Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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? ...
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...
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
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, amiright? ...
Dunno. Are you attracted to powerful shoulders, an over-developed torso, flat chest, and short (Russian style) muscular legs?
If you are, you might be interested in the stocking clerk that works at my local grocery store. His name is Billy.
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.
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.
Help me continue here....This is getting fun!
Your second comment is appropriate. I could care less. It doesn't mean that I do care more. If you were to assign a scoring system of 1 to 10 to my level of care, where 1 is absolute lack of care, and 10 is absolute care, the Olympics may rate a 3, at which point there is room in the scale to raise or lower my level of care. I could care less, but it wouldn't even matter, because it's lower than a neutral level of care (5), and has no direct impact on myself.
If there were to be a direct impact upon myself by the event, then that level of care would be more significant. Take the scenario "There's a truck coming down the road". If I were not in the road, I could care less, at a care level of 3, and it wouldn't matter. If I were standing in the road in front of the truck, at a care level of 3, and I did care less, that would definitely be a sign of deep depression, which would be resolved rather quickly, assuming the truck does it's job appropriately and runs me over. :)
It becomes a moot point, as the phrase "I could care less" entered colloquial English approximately 40 years, and it is already commonly understood to mean the same, either in the positive or negative syntax. It is found in print as far back as 1966. I'm only 35 years old, and I started speaking at 1 year old, so both versions of the phrase were already in common usage for 8 years.
http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldcare.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/g09.html
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
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."
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.