New Olympics Scoring: No More Perfect 10.0

Dekortage writes "If you watch the Olympics gymnastics this year, you may be confused by the new scoring system which will let athletes score 14, 17, or even higher. The new rules are 'heavy on math' and employ two panels of judges: one for technical difficulty, which adds points up from a score of zero; the other for execution and technique, which starts at 10.0 and subtracts for errors. The two numbers are then combined for the final score. As one judge put it, 'The system rewards difficulty. But the mistakes are also more costly.' The new rules were adopted after South Korea protested a scoring at the 2004 Olympics." Now I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport" that has judges determine the winner, but their wives/girlfriends might seize control of the remote because they want to know who is the best at that ribbon-twirling thing.

Comments

Huh

[Aaron_Pike]

And people wonder why there is a perception of sexism in technical fields.

Re:Huh

[TheoMurpse]

I'm going to chime in, too. I find Taco's comments offensive. I suppose the code obfuscation contests are worthless as well, since there are judges for that event, too?

Also, there are no ribbons in gymnastics. That's rhythmic gymnastics, sir.

I wish I could mod down the editorialization.

Re:Huh

[PlatyPaul]

To play devil's advocate, it really does seem stupid to include Rhythmic Gymnastics in addition to the tried-and-true Artistic Gymnastics, as the demonstration of ability is almost exclusively artistic in nature.

If they have rhythmic gymnastics, they should have professional dance. Seriously.

Re:Huh

[lilomar]

I think the point is that anything that needs judges is not a sport, due to it being subjectively instead of objectively scored.

Re:Huh

[AvitarX]

Do you mean ballroom dancing?

Because that is included.

Or is professional dancing something like stripping?

Re:Huh

[jfclavette]

What about referees ? They can have a lot of influence. As much as judge can since they have well-established guidelines too.

Re:Huh

[blane.bramble]

Are we including boxing in this?

Re:Huh

[Monokeros]

Actually, What we need are a lot more good programmers. The sex of these good programmers is irrelevant.

Re:Huh

[Methuseus]

I find that those girls are too contorted and their body shapes too scary for my tastes. Any girl whose shoulders are twice as wide as her hips looks freakish to me. Even guys that are that abnormal look weird to me.

Re:Huh

[LordGlenn]

Pretty sure Taco was being Sarcastic.

Re:Huh

[icegreentea]

That's the most BS definition of a sport ever. You take the group of commonly held to be sports activities. Basketball, football (both of them), baseball. With the exception of basketball, the majority of points scored in the three other sports could easily be called objective. The remainder is ridiculously subjective. A baseball umpire calling the safe or out at home is a really subjective thing. You might not have the best angle, there's dust in the air, and crap is moving fast. Until the rise of instant replay, and slow motion, it was completely impossible for borderline cases to be 'objective'.

Re:Huh

[lilomar]

Theoretically, Referees shouldn't have any influence. They do, because people aren't perfect.

But the difference between judges and referees is that judges determine things subjectively, referees objectively.

In a sport, you can say, "If I do X I will get Y number of points." In a judged competition, you can't do that.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with judged competitions, I'm just saying that they aren't sports.

Re:Huh

[lilomar]

But in theory the scoring is objective. People make mistakes, but in a perfect game there would be no subjectivity about who had how many points.

Re:Huh

[blane.bramble]

In which case you are arguing that a boxing match that is won by a knock-out is a sport, but if it's a points decision it's not.

Re:Huh

[lilomar]

Interesting. Boxing falls into both categories depending on the outcome.

So we've learned that not everything fits into a nice, neat category. :-p

Re:Huh

[caluml]

The main reason women are lacking in the tech industry is because of perception that women do not belong there.

Not really. Most women don't like techie stuff, just as most men don't like flower arranging. As with everything though, there are overlaps. Some women can lift heavier things than some men. Most men can lift heavier things than most women. That's due to their bodies being different. If their bones and muscles can be different, so can the brain.

Please, please take notice of the "most"s there.

Re:Huh

[lilomar]

Since a moderator decides on objective criteria, slashdot posting is therefore a sport.

