A suggestion for a scoring system

i've always wanted to see a points system based on time swum and points from tables produced by
either FINA or LEN.

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is a repost of a suggestion for a scoring system that would make a

race

Quoted message said:

between Terry and Larry make sense. It could be used in general to make

the

Quoted message said:

sport more competitive and exciting for a lot more swimmers.

Create a scoring system based on the difference between the swimmer's

entry time

Quoted message said:

and his actual time. For example, if I submit a time of 20:00 for a 1500,

then I

Quoted message said:

score higher if I hit 20:15 than if I hit 20:30. The formula might be:

score = 1 / (ET - AT)

...where ET is entry time and AT is actual time.

Using the absolute value, if I hit 20:15, my score is .067. 20:30 gives me

.033.

Quoted message said:

If I hit 20:00.5, I score 2.0.

That would be one way of competing under this system, but it doesn't

reward

Quoted message said:

improvements in speed. It only rewards accuracy. Open competitions could

be run

Quoted message said:

this way, and we could then see races between elite swimers and bozos like

me.

Quoted message said:

But we could also include a multiplier that increases with speed. For

example,

Quoted message said:

we could use the speed.

score = (1 / (ET - AT)) * S

...where the speed S = d/AT, d being distance.

Then my 20:15 gives me .067 * (1500 / 1215) = .083, 20:30 gives me .04,

and my

Quoted message said:

20:00.5 gives me 2.5.

A swimmer in the same race who enters with 15:00 and hits 15:30 scores

.05.

Quoted message said:

These are just the first numbers I picked. We could use 2S as the

multiplier to

Quoted message said:

give more incentive for using more speed, but no matter what numbers we

picked,

Quoted message said:

it would always be possible, if unlikely, for a bozo to win the gold

medal.

Quoted message said:

The formulas could be different for different swim meets. For example, the multiplier for the
Olympics might be 3S or 5S. We could even keep the

formulas

Quoted message said:

to be used a secret until the day of the meet, or we could draw the

numbers out

Quoted message said:

of a hat for each event. Once the swimmers know the actual numbers, they

can

Quoted message said:

decide their individual strategy for each of their events.

You can imagine lots of variations on this scoring system.

martin

M.W. Smith said:

This is a repost of a suggestion for a scoring system that would make a race between Terry and
Larry make sense. It could be used in general to make the sport more competitive and exciting for
a lot more swimmers.

Create a scoring system based on the difference between the swimmer's entry time and his actual
time. For example, if I submit a time of 20:00 for a 1500, then I score higher if I hit 20:15 than
if I hit 20:30. The formula might be:

score = 1 / (ET - AT)

...where ET is entry time and AT is actual time.

<snip/>

Quoted message said:

martin

I run an unsanctioned in house meet once a month (so there's at least something my unsanctioned
swimmers can race in). We keep and post results and, twice a year, post (and award) a league winner
each training group. I grab the hy-tek results and do a little cleaning. These then get stored in a
DB so my swimmers can check on progressions. Puzzling out a good way to normalize workouts for a
similar purpose. At any rate to determine the league leaders I currently use something like:

SELECT DISTINCT name,ROUND(SUM(improvement/SQRT(SQRT(distance/25))),2) AS score,COUNT(*) AS swims
FROM results WHERE improvement < 5 GROUP BY name ORDER BY score;

Where improvement is a value from hy-tek's team manager (sub zero == PBT). It seems to do a fairly
good job of identifying kids who've swum more events (attendance = good) without over emphasizing
little 6 year old Johnny's 3 minute drop in his 2nd ever 200fr too much.

--Mike

diablo said:

i've always wanted to see a points system based on time swum and points from tables produced by
either FINA or LEN.

