say there are ten guys in a weight class and it is a tire flip event where you have to flip the tire 10 times. If somebody does it in one minute flat, to win, they get 10 points. It doesn't matter what the spacing is, whoever did it slowest gets 1 point. Even if the placings looked like this.

1st - 1:00

2nd - 1:01

3rd - 1:02

4th - 1:03

5th - 1:04

6th - 1:05

7th - 1:06

8th - 1:07

9th - 1:08

10th - 1:09

10th place gets one point - one tenth of what first place got. Is he only 1/10 as strong? No way. In my opinion, it should all be based on percentage. These competitors are all very close in performance. The score should reflect that.

[Hubgeezer]

The method used at the 2007 Brits, I guess, was the German Method. The scale is 100 points per event. If someone who placed first in calibrated grippers closed a 3.6 right hand and a 3.2 for left hand, that would be a 6.8 total for 100 points. If you closed a 2.5 and a 3.0, you would get a 5.5 total, and the points would be 5.5 divided by 6.8 for 80.81 points. To me, it reminds me of college classes where they "grade on the curve". Fine by me.

I also like the Harder Method, which is a model patterned after the Track and Field Decathlon method. The scores would be a maximum of 1000 points per event, which would never be achieved, because that would be like the highest potential for a human being. Other than contests here and there using it, I doubt if we would ever see it, as not enough people would agree on a point scale.

[Jedd Johnson]

The German method and what Eric and I are talking about are the same, just the multiple is 100 there and only 10 on our side.

[EricMilfeld]

Dave, it was an honor to meet you. And for the record, I consider you the stronger all around gripster, and I would have been quite pleased to have placed lower than you in the contest. But to be candid about it, I feel strongly about this issue and do disagree with you and Bob. You did, however, make one very good valid point about the potential for timed events to create skewed results with the percentage method of scoring. But this is easily corrected, via the way I did it at the last Show of Hands, for example. We contested a 100 pound plate hold on very shallow lipped plates. I scored it by awarding 50 points for breaking both plates off the ground and awarding another 50 points to the competitor with the winning time. The other competitors were awarded points based on their percentage of the winning time. For example, if you held them for a minute and won the event you'd get 100 points, and if I held them for 30 seconds I'd get 75 points. I will score the hang for time event at this year's contest similarly.

The strongman system of scoring creates the potential for not only a competitor to sit out the final event and still win, but also to stop short of his potential on individual events when he realizes he's already won that event.

But for those who would insist on not using the percentage system, a "powerlifting total combined weight lifted" method could also work as a compromise. It would, however, leave you with the same "problem" you have with a powerlifting total. The squat and deadlift factor into your total moreso than your bench, because of the greater weight lifted. So, as an example of a "total weight lifted" scoring system you could total a 200 lb. pinch, 300 lb. axle, a calibrated gripper of 150 lbs., and timed hold of one minute with each second being worth 2 pounds (120 pounds) for a combined total of 770 pounds. Of course, you could do like I did with our plate hold and award an initial poundage for simply lifting the implement to be held for time to keep the results from being skewed.

Heck, you could even double the poundage on an event where lifters typically lift half of what they would on another event, to further balance things out. I've done this in the Show of Hands in conjunction with the percentage method with what I think are darn near perfectly fair scoring results.

For me personally, if given a choice, I'll choose to compete in the contest that uses the percentage method, or some variation thereof. Bob was kind enough to invite me up to his Michigan contest this year, and I hope I can make it, but to be upfront about it, if Joe Grip over in Minnesota had a contest on the same day using the percentage formula I'd go to Joe's event. But again, this is nothing personal. I think the world of both you guys, though I respectfully disagree on this one issue.

[tja]

I never have competed in grip, but hopefully will some day...

Conceptually I like the percentage based scoring system much more, as it is directly related to one's performance. I think Eric makes a good point in modifying the timed event scoring so that just lifting up the weight gets you 50%.