Your premise is false.

Re:Huh

[elefantstn]

There is a big difference between "subjective" and "objective but imperfect."

Re:Huh

[Quicksilver_Johny]

The main reason women are lacking in the tech industry is because of perception that women do not belong there.

Not really. Most women don't like techie stuff, just as most men don't like flower arranging.

One could argue that this is due to societal perceptions of what a particular sex "should like", causing people, either subconsciously or consciously, to avoid fields that are commonly perceived to be for the opposite sex.

Re:Huh

[SatanicPuppy]

Yea, ya think? The way I read it was as more of a "I know all you guys watch this stuff and care, but I'm going to pretend like I believe that the only reason you watch it is because your girl makes you."

Shit. Geeks are as gooey as anyone else. I went over to a buddies house last weekend, drank a few beers hacked on some linux, talked about xen virtualization and shit like that. Then we went up to let the dogs out, and got sucked in to the last 12 minutes of Castaway and the first fucking two hours of goddamn Titanic.

The whole "we're just watching it because of the VR-controlled submersibles and the picture of the hot chick" argument wears a little thin after a while since that stuff happens bed for christs sake. But if you'd asked us we'd have blamed it on her anyway; it's not only women who have defined gender roles in this society.

The hyper political correctness gets old after a while. The worst thing he suggested in the damn title is that women might like to watch the ribbon twirling, which, judging by the fact that my wife likes to watch it, I don't think is that far fetched or degrading.

Re:Huh

[superdana]

So we've learned that not everything fits into a nice, neat category.

Including men and women, some of whom enjoy gymnastics regardless of CmdrTaco's outdated ideas about gender.

Re:Huh

[Talonius]

16 is still jailbait. :P

Re:Huh

[lilomar]

a particular vault for example has a maximum starting value based upon the "degree of difficulty".

Your argument breaks down here.

Re:Huh

[gnick]

Since a moderator decides on objective criteria, slashdot posting is therefore a sport.

Not entirely. If the mods were strictly deciding "Was this Informative?", I might agree. Some posts are clearly informative while others are clearly not.

But "Was this Funny?" is subjective. The same for Troll, Flamebait, Insightful, Interesting, and Over/Underrated. Now in my opinion, your post was Funny and Interesting, but not Insightful. Again in my opinion, this post may be Interesting or Insightful based on the mods opinions, but is certainly not Informative, Troll, or Flamebait. But, since I'm not modding this thread, that subjective judgment is left to others.

Re:Huh

[dAzED1]

clearly then you do not know how these things are judged. Particular moves get a certain number of points (see: technical judges. did you RTFA? obviously not). Those judges are there to recognize and tabulate those moves. Sorry however that you are offended by the idea that some sport competitions have an artistic component. Be that as it may, I've just spend a bit of time looking through dictionaries at the word "sport" and I don't see any that suggest some sort of mutual exclusiveness between "sport" and "art." Yes, it is no secret that figure skating, gymnastics, and many other sports in the Olympics have an artistic component. But they are still athletic feats involving exceptional strength and endurance. Further, in order to actually achieve the art, one has to have perfected the physical aspect.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

in the fall of 2000, approximately 40% of the entering class were women.

Most of the entering class were men.

And most of these initiatives involve special scholarships & programs for women. It's rarely surprising that you can attract more women into programs that favor them over their male counterparts. It's maybe more surprising that men still outnumber women once those intiatives are in place.

Re:Huh

[spazdor]

The legitimacy of rhythmic gymnastics as a "sport" is certainly up for debate. The objection raised, though, was to the "ha ha chicks don't like real sports" bit of childish misogyny in the OP.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I remember seeing the press release where CMU announced that they were reducing their emphasis on "technical competence" in order to attract more women into computer science. It made the New York Times.

Re:Huh

[street struttin']

Why don't I see big long strings of 3-pointers in basketball, then?

Re:Huh

[smoker2]

Insightful ?
Fucking coward more like !
I quite often look at the cash in the till when in the supermarket - does that make me an armed robber ?
There are countries in the world where 12 or 14 is the normal age for marriage and sex - does that make the whole country paedophiles ?