It sounds like you want a different scale that preserves order of finish. That won't change anything
except who gets the most points. If you want to shift swimming away from drugs, then you must change
the order of finish so that the incentive for using drugs is eliminated or at least reduced
significantly.

martin

Quoted message said:

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is a repost of a suggestion for a scoring system that would make a

race

Quoted message said:

between Terry and Larry make sense. It could be used in general to make

the

Quoted message said:

sport more competitive and exciting for a lot more swimmers.

Create a scoring system based on the difference between the swimmer's

entry time

Quoted message said:

and his actual time. For example, if I submit a time of 20:00 for a 1500,

then I

Quoted message said:

score higher if I hit 20:15 than if I hit 20:30. The formula might be:

score = 1 / (ET - AT)

...where ET is entry time and AT is actual time.

Using the absolute value, if I hit 20:15, my score is .067. 20:30 gives me

.033.

Quoted message said:

If I hit 20:00.5, I score 2.0.

That would be one way of competing under this system, but it doesn't

reward

Quoted message said:

improvements in speed. It only rewards accuracy. Open competitions could

be run

Quoted message said:

this way, and we could then see races between elite swimers and bozos like

me.

Quoted message said:

But we could also include a multiplier that increases with speed. For

example,

Quoted message said:

we could use the speed.

score = (1 / (ET - AT)) * S

...where the speed S = d/AT, d being distance.

Then my 20:15 gives me .067 * (1500 / 1215) = .083, 20:30 gives me .04,

and my

Quoted message said:

20:00.5 gives me 2.5.

A swimmer in the same race who enters with 15:00 and hits 15:30 scores

.05.

Quoted message said:

These are just the first numbers I picked. We could use 2S as the

multiplier to

Quoted message said:

give more incentive for using more speed, but no matter what numbers we

picked,

Quoted message said:

it would always be possible, if unlikely, for a bozo to win the gold

medal.

Quoted message said:

The formulas could be different for different swim meets. For example, the multiplier for the
Olympics might be 3S or 5S. We could even keep the

formulas

Quoted message said:

to be used a secret until the day of the meet, or we could draw the

numbers out

Quoted message said:

of a hat for each event. Once the swimmers know the actual numbers, they

can

Quoted message said:

decide their individual strategy for each of their events.

You can imagine lots of variations on this scoring system.

martin

I'm not interested in doing that at all. Again, it was a general statement. Your own system
suggested doesn't solve anything either. One can easily submit a slower seed time.

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

diablo said:

i've always wanted to see a points system based on time swum and points

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tables produced by either FINA or LEN.

It sounds like you want a different scale that preserves order of finish.

That

Quoted message said:

won't change anything except who gets the most points. If you want to

shift

Quoted message said:

swimming away from drugs, then you must change the order of finish so that

the

Quoted message said:

incentive for using drugs is eliminated or at least reduced significantly.

martin

Quoted message said:

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This is a repost of a suggestion for a scoring system that would make a

race

Quoted message said:

between Terry and Larry make sense. It could be used in general to make

the

Quoted message said:

sport more competitive and exciting for a lot more swimmers.

Create a scoring system based on the difference between the swimmer's

entry time

Quoted message said:

and his actual time. For example, if I submit a time of 20:00 for a

1500,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then I

Quoted message said:

score higher if I hit 20:15 than if I hit 20:30. The formula might be:

score = 1 / (ET - AT)

...where ET is entry time and AT is actual time.

Using the absolute value, if I hit 20:15, my score is .067. 20:30 gives

me

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.033.

Quoted message said:

If I hit 20:00.5, I score 2.0.

That would be one way of competing under this system, but it doesn't

reward

Quoted message said:

improvements in speed. It only rewards accuracy. Open competitions could

be run

Quoted message said:

this way, and we could then see races between elite swimers and bozos

like

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me.

Quoted message said:

But we could also include a multiplier that increases with speed. For

example,

Quoted message said:

we could use the speed.

score = (1 / (ET - AT)) * S

...where the speed S = d/AT, d being distance.