This idea could be generalized and applied to any event. The baseline does not need to be zero (200 pounds gives you 100% vs. 0 pounds gives you 0%). For instance, in a gripper event largest poundage would give you 100% and poundage corresponding to #1 would give you zero. Everything in between would be scaled accordingly.

I never have competed in grip, but hopefully will some day...

Conceptually I like the percentage based scoring system much more, as it is directly related to one's performance. I think Eric makes a good point in modifying the timed event scoring so that just lifting up the weight gets you 50%.

This idea could be generalized and applied to any event. The baseline does not need to be zero (200 pounds gives you 100% vs. 0 pounds gives you 0%). For instance, in a gripper event largest poundage would give you 100% and poundage corresponding to #1 would give you zero. Everything in between would be scaled accordingly.

[Starkmann]

In Chris's system, there is one thing I think may need refinement. In the case of the medley Jedd and Dave both put up all items, Dave was faster so he got a 21 for a raw score while Jedd got a 20.9. This caused a difference of 0.048 in the score for tabulation, in short, Dave did not get rewarded for his extra speed. I have been trying to think of a way to resolve this but am coming up empty handed. Any suggestions? How does the German system handle this?

[Bob Lipinski]

I may change my scoring for next year, based on the consensus. We'll see. It looks like a majority of the promoters are going towards the German system. I have no strong feelings here, other than wanting to unify the sport more.

I have two events that I would need to modify, a medley and a hold. I think I have good enough ideas on how to do both.

Also, I second Jedd's concern about the timed events- At the BBB3 I think less than 10 seconds separated something like 7th-18th place.

[Jedd Johnson]

We gotta figure that medley stuff out - that's for sure.

[Jedd Johnson]

What if you go like this.

Lets say Dave finished in 1:40 and I finished in 1:50 ( just for round numbers). The time limit was 2:30. We could just used the difference between the time limit and the time limit the athlete finished in. In other words...

Dave - 1:40 - finished 50 seconds ahead of the time limit. So 50 seconds gets him 10 points.

I finished in 1:50 seconds, 40 seconds ahead of the time limit, so my score can be factored as 40 seconds / 50 seconds = 80%. Now, just hold onto that factor.

All the other scores can be factored in by the following formula - best number of objects loaded was 21. 21 becomes the denominator. If a guy loads 20 of them, his score is factored like so: 20 / 21 = .952 X 10 = 9.52 points.

9.52 points becomes the best score you can possibly get if you do not load all the implements.

Now, back to my 80%. We have to factor that in between the 9.52 points for loading 20 and the 10 points for loading all of them in the shortest time.

The difference between 10 and 9.52 is .48. So, 80% of .48 is .384, so just add .384 to 9.52 and get 9.904.

What do you guys think?

[Bob Lipinski]

In the future, I don't think I will ever have medleys decided by time. I will just let ties be ties, and hope that the medley is good enough to provide a range. Your method is good though Jedd.

At my medleys, I think I will continue with three different platforms, one a few inches high, one deadlift height, and one clean height. You get a good point spread that way.

[EricMilfeld]

In the future, I don't think I will ever have medleys decided by time. I will just let ties be ties, and hope that the medley is good enough to provide a range. Your method is good though Jedd.

At my medleys, I think I will continue with three different platforms, one a few inches high, one deadlift height, and one clean height. You get a good point spread that way.

Bob, I like your idea of having a time limit but not factoring in the time to calculate the scores. Using a wide range of items in the event, ranging from novice to super elite, could help to minimize the possibility of a tie. Using a large number of items would also have the same effect.

Something else I've thought about is maybe awarding points for the various objects lifted or levered in a medley based on their level of difficulty. What do ya'll think about that idea?

