Scoring

Great Debates
1

Last night on the Olymbics Noreyayna Ukkapachjutka or some such was spinning her lithe, agile young body around the uneven bars.

After spinning six and a half times with a twist, she landed her dismount perfectly.

“9.785,” I say.

“9.772,” says Mrs. Scylla.

“What?” says I. “Did you not see her execute that triple Kaplooie release? Look at the extension. That is at least a 9.78, my dear, by definition. Only in a world gone mad is that a 9.772.”

“I thought she looked too Swingy…”

“Swingy? What the hell is that? You swing on the bars, you’re supposed to look “Swingy” Sheesh!”

and so on.

She scored a 9.775 which pleased the Mrs. but this is not the point. Who the hell are we fooling?

It seems completely ridiculous to reduce an olympic class performance to a number. It’s even more ridiculous to pretend that we can have that kind of accuracy.

The same goes for Mrs. America “Mrs. Wisconsin had too much Vaseline on her teeth, I give her a 9.4356 though.”

We should just grade everything this way now.

“Did you see the Mona Lisa? I give it a 9.576.”

“How’s your marriage? 9.2846”

“Who’s your favorite Poet? Well I gave “The Raven,” by Poe a 9.9945 for his use of meter, and imagery, but the gut-wrenching instinctive imagery of Blake’s “The Tyger,” edged Poe out with a 9.9976.”

WHy do we do this.

2

Is this related to Cecil’s article on How to Get to First Base? <rimshot>

3

Some hypotheses:

A) New improved big extra Glom sells better if you can convince someone it will increase their qwerty rating from 8.4 to 9.7 (and as we all know people with qwerty ratings below 9.0 are unattractive and will always be lonely).

B) I gave Bob’s new book an 8.73, whereas Lisa’s deserved no less than 9.8 = I am worthy to judge them, hence I am better. I win! I Win!!!

C) I will look less stupid at parties if I know that everyone considers “The Raven” a 9.9945, rather than betraying that I secretly consider it to be a 6.2, tops.

D) If we can’t rate everything, because everything is relative, then maybe your god is as good as mine. Uh oh.

4

Oh, come on, people, you know very well what Scylla is asking.

Scylla, the apparently-ridiculous fractions result from combining the score of several judges. If all the judges gave the exact same score to contestant A and contestant B, except one judge who gave one extra point to A than he gave to B, then A will have an ever-so-slightly higher score than B, and it is entirely proper for A to win because of that tiny bit.

5

No, that’s the way it SHOULD work. Everybody I know, myself included, now immediately scores things to three decimal places or more BECAUSE THAT’S HOW WE SEE SCORING DONE ON TV. The fact that this number may been arrived at justly doesn’t change our perception or accuracy when we imitate it.

Then again. I sincerely doubt that the judges impartial scoring abilities’ margin for error is smaller than these fractional difference that occur in averaging.

6

Then you and your friends are just joking around and don’t realize it.

I agree, but do you have a better way to score such subjective events?

7

Because in the Olympics we have to have some way to rank people. We can’t just say, “All right! You all did great! Everyone’s a winner!” Well, we could, but I imagine the more competitive sports fans wouldn’t be happy.

8

I don’t need to provide a better scoring method to point out that this one is kinda silly.

Other systems include:

Acclamation.
Debate of experts.
applause meter.
Consensus.

9

I give this thread pi.

10

To Scylla’s credit, I saw that objective events’ scores are, somehow, more true. To say that a guy did something in less time, or threw a big, heavy thing farther than everyone else did, is quantifiable.

To try to quantify qualitative data is, as Scylla points out, silly. So, are there any alternatives? I think that Scylla list is also silly (applause-o-tron? :rolleyes: ). The only true way to measure qualitative data is to do it qualitatively.

For example, ask the judges to rank each performance, in relation to each other. So, if the US, Brazil and China all competed, and three judges judged them, scores might look like:

[list=A]
[li]Judge A[/li][list=1]
[li]US[/li][li]Brazil[/li][li]China[/li][/list=1]
[li]Judge B[/li][list=1]
[li]China[/li][li]Brazil[/li][li]US[/li][/list=1]
[li]Judge C[/li][list=1]
[li]China[/li][li]US[/li][li]Brazil[/li][/list=1]
[/list=a]

…giving the Gold to China, Silver to the US and Bronze to Brazil.

(Whew! That’s the toughest VBCode I’ve ever done. I have to go give my fingers a rest!)

11

We need to make gymnastics objective. Let’s come up with things so difficult no gymnast could ever do them perfectly, and make them mandatory. The closer one comes to doing it, the higher their score, according to objective criteria. And if we get a few injuries, well, it’ll make the events more interesting.
I have a similar idea for having the floor exercises done on a platform with trapdoors that open and close randomly onto pits lined with punji sticks. We’d lose a few gymnasts, but the increased audience interest would inject enough money into the sport that more than enough kids would go into it to make up for the losses.

Basically, though I like watching the gymnasts, anything where the expression on your face can affect the choice of winner isn’t a sport in my book. Same with the jugglers and the synchronized swimmers. I heard they were even going to make ballroom dancing a “sport” one of these years, and why stop with ballroom? Can’t we picture Zeus smiling down from Olympus on the honor done him by the IOC offering a gold medal in the cha-cha? The U.S. could surely take at LEAST a bronze in the macarena.

At what point will the Olympics include chess?

12

Tzel wrote:

A couple years ago, The Onion (a joke newspaper, viewable online at http://www.theonion.com ) ran an article about how the Special Olympics were rigged because they declared “everybody’s a winner.”

13

This thread rates an e.

14

I suspect some gymnasts would prefer this to listening/prancing to Music Box Dancer again.

15

“I like Byron, but I give it a 42 'cause I can’t dance to it.” --Dead Poets Society.

(I had to throw it in here :))

LL