Re:Huh

[Senjutsu]

He makes the claim that the scoring is not subjective, then goes on to explain the scoring process. So far so good. When he makes the statement that the starting value is rated on "degree of difficulty" he is describing a subjective judgment. Therefore, his argument has broken down at that point in the post.

The degree of difficulty is not a subjective judgement made at scoring time; it is specified on a list of valid moves that the judges score from.

So a foobar tuck might be defined as having a degree of difficulty of 5, whereas a bazbang flip might be a DoD of 3.

Assumptions, try making fewer of them.

Re:Huh

[poopdeville]

Never mind that "sports" like boxing are judged.

Re:Huh

[poopdeville]

A "subjective" judgement that has BEEN CODIFIED. EVERYBODY who does a triple whammy spin flip starts off with 10 or 17 or whatever points, depending on the technique they're attempting. Points are deducted depending on the actual performance.

This is no different than saying that basketball's three point shots are harder than two point shots, and so should be worth more.

Re:Huh

[Anpheus]

In strawmanistan, the most free and enlightened society of all, 15 is the age of consent.

Re:Huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazingly, athletics is something where it is possible to get quite good at it without spending large amounts of money on it.

Boxing anyone?

[night_flyer]

how about martial arts... last time I checked they are scored by judges...

Re:Boxing anyone?

[rob1980]

But aren't those scores based on hard values? Punches thrown vs. landed, that sort of thing. It's not like they're judging the artistic quality of the fight or something.

What's with the jackass summary?

[Theaetetus]

Why the need to throw in the condescending misogynist comment, Taco? What does it have to do with math or sports? Can we moderate you offtopic flamebait?

Re:What's with the jackass summary?

[kiwimate]

Agreed 100%. If you as an IT geek ever feel you're the recipient of condescension or are mistreated as a lowly tech worker, well, it's because of idiotic garbage like that which makes people wonder why someone who's so intelligent can be so stupid. Seriously, that's the kind of stuff you expect from the same fools who wolf whistle and holler at girls walking by because they're wearing a low cut dress. Grow up.

Re:What's with the jackass summary?

[CopaceticOpus]

News for mysogynists. Stuff that matters if you're not some dumb chick.

Just call it part of the game

[kahei]

Sure, the 2004 Olympics (and the next Winter Olympics perhaps even more so) contained judging that didn't necessarily reward the 'best' contestant. But that's part of the sport; it's not about being the 'best', which is pretty well impossible to define except in straightforward running/throwing events. It's about getting the highest score.

Nobody really thinks Tour de France cyclists don't store blood and take drugs; part of the game is the tradeoff between higher performance and higher chance of getting disqualified. Look at the way football is played in south america; taking a fall is just seen as part of the game, a judgement call like any other with particular risks and rewards. Argentina beat England in 1986 by pushing the ball in the net by hand; that may mean they won by taking a particular risk, but it doesn't mean they didn't win. They won the game of 'being allowed the most goals, by whatever means', which is the game they were actually playing.

I don't think the answer is to change the scoring. The answer is to take a more holistic approach, and say: "Ok, he was maybe the second best at *gymnastics*. But he was the best at *getting points for gymnastics*!"

Re:Just call it part of the game

[hkz]

I'd agree with this, if it wasn't so contrary to sportsmanship and the art of being a good loser. You make olympic sports sound like a kind of calculated business game, which, though probably true in the imperfect world we live in, is a damn shame.

Re:Just call it part of the game

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one of the stupider comments I've read on slashdot, ever. The fact that it got moderated up depresses me to no end.

The whole point of playing a game is that you abide by the rules defined for the game. It's sort of the definition of a game. If you allow cheating it destroys the point. You can't win a game without rules.

Your example of the football game where he knocked the ball in with his hand is mildly interesting, in the sense that it disproves your argument. We can clearly and objectively say that such an activity was wrong, against the rules and therefor did not deserve to win. What we can't do is implement a system where humans watching other humans play a game can perfectly and accurately determine every rule infraction.