[mobsterone]

As per my comment elsewhere unless whole all round competitions are decided on one event (in which case set a specific rule or just add a tie breaker) do not fret too much over the minutiae of one event. Strongman allows for count back and we've not had a tie yet in ANY grip competition. If ties occur because of a scoring system and not because of a guy actually setting the same time then you can still add in bodyweight allowances (lighter / smaller man wins).

[Starkmann]

That seems like a great way to go Jedd.

[The Mac]

As noted, the percentage scoring system does not work well for timed events, rep events or medley type events - don't forget in most medleys the implements are of varying difficulty.

It seems to work quite well in grippers although it really shouldn't - a #2 would be twice as hard as a #1 but a #3 would only be 50% harder than a #2 etc etc.

The percentage system works on max weight based events.

[Jedd Johnson]

As per my comment elsewhere unless whole all round competitions are decided on one event (in which case set a specific rule or just add a tie breaker) do not fret too much over the minutiae of one event. Strongman allows for count back and we've not had a tie yet in ANY grip competition. If ties occur because of a scoring system and not because of a guy actually setting the same time then you can still add in bodyweight allowances (lighter / smaller man wins).

Bodyweight allowance for a Grip contest? That does not make any sense to me at all.

[Jedd Johnson]

In the future, I don't think I will ever have medleys decided by time. I will just let ties be ties, and hope that the medley is good enough to provide a range.

That is what we did at GGC 2006. There were 5 blobs. You got a point for loading each one and you got a point for lowering each one under control to the floor by the face.

[mobsterone]

As per my comment elsewhere unless whole all round competitions are decided on one event (in which case set a specific rule or just add a tie breaker) do not fret too much over the minutiae of one event. Strongman allows for count back and we've not had a tie yet in ANY grip competition. If ties occur because of a scoring system and not because of a guy actually setting the same time then you can still add in bodyweight allowances (lighter / smaller man wins).

Bodyweight allowance for a Grip contest? That does not make any sense to me at all.

I doubt that. Especially when I say in what circumstances it could be used in and that those same circumstances that everyone seems so keen to debate have yet to happen. It makes as much sense as debating yet another variation on the points system.

I can see ir now. Years later the history of our sport will read... 2005 they tried a new points system, year 2006 another, year 2007 another. All the while the other strength sports had long ago resolved these issues.

[Jedd Johnson]

Ok smart guy. Why don't you explain to me how it makes sense to use full bodyweight as a deciding factor and not something more specifically related to the execution of most of the lifts, like, say, hand size.

[burkhardmacht]

Ok smart guy. Why don't you explain to me how it makes sense to use full bodyweight as a deciding factor and not something more specifically related to the execution of most of the lifts, like, say, hand size.

Handsize makes sense, bodyweight not - because the first is a more important factor in our sport. With handsize there's the problem to take not only hand lenght into consideration - hand span is a factor too. Perhaps we could do a point system which divides the competitors into different handclasses on the basis of the addition of the hand lenght and hand span. It sounds a bit complicated at first but it should work. Hand span is an important factor for blobs and fatbar.

The counter argument would be to say: bighanded guys have better genetics - so it's naturally that they win. But that does not mean that both types of comps can't exist parallel in the future.

[mobsterone]

I did. Don't make me quote each of my posts where I mention the following:

1) Context

2) History of the sport of strength

3) Split decisions

And so on.

If you wish to start your reply with 'ok smart guy'... ( and I think my lifting experience, records, history as a promoter and being a co-founder of the BHSA (currently the ONLY association of any kind) earn me a little more respect than is given with 'ok smart guy). I can reply with me and you are about the same height and have little or no difference in hand size worth a mention. That pretty much applies to 99% of the top boys in our sport. Yet he we are debating how to add another layer of complexity to a sport which is as yet undefined. We have two open threads in which members are discussing both the lack of a US or world wide governing body but you ask me to explain AGAIN why we don't need to do what is being suggested.

I could point out that most open competitions are won by tall, big handed, heavier members of the grip world than the opposite and that we have had many events consisting of two classes - open and novice - for many years. Statistics would back up the idea of smaller, smaller handed, lighter bodyweight individuals winning the novice classes.

