New Olympics Scoring: No More Perfect 10.0 722
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.
Re:China controlling even this? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Boxing anyone? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No Thanks. (Score:4, Informative)
Go USA!
Re:Boxing anyone? (Score:3, Informative)
From the above article:
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, DanceSport [wikipedia.org] (which I'd say is a subset of non-amateur competitive dancing) is an IOC recognized sport [wikipedia.org], but it is not in the current set of events for the Olympic Games.
Yes, they may add it in the future. I'd argue that they should, if they're keeping Rhythmic Gymnastics.
Re:Huh (Score:2, Informative)
That doesn't make this quote any less sexist:
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.
The main reason women are lacking in the tech industry is because of perception that women do not belong there. Way to perpetrate that.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
you do realize that they did change the rules a few years ago so only over 16 athletes are allowed?
right?
this was directly caused by both gymnastics (women's) and diving (women's) where 13 year old athletes were starting to be very common (chinese divers especially).
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
do you even understand scoring in gymnastics?
in other words, do you have a clue or are you just randomly spewing?
as in many other "subjectively scored" sports, the previous system had a very defined set of scoring rules. And I'm willing to bet this is merely a refinement of said system. (much like the "refinement" that goes on with the BCS rankings almost yearly)
a particular vault for example has a maximum starting value based upon the "degree of difficulty".
that is the maximum you can score regardless of how perfect you do it.
from there, there are certain WRITTEN deductions for defects in the performance.
legs open when the should be closed? minus 0.03
hand not on the vault in the same plane? minus 0.01
etc.
its not nearly as subjective as people want to make it out to be.
And i realize that I'm not the average /.er and actually understand many different sports, but damn, merely watching a gymnastics television broadcast would teach you this. (I learned mine taking a niece to gymnastics competitions and talking with the coach).
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
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.
In gymnastics, you know that given a certain routine you will get x points for technical difficulty, likewise if you make mistake y you use z points for execution.
That matches your definition of a sport fairly well.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
Er...
wrong.
Great Britain has a 14 year old, Tom Daley [yahoo.com] competing in the diving.
You must be thinking of some other competition.
Re:Huh (Score:3, Informative)
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.
I agree. The divers and swimmer women are where it's at. There are some hot Canuck divers this year!
No, I don't watch it for patriotism, or for the sports. Just the babes.
Speaking as a former collegiate gymnast (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Hot chicks at the olympics (Score:2, Informative)
Be that as it may, when parsed into actual meaning, only "couldn't care less" conveys the meaning intended. "Could care less" says absolutely nothing about your state of caring, except that you're not sitting at the 0 Kelvin of the Care-scale - besides that, you could be anywhere from zero to a million care units ("tenderHearts"). "Couldn't care less" says that you are sitting precisely at 0tH.
Now, I'll give a pass for phrases like "toe the line"/"tow the line", as their actual meaning is historical in nature and not immediately apparent. But "couldn't care less" is a boolean phrase: if (caring == CareScale.MINIMUM) - one that is easily understood purely from the meaning of its words. There is no reason to not give it a second of thought and say exactly what you mean when using the phrase.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Numeric inflation (Score:2, Informative)
Some people get very worked up over soccer: there's been players killed over penalties, riots over referees' decisions, hundreds of fans murdered, and at least one riot over a malfunctioning TV screen. Wars have started at football matches. A bit of gloating is perfectly believable.
Re:Huh (Score:5, Informative)
Since a moderator decides on objective criteria, slashdot posting is therefore a sport.
Your premise is false.
I objectively determine that I disagree with a poster before I mod them down.
</sarcasm>
Re:More fair, less accessible. (Score:3, Informative)
a 16.5 might win gold on one event, but not even medal on another.
Just like in every other competition then..