Scoring Vs Judging

[RC Steve Sterling]

Compare it with other sports that require refs or judges that have to make
complex, on the spot judges. Basketball comes to mind right now, but soccer,
hockey, all those don't have as good as system as we do. And who wants to
get ranting about the Olympics, horse or dog shows. Makes our system look
perfect.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On
Behalf Of jed241 at msn.com
  Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 6:45 PM
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  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/20030609/047386fd/attachment.html