Scoring Vs Judging

Mon Jun 9 19:12:10 AKDT 2003

Consistant judging is a perpetual problem. I seem to be doing more scoring than competing now days. Judging consistancy is down. After we have a mandatory series of Judging Seminars it always gets better. The scoring software I use lets me choose an "alert level" when the two judges deviate. I keep it set at 2 points and I verify the data was properly keyed in each alert. Some deviations are to be expected, especially those involving box violations. There is a general feeling that the upper class flyers are better judges, but they are no more consistant than those in lower classes. 

Many (most?) of our best judges are not especially known for their flying skills. In fact, quite a few don't fly at all!

John Ferrell 
6241 Phillippi Rd
Julian NC 27283
Phone: (336)685-9606  
johnferrell at earthlink.net
Dixie Competition Products
NSRCA 479 AMA 4190  W8CCW
"My Competition is Not My Enemy"

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: jed241 at msn.com 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:45 PM
  Subject: Re: Scoring Vs Judging

  I agree...

  If we have consistent judging, then the low average round becomes a product of the environment for the round. More difficult environment should produce a lower scoring round and the weight of the raw point should then be rewarded for doing better than the other pilots.

  I'm not worried about winning right now. I feel like I've had a real good flight when I survive to fly the next round...

  Larry
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: WHIP23 at aol.com 
    To: discussion at nsrca.org 
    Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:15 PM
    Subject: Re: Scoring Vs Judging

    In a message dated 6/9/03 5:05:27 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jed241 at msn.com writes:

      You need to blame this e-mail thread on two things. One is the post that said it was quite; and two, you will soon see I have too much time on my hands...<VBG>

      Before reading any further, I'm only trying to drum up trouble <VBG> I could be way off base here....I really don't know...

      Due to my competitive nature (certainly not my flying ability) I have given thought to the relationship of judging, scoring, and the potential outcome of a certain phenomena called a low average round (aka...a typically low scoring set of judges by nature)...

      I could be wrong on this so please correct me if I'm wrong...Here we go...I'm putting on my flame suit as I type...

      Theory:
      Since the scoring procedure is to normalize each round, a set of judges that scores low by nature will have more influence on the outcome than a set of judges that scores higher by nature.

      Data:
      I pulled a spreadsheet together and came up with the following numbers (rounded to the nearest .01):

      Sportsman - Total KFactor points per round is 19. This translates a perfect round that each raw score is worth 5.26 normalized points per raw point (19*10*5.26). A round with an average of 7.5 KFactor points has a normalized value of 7.0 normalized points per raw point.

      If this is true (not claiming it is, cause I don't know) and two pilots are close (separated only by 1 raw point per round). It's possible that the pilot winning the lower averaged round could win even though they share the same exact raw score. This wouldn't be the case if they scoring system normalized the combined raw scores for all rounds to determine the winner. This may be the case but I'm just trying to start trouble...<VBG>

      Average for rounds one and two per KFactor point is 8; Rounds three and four is 7. Who should win?

      Raw Scores:
      Pilot One (R1-152; R2-152; R3-132; R4-132) = total of 568
      Pilot Two (R1-151; R2-151; R3-133; R4-133) = total of 568

      Should this be a tie?

      Nope, cause when you normalize by the round and add individual rounds together you get the following results. (assuming the formula is -->1000 / Highest raw score for the round X pilots raw score for the round)

      Normalized:
      Pilot One (R1-1000; R2-1000; R3-992.5; R4-992.5) = total of 3985
      Pilot Two (R1-993.5; R2-993.5; R3-1000; R4-1000) = total of 3987

      Pilot two wins due to the influence of the lower average scoring rounds.

      I don't know how the scoring system works to compute the winner, but would be interested to know if it is by the sum of the normalized rounds or by normalized total of the raw scores per round.

      If you really want to complicate things, just start thinking about the shift of the outcome on Masters Maneuvers with high KFactors when the difference between two pilots is only separated by 1/2 point on a given maneuver.

      Conclusion:
      Consistency of scoring from judge to judge is just as important as judging each pilot in a round. Unless again the total raw score is normalized to define the winner.

      Now as my favorite comedian always says, "This is only my opinion, I could be wrong". I also admit that I may not know what I'm talking about cause I don't understand the math behind it. Not meant to be sarcastic, cause it could be true.

      If you actually got to this point, you are truly as demented as I am...LOL

      Larry

    I'll chime in here a little.  I'm sure we can find problems with the scoring and judging in any given situation, but remember our flying is not perfect and the judging and scoring will never be perfect.  I think if you work it through you will find that normalization solves more problems than it introduces.  That said, we need to continue the current trend towards better, more consistent judging, it's come a long way.  And, I'll add that if you are winning or being beat by a point or two then you don't really know won anyway, all you know is you had a good fight (I mean a good time :-)  )  Solution, beat the "sucker" by a 100 points :-)

    Bob 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030609/9a52a61f/attachment.html