Then my 20:15 gives me .067 * (1500 / 1215) = .083, 20:30 gives me .04,

and my

Quoted message said:

20:00.5 gives me 2.5.

A swimmer in the same race who enters with 15:00 and hits 15:30 scores

.05.

Quoted message said:

These are just the first numbers I picked. We could use 2S as the

multiplier to

Quoted message said:

give more incentive for using more speed, but no matter what numbers we

picked,

Quoted message said:

it would always be possible, if unlikely, for a bozo to win the gold

medal.

Quoted message said:

The formulas could be different for different swim meets. For example,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

multiplier for the Olympics might be 3S or 5S. We could even keep the

formulas

Quoted message said:

to be used a secret until the day of the meet, or we could draw the

numbers out

Quoted message said:

of a hat for each event. Once the swimmers know the actual numbers, they

can

Quoted message said:

decide their individual strategy for each of their events.

You can imagine lots of variations on this scoring system.

martin

diablo said:

I'm not interested in doing that at all. Again, it was a general statement. Your own system
suggested doesn't solve anything either. One can easily submit a slower seed time.

Then what *are* you interested in doing? It isn't clear what your system is meant to accomplish.

There is nothing wrong with submitting a slow entry time under the system I proposed. Submitting a
slower seed time would just shift emphasis to accuracy and away from speed. Then if you are an elite
swimmer, but you submit an entry time that is much slower than your best, you couldn't get any
points for going fast. You would be shooting yourself in the foot, because to score high with a slow
entry time, you would have to swim an actual time much closer to your entry time, than if you had
submitted a faster entry time. You would be better off submitting your PB as your entry time and
trying to get close to that. You would get more points that way.

martin

Quoted message said:

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

diablo said:

i've always wanted to see a points system based on time swum and points

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tables produced by either FINA or LEN.

It sounds like you want a different scale that preserves order of finish.

That

Quoted message said:

won't change anything except who gets the most points. If you want to

shift

Quoted message said:

swimming away from drugs, then you must change the order of finish so that

the

Quoted message said:

incentive for using drugs is eliminated or at least reduced significantly.

martin

Quoted message said:

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

>This is a repost of a suggestion for a scoring system that would make a

race

>between Terry and Larry make sense. It could be used in general to make

the

>sport more competitive and exciting for a lot more swimmers.
>
>Create a scoring system based on the difference between the swimmer's

entry time

>and his actual time. For example, if I submit a time of 20:00 for a

1500,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then I

>score higher if I hit 20:15 than if I hit 20:30. The formula might be:
>
>score = 1 / (ET - AT)
>
>...where ET is entry time and AT is actual time.
>
>Using the absolute value, if I hit 20:15, my score is .067. 20:30 gives

me

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.033.

>If I hit 20:00.5, I score 2.0.
>
>That would be one way of competing under this system, but it doesn't

reward

>improvements in speed. It only rewards accuracy. Open competitions could

be run

>this way, and we could then see races between elite swimers and bozos

like

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me.

>But we could also include a multiplier that increases with speed. For

example,

>we could use the speed.
>
>score = (1 / (ET - AT)) * S
>
>...where the speed S = d/AT, d being distance.
>
>Then my 20:15 gives me .067 * (1500 / 1215) = .083, 20:30 gives me .04,

and my

>20:00.5 gives me 2.5.
>
>A swimmer in the same race who enters with 15:00 and hits 15:30 scores

.05.

>These are just the first numbers I picked. We could use 2S as the

multiplier to

>give more incentive for using more speed, but no matter what numbers we

picked,

>it would always be possible, if unlikely, for a bozo to win the gold

medal.

>The formulas could be different for different swim meets. For example,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>multiplier for the Olympics might be 3S or 5S. We could even keep the

formulas

>to be used a secret until the day of the meet, or we could draw the

numbers out

>of a hat for each event. Once the swimmers know the actual numbers, they

can

>decide their individual strategy for each of their events.
>
>You can imagine lots of variations on this scoring system.
>
>martin
>

Why not award points based on how close the competitor comes to the existing world record?