Lame.

[Just Some Guy]

Now I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport" that has judges determine the winner, but their wives/girlfriends might seize control of the remote because they want to know who is the best at that ribbon twirling thing.

First, if you can't appreciate the beauty and artistry in judged events, then you're missing something wonderful. From the guys doing iron crosses on the rings (which makes my shoulders hurt sympathetically) to the girls seeming to ignore gravity, there's something there to move any soul.

Second, my wife was a college swimmer and completed Army Airborne training. She's about as into ribbon twirling things as I presume girls are into you.

Re:Lame.

[DerekSTheRed]

Come on it's funny cause it's true. More women watch the Olympics then men. My wife and her friends are already planning to watch the opening ceremonies on our HD tv. I never understood why people watch the opening ceremonies (or parades for that matter). How can a bunch of people walking be interesting. I'm sure I'll be making snarky comments during the event similar to the LOTR rant on Clerks 2.

Not watching

[rlp]

That's OK, I'm not watching the 2008 (aka '1936') Olympics.

Numeric inflation

[Moryath]

isn't restricted just to the Olympics - though it's sad to see it happening.

Look at all (american) professional sports. Every time they're in a slump, some "rule change" comes along to bump scores. Basketball got laxer and laxer on obvious rules violations (watch any of the running leaps a "slam dunk" guy takes). Football implemented letting q-backs throw the ball into the stands. Baseball juiced up the ball itself, but thankfully drew the line on allowing metal bats.

And it's not even restricted to physical sports. Look at a pinball table today - you could easily chop off the last 3 digits of the score, because they never read anything meaningful anyways. Look at the numbers for damage ratings in "rpgs" like the Final Fantasy series - you used to start with characters doing 5-6 points of damage a hit, now you do 500-1000 and go from there.

Re:Numeric inflation

[ShieldW0lf]

The same reason almost every other human endeavor gets better over time?

False premise.

I'm not in the slightest bit offended but..

[sleeponthemic]

Surely there are plenty of geeks out there that recognise that the pursuit of excellence (no matter if it is in a GAME) is far more commendable than the average person's pursuit of an encyclopedic knowledge of televisional (i likes to makes the new words) general knowledge. If you hate sport, at least admire the anti-apathy.

Kind of like going to the airport. It's uplifting. Just about everybody has a purpose, a direction, an empty wallet after that $8 coffee.

Re:I really dont care for olympics

[Gotung]

So you don't think its cool to watch somebody that can not only do a back flip, but throw in a full twist in the middle of said back flip?

Now add in that they did this not on the ground, but on a balance beam only inches wide and they nailed the landing with narry a wobble?

Regardless of the politics surround this year's Olympics, you seriously can't see why anybody would enjoy watching a human being pull off amazing shit like that?

Re:I really dont care for olympics

[Five Bucks!]

When you look at the Olympics from the shallow perspective of how many Gold, Silver or Bronze medals a country wins, then yes, the Olympics are simple and disinteresting.

It becomes exciting when you see athletes from so many countries competing on a level playing field (socioeconomically). It's only in such instances where humanity gets to see that we're all pretty much the same.

How else could you gather thousands of people together from potentially all the countries in the world without sport and competition?

Hating the Olympics is about as nihilistic and pessimistic as one can get.

Re:Hot chicks at the olympics

[BitterOldGUy]

I was gonna say the same thing. Then I remembered all gymnasts look 12 years old.

Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, amiright? ...

Rhythmic Gymnastics - nothing but dance and "judged" by the most subjective methods you'll ever see. Part of the score is how the girls look. That's right, look; not entirely how well they performed. Many of these girls develop eating disorders when they hit puberty so that their looks and subsequently "careers" aren't destroyed.

They make the child beauty pageants look tame.

Re:Yeah right

[Lord_Frederick]

What if the single male wanking off is also pre-teenage or early teens?

Hmm, how about an Olympics where...

[OneSmartFellow]

the athletes admit to doping, and another where they don't.

More fair, less accessible.