I could state AGAIN, as I did in this thread and in others in the last few months, that the history of the strength sport is littered with differing systems of measure. Some had completely different bodyweight divisions, there was at one time three different means of cleaning a bar to the chest and so on.

That for all the debate and 'smart guy' comments and requests for explanation we haven't actually had this problem need resolving yet. I've probably competed as many times at a higher level as most here, promoted events and so on yet never seen a tie breaker needed.

Or another set of rules.

Or another way of calculating points. Again.

I could even point out that we might want to change how the grip board and what we might call grip athletes are seen outside of a few dedicated forums. If we want to allow some growth, perhaps alongside strongman, we might not want to use completely different systems. We know that some events, such as medleys (and more) in strongman which use the same weights for all athletes are timed (so there is no problem there). Read BHSA rules regarding the 2 minute minimum to keep events moving with the rising bar rule in effect (same as powerlifting and olympic lifting). I could point out that we have already seen how a completely different result came from the quick test of another way of calculating points and we've seen complete uproar when so-called 'doubling' of points occurs in strongman - changed to suit a local lad. Would you like to win one way and lose another? Let's not add to the hand size debate by formulating another means of adding up points and make ourselves the laughing stock of the strength world.

All this is, in one form or another, in earlier posts.

[John Beatty]

I like Strongman scoring. If you want to win, move faster or lift more. I've been bumped out of $100 for winning events by .5 seconds before, but I wasn't as fast as the winner. I've won events by .1 seconds, so I was faster, or my hands were stronger. The only thing I have a problem with on percentages is that you're rewarding a lesser performance. A win is a win, a loss is a loss.

As in the BBB, all you had to do to get out of the block of guys that tied on the 45 Blob, was to lift it! It was a timed event, so if you went faster, that represents athleticism (and stronger grip, i.e. you could rip it up to the platform faster). Or tied on the axle, or tied on the Vbar - lift more & beat more guys. You're rewarded for being stronger or faster under Strongman scoring. That's competition. If you choose to not take a final attempt to conserve energy for later events, that's competition. I like to blow it out & see what I can do for the most part, but I've stopped endurance events when I know I had the win in my class & to go for an overall win would just trash me for the next event. On the other side of that, I've gone for extra attempts when I locked the win earlier because I felt good & wanted to see what I could do (usually on single rep strength events).

Just as a point, I'll use Strongman scoring at anything I run, be it Strongman or Grip. It's what I like & the fairest in my mind.

If we use some odd scoring that nobody outside the sport can figure out, we'll just be hurting our sport, as well.

Edited December 16, 2007 by John Beatty

[Jedd Johnson]

Ok smart guy. Why don't you explain to me how it makes sense to use full bodyweight as a deciding factor and not something more specifically related to the execution of most of the lifts, like, say, hand size.

Handsize makes sense, bodyweight not - because the first is a more important factor in our sport. With handsize there's the problem to take not only hand lenght into consideration - hand span is a factor too. Perhaps we could do a point system which divides the competitors into different handclasses on the basis of the addition of the hand lenght and hand span. It sounds a bit complicated at first but it should work. Hand span is an important factor for blobs and fatbar.

The counter argument would be to say: bighanded guys have better genetics - so it's naturally that they win. But that does not mean that both types of comps can't exist parallel in the future.

The GGC has had hand size classes the last 2 or 3 years. We figured this would make more sense, since we were contesting wide objects like credit card set grippers, thick bar and block weights. However, it really hasn't seemed to help attendance to the contest. In fact, both years the attendance went down.

[Jedd Johnson]

The ok smart guy comment was in reaction to your bullshit comment, "I can see ir now. Years later the history of our sport will read... 2005 they tried a new points system, year 2006 another, year 2007 another. All the while the other strength sports had long ago resolved these issues."