You could do it by establishing a maximum number of points, let's use a thousand, and deduct for
each <insert fraction here> of a second off that the swimmer is. Should the swimmer beat the world
record, they get bonus points. The person with the highest number at the end of the meet wins the
meet. This way there's no controvery about tossing a swimmer into an empty event for cheap points.

diablo left this mess on Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:48:21 GMT for The Way to clean up:

Quoted message said:

I'm not interested in doing that at all. Again, it was a general statement. Your own system
suggested doesn't solve anything either. One can easily submit a slower seed time.

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

diablo said:

i've always wanted to see a points system based on time swum and points

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tables produced by either FINA or LEN.

It sounds like you want a different scale that preserves order of finish.

That

Quoted message said:

won't change anything except who gets the most points. If you want to

shift

Quoted message said:

swimming away from drugs, then you must change the order of finish so that

the

Quoted message said:

incentive for using drugs is eliminated or at least reduced significantly.

martin

Quoted message said:

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

>This is a repost of a suggestion for a scoring system that would make a

race

>between Terry and Larry make sense. It could be used in general to make

the

>sport more competitive and exciting for a lot more swimmers.
>
>Create a scoring system based on the difference between the swimmer's

entry time

>and his actual time. For example, if I submit a time of 20:00 for a

1500,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then I

>score higher if I hit 20:15 than if I hit 20:30. The formula might be:
>
>score = 1 / (ET - AT)
>
>...where ET is entry time and AT is actual time.
>
>Using the absolute value, if I hit 20:15, my score is .067. 20:30 gives

me

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

.033.

>If I hit 20:00.5, I score 2.0.
>
>That would be one way of competing under this system, but it doesn't

reward

>improvements in speed. It only rewards accuracy. Open competitions could

be run

>this way, and we could then see races between elite swimers and bozos

like

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

me.

>But we could also include a multiplier that increases with speed. For

example,

>we could use the speed.
>
>score = (1 / (ET - AT)) * S
>
>...where the speed S = d/AT, d being distance.
>
>Then my 20:15 gives me .067 * (1500 / 1215) = .083, 20:30 gives me .04,

and my

>20:00.5 gives me 2.5.
>
>A swimmer in the same race who enters with 15:00 and hits 15:30 scores

.05.

>These are just the first numbers I picked. We could use 2S as the

multiplier to

>give more incentive for using more speed, but no matter what numbers we

picked,

>it would always be possible, if unlikely, for a bozo to win the gold

medal.

>The formulas could be different for different swim meets. For example,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>multiplier for the Olympics might be 3S or 5S. We could even keep the

formulas

>to be used a secret until the day of the meet, or we could draw the

numbers out

>of a hat for each event. Once the swimmers know the actual numbers, they

can

>decide their individual strategy for each of their events.
>
>You can imagine lots of variations on this scoring system.
>
>martin
>

Tao te Carl "It takes a village to have an idiot." - Carl (c) 2003

(Kudos to Cap'n Jim Wyatt for this link) BEFORE you ask a dumb-ass question
here...http://www.speakeasy.org/~neilco/bart.gif

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then what *are* you interested in doing? It isn't clear what your system is meant to accomplish.

Scoring points for team/high point the traditional way doesn't account for or reward spectacular
swims. Right now i know HS swimming uses Power Points for national rankings. I think it'd be
interesting to see an invite scored this way also.

In relation to your own system, why not substitute times for these point tables also?

M.W. Smith <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message : [email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

diablo said:

i've always wanted to see a points system based on time swum and points

from

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tables produced by either FINA or LEN.

It sounds like you want a different scale that preserves order of finish.