[bziman]

As a former gymnast, I can say that the new system is definitely more fair -- if you have two perfect routines, the one with the higher difficulty wins. Also, it means that you don't have to keep changing the system -- as routines include more difficult elements, the start value becomes higher. And you can keep a standard set of deductions for things like bending your knees, or not maintaining a toe point, or falling on your ass.

On the other hand, as a fan of the sport, the new system is more confusing, because when it was out of ten, everyone knows that a 9.9 is really good, but now, is a 16.5 really good? Or a 17.3? As it turns out, a 16.5 might win gold on one event, but not even medal on another. But I think anyone who actually follows the sport will be able to keep up, for the casual once-every-four-years viewer, they can just concentrate on the shiny medal thingie hanging around the necks of the folks on the podium at the end.

Real purpose of Olympics

[BitterOldGUy]

No, no, no. Today's Olympics exist for the purposes of:

1. Allowing an athlete (only the Gold medal winner) to create a very lucrative endorsement career.
2. Very large corporations to advertise with the illusion of supporting something altruistic and for the peace of all mankind
3. Countries to show how progressive they are and show they're now part of the modern World - China
4. Advertisements for the newest sports enhancing drugs, well not public anyway. Other athletes will see that so and so didn't get caught using a certain brand of steroid and then profit for company.
5. Certain (hot) female athletes who may or may not do well will get some lucrative modeling and TV deals out of it.
6. Citizens of countries whose athletes win Gold Medals can sit on their asses in front of the TV, drinking beer, eating taco chips and pizza and getting fatter and feel superior to other countries because "they" won the Gold!
7. IOC managers get rich while they award cities the right to host olympics
8. IOC get even richer selling the Rings to the highest bidder.

Help me continue here....This is getting fun!

You're describing Slashdot...

[atrocious cowpat]

"I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport" that has judges determine the winner..."

Er... what else is the Slashdot comment-moderation system but an event that "has judges determine the winner"? And (with the scare quotes) a Slashdot flame-fest surely qualifies as "sport", no?

Save it for Digg

[stewbacca]

Now I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport" that has judges determine the winner,

What's up with the quality of summaries these days? Do we really need the editorial comment? Are you SURE that NO slashdot reader would watch, oh, I dunno, diving and/or gymnastics (two of the bigger Olympic events)? I for one don't appreciate being summed up into one big ball referred to as "Slashdot reader"--especially by editors. I can handle the occasional name-flame by Anonymous Coward.

Best Sports Quote

[stewbacca]

"There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games." (dubiously attributed to Earnest Hemingway)

Re:100m?

[Reality Master 101]

Personally, I have always felt that the most stupid event at the Olympics is the 100m sprint. Paradoxically this seems to be the viewers favourite, despite the fact that it is the event most determined by luck and, frankly, rule bending.

Huh? How is luck involved in running against an absolute clock? And how do you bend the rules of "fastest to the finish line wins"? Unless you're talking about drugs, and that's a problem of every performance sport.

The reason the 100m sprint is popular is because the runners hit the highest speeds, and thus earn the title "the fastest man on Earth."

Re:100m?

[CastrTroy]

Except when a Canadian wins, and then some America claims to be the worlds fastest man, because he broke a record for the 200m. After which they decide to have a showdown, at a race of 150m, which the Canadian won. Apparently Johnson, the America, pulled his quadriceps muscle, which caused him to drop out halfway through the race. There's controversy as to whether or not he actually had injured himself, or decided to throw the race after he realized he was going to lose.

Re:100m?

[Reality Master 101]

Except when a Canadian wins, and then some America claims to be the worlds fastest man, because he broke a record for the 200m.

Who cares what people claim? The question is who hits the highest speed, and the 100m sprinter (usually) does. You'll note that Michael Johnson didn't bother to try and challenge in the 100m.

Re:It's easy...

[The Gaytriot]

Shooting, archery, boxing, martial arts, weight lifting/power lifting, to name a few.

Re:100m?

[spazdor]

And how do you bend the rules of "fastest to the finish line wins"?

By starting first. Duh.