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.
And people wonder why there is a perception of sexism in technical fields.
I just wait for someone to tell me there are hot chicks in skin tight clothes doing something. Otherwise, I could care less.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Where is America's perfect 12?
I intentionally watched just such a sport in my teen years. This was mostly because I had a crush on Shannon Miller, but still.
Not a typewriter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wife
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girlfriend
Cruise TT
No single male would ever switch the gymnastics on and watch a bunch of young ladies do physical exercise in leotards.
In other news, the last porn site finally died, citing a "lack of market" for its product.
how about martial arts... last time I checked they are scored by judges...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
>Wives/girlfriends?
This is ./ YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
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?
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*!"
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
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.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yes, and I didn't like the implication that any /. geek would not be able to override a TV remote.
Are you saying that our gymnasts now go to eleven?
You would think they could have just increased the floating point size to 10.00 instead!
But it goes to 11.
I get to use my slide rule again!
Task Mangler
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.
The IOC made this call a few years back actually. I believe most international competitions leading up the Olympics have been using this new scoring system.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
I record my sleeptalking
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?
Scoring only enters my mind when I watch the women's beach volleyball.
Obligatory jokes below.
PM
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.
52 52'23" W 47 32'07" N
It's already in the Olympics.
Go USA!
Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
"Now I'm sure that no Slashdot reader will intentionally watch any "sport" that has judges determine the winner"
I dunno. There's talk of finally approving the thong for women's figure skating...
I have nothing compelling to say
the athletes admit to doping, and another where they don't.
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.
That's known as multiplication in the math world...
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
Help me continue here....This is getting fun!
"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?
sig? Oh, that sig...
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.
"There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games." (dubiously attributed to Earnest Hemingway)
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. I find it odd that there should be such expectation and buildup around an event that is over after less than 10 seconds. Though I suspect many women may have some insights on this.
The 400m sprints, and especially the relays, are nearly always a more interesting events. But Gymnastics of all kinds, in particular so called "artisic gymnastics", is most entertaining of all. If you think it's somehow inferior to the track and field events, then I challenge you to perform even one of the maneuvers seen there without spraining/breaking something.
All that said, I won't personally be watching much of the Olympics, except those clips that are splayed all over the news cycle. I've no wish to see the end result of years of a deprived and spartan childhood reduced to a walking canvas for corporate logos while they compete athletically around in front of obese onlookers in the middle of the worlds largest totalitarian state. Whew! Did I cover everything?
May the Maths Be with you!
I can help clarify some misunderstandings with regards to the impartiality of the gymnastics scoring system (Note: I am a former USAG Judge as well as a former competitive gymnast at the collegiate level).
1) Gymnastics routines are made up of a series of interconnected skills
2) Each skill in the routine has a "perfect" execution form; that is, straight legs, pointed toes, straight arms, clean shoulder-to-knee lines, or whatever the skill calls for.
3) If a gymnast performs a skill, and the execution of the skill does not meet the "perfect" execution form, points are deducted for each imperfection within the skill
3a) Gymnastics judges are, for the most part, former competitive gymnasts with an intimate understanding of the execution of the skills which they are judging, and undergo extensive training for identifying imperfections in the execution of said skills.
4) Depending on the severity of the imperfection, points are deducted (minor bends in the limbs account for small deductions, while falls or failure to execute skills correctly or in sequence account for large deductions).
5) Add up all the deductions for each skill in a routine, and you've got your execution deductions.
Now, the new scoring system is based on a response to the ridiculous difficulty of modern gymnastics. Each skill in any given event is given a difficulty rating depending on how difficult it is to execute the skill flawlessly. In mens gymnastics, for example, difficulty ratings go from an A-level (skills like a basic back flip) to F-level (skills like a triple twisting double back flip). It makes sense that gymnasts who perform more difficult skills should be rewarded with higher scores, so that's where the new system comes into play.
In the old days, no matter how difficult your routine was, everyone started off with a "10" and was deducted for execution of skills. So, a gymnast who performed a triple back flip (an F-level skill) in his routine would be on the same level as a gymnast who only did a double front flip (a D-level skill); judges would solely deduct based on execution rather than take into account the difficulty of the skill. So now, instead of you starting with a perfect score, have to BUILD towards the perfect score by creating a routine with high level skills (that is, graded D, E, and F).
Now, back to judges. Judges can now take into account skill difficulty as well as skill execution when judging a routine. Keep in mind that judges aren't judging a routine based on their personal opinion. They judge based on universally accepted "perfect" forms and the skills are directed in the FIG code of points (created by gymnasts for gymnasts, by congress). As a former judge, I can tell you that our judging performance is also graded by how well we can spot imperfections in execution; judges don't get to the Olympic level unless they are eagle-eyed and impartial.
I hope this helps everyone as they continue their discussions on the matter.
Shooting, archery, boxing, martial arts, weight lifting/power lifting, to name a few.
Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
Personally I think the Summer Olympics are lame. Easily cut out half the "sports"...
However as to judges, I would dissagree and say that most if not all sports have judges. They might just be called referees. They judge that the rules are followed and have impact on the outcome.
OK and just to get people going here is my list on non sports:
#1) Syncro Swimming. - wtf is that all about?
#2) Ribbon dancing. - I don't even care that it isn't called that
#3) Rowing, Sailing, etc... - how about canoing, or hand gliding, etc...
#4) Running is a sport, but do we really need a 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 etc... How about 3. A short one. A medium one. A long one. Done.
#5) Ballroom dancing. - need I explain?
#6) Women's Beach Volley - is a sport. and hot.
#7) Hurtles? Isn't that just running with some jumping?
#8) Long Jump - Sure we will call that a sport. same goes with high jump.
#9) Pole Vault - not sure where the heck it came from but I would cut that one out.
#10) Missing sport I would like to see. Random large obstacle course with no preview. Now that would be hard to train for and fun to watch!
#11) Shot put and Javelin - Sure we will call 'em sports for now. Discus is pushin' it though.
#12) Sport Sports are sports. Basketball, Tennis, Baseball, Soccer, etc...
#13) Diving is ok I guess
#14) Water Polo Is a sport
#15) Badmington might be a sport, but it is a dumb one.
#16) Boxing is a sport, and I say throw in UFA as well!
#17) Cycling and Horse riding do not equal sports. Like the above they are just different modes of transportation. Lets have NASCAR and Blimp races next.
#18) I say Fencing is a sport
#19) Trampoline? - Come on!
#20) Hockey and Judo are sports (even if only field hockey)
#21) Where is Lacrosse?
#22) Shooting and Archery I say are Sports so there!
#23) Table Tennis. - See Badminton
#24) Trialtholon, has cycling, but I will let it go as it is a combo event!
#25) Weighlifting and Wrestling are sports.
#26) Golf is not a sport. But Rugby is.
#27) Squash and Cricket and croquet - lame.
#28) Skatebording is not a sport.
#29) Speed walking. - Have you watched that crap. lol.
#30) Gymnastics are a sport, but not the artsy fartsy ones.
#31) Handball? - See Squash.
#32) Mountain and BMX also not sports.
#33) Kayacking - See Rowing
Flame on!