That

Quoted message said:

won't change anything except who gets the most points. If you want to

shift

Quoted message said:

swimming away from drugs, then you must change the order of finish so that

the

Quoted message said:

incentive for using drugs is eliminated or at least reduced significantly.

If you want to put drug cheaters at a disadvantage, you have to factor in your point system
something else than Speed.

So, what should we reward when swimming?

You propose accuracy (make AT and ET as close as possible). But some concerns are:
- is accuracy the real thing we want to promote?
- wouldn't it be easy to cheat: for example, sprint to the wall, then wait a few seconds watching
the pace clock (or some signal from a friend) to touch the wall at exact Entry Time?

My opinion is that accuracy is not a parameter we should try to promote.

We could promote art / style / flow / grace / elegance... you name it. This would profoundly
change our sport. You would need 10 judges on the pool side. We would have a note and some point
system with score = speed*note. And we will end up like skating, with corruption, and endless
discussions on proper lumbar arch, rolling, loping... Sounds familiar: I would prefer to keep
these discussions here!

A better approach would be to promote efficiency. The most efficient swimmer would win. We could use
the now famous Swim Efficiency Index (or golf score, as computed by Bill's Stroke Monitor). score =
SEI = 100 * distance / (cycles + time)

That would give efficient technique a chance to win over pure conditionning.

See "Differences in propelling efficiency between competitive and triathlon swimmers.", Toussaint,
H. M. (1990) Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 22, 409-415, and "Biomechanics of competitive front crawl
swimming", Toussaint, H. M. and Beek, P. J. (1992). Sports Med. 13, 8-24 :

"propelling efficiency seems to be important since it is much higher in elite swimmers (61 %)
compared to triathletes (44 %); and distance per stroke gives a fairly good indication of propelling
efficiency "

...but I'm a bit concerned that this formula would give good kickers too much of an advantage.
Efficiency is solely measured by the ability to have a long distance per stroke, without taking
kicking into account.

In fact, what we should promote is: "swimming as fast as possible with as little effort as
possible".

That would make make your score look like:

Score = speed / power.

...but wait, power is a linear fonction of V^3 !

So, if you don't want a guy like me beating Thorpe, you should use:

Score = speed^n / power with n >= 3

How does one measure power? You can simply measure the average volume of O2 per second, consumed
during the swim (VO2). Some enhanced snorkel can do that.

So you end up with:

Score = speed^n / VO2

which will decide who is the fastest and most efficient swimmer, discouraging a purely "big
engine" approach.

BTW, this is what they do in formula 1 (limiting fuel consumption), in sailing (limiting sail
surface)... Going better, not only faster.

-- Olivier

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

diablo said:

I'm not interested in doing that at all. Again, it was a general statement. Your own system
suggested doesn't solve anything either. One can easily submit a slower seed time.

Then what *are* you interested in doing? It isn't clear what your system is meant to accomplish.

In Martin's system, accuracy his the goal (that's a big paradigm shift!), in diablo's, speed
remains the goal.

The advantage of a point system over a time system is to allow comparison between swimmers in
different events / specialities.

For example, we could ENDLY know if Terry is better than Don, comparing their respective points on a
1500m (or 5k, whatever Terry is best at) and a 50m...

It allows a swimmer to know at what event he is the best (where he scores most points), too, which
can help when deciding on specialization (long distance vs. sprint, different strokes...).

-- Olivier

diablo said:

"M.W. Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Then what *are* you interested in doing? It isn't clear what your system is meant to accomplish.

Scoring points for team/high point the traditional way doesn't account for or reward spectacular
swims. Right now i know HS swimming uses Power Points for national rankings. I think it'd be
interesting to see an invite scored this way also.

In relation to your own system, why not substitute times for these point tables also?

In the system I proposed, spectacular swims would be rewarded, because of the speed multiplier. I
included it with a constant (constant * speed), but the constant could be some function.

The team score could be computed by adding all the individual scores.

martin

diablo said:

Quoted message said:

Then what *are* you interested in doing? It isn't clear what your system is meant to accomplish.

Scoring points for team/high point the traditional way doesn't account for or reward spectacular
swims. Right now i know HS swimming uses Power Points for national rankings. I think it'd be
interesting to see an invite scored this way also.

So basically you're looking for a handicapping system, like used in golf or in bowling leagues. In
the latter you basically take a value set in prior performances, either all of them, or the prior
year, or some fixed interval. This does reward the breakout performance. It also makes new bowlers
wildly desirable for the team as the annual player will improve substantially over their stated
average when they begin playing weekly.

Unfortunately, it's very easy to set the value artificially low - either intentionally, or by
setting your training/drug use to peak for the main event. And it punishes those who are performing
at a high level early on - they could be in the situation of needing to break the world record just
to stay even.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Jason O'Rourke said:

diablo said:

Quoted message said:

Then what *are* you interested in doing? It isn't clear what your system is meant to accomplish.

Scoring points for team/high point the traditional way doesn't account for or reward spectacular
swims. Right now i know HS swimming uses Power Points for national rankings. I think it'd be
interesting to see an invite scored this way also.

So basically you're looking for a handicapping system, like used in golf or in bowling leagues. In
the latter you basically take a value set in prior performances, either all of them, or the prior
year, or some fixed interval. This does reward the breakout performance. It also makes new bowlers
wildly desirable for the team as the annual player will improve substantially over their stated
average when they begin playing weekly.

I'm not proposing a simple handicapping system. There is no history in the system I proposed. I mean
to include pace in the scoring, so that speed isn't the the only thing rewarded. Rather than a
single dimension scale, I propose a two dimension scale, speed on one axis and pace on the other.
The highest scores are in the quadrant of high speed and accurate pace. Obviously, pace doesn't make
much sense in a 50, so aiming for a specific time there is a hit or miss thing. But even moving up
to 100m, and certainly all the distances longer than 100m, pace begins to be important. Coaches
spend a lot of time helping their swimmers to manage their pace. Often during a set of 200s or 400s,
for example, the coach will tell his swimmers to negative split them, or he will tell them to swim
each one broken and keep all the broken times withing a certain delta. I'm saying it makes sense to
reward the same things in races that we strive for in workouts. We strive for both speed and pace.

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, it's very easy to set the value artificially low - either intentionally, or by
setting your training/drug use to peak for the main event. And it punishes those who are
performing at a high level early on - they could be in the situation of needing to break the world
record just to stay even.

There is no value you could set artificially low. You can enter with any time you want, or you can
be required to enter with a time no faster than one you have swum that year or something. Regardless
of what time you enter, your score is partly based on how close you come to that entry time. You
gain nothing by setting your entry time low, if your actual time is much slower than your entry
time. You would score higher by entering a time you can actually hit and getting close to it. Your
best score will be achieved by entering a time you want to hit as your new personal best and then
actually hitting that time.

martin

Olivier said:

If you want to put drug cheaters at a disadvantage, you have to factor in your point system
something else than Speed.

I'm not trying to put them at a disadvantage. Rather, I am trying to eliminate all or most of the
need to use drugs to win. That requires integrating some new component into the scoring system that
can't be influenced by using drugs.

Quoted message said:

So, what should we reward when swimming?

You propose accuracy (make AT and ET as close as possible). But some concerns are:
- is accuracy the real thing we want to promote?

What we are would actually be promoting is pace, and pace is something that swimming coaches really
do promote.

Quoted message said:

- wouldn't it be easy to cheat: for example, sprint to the wall, then wait a few seconds watching
the pace clock (or some signal from a friend) to touch the wall at exact Entry Time?

Two points: Stopping or treading water would be made illegal, and there would be no clock visible.
And all the dirty, scum-sucking watch wearers would have to take off their watches.

Quoted message said:

My opinion is that accuracy is not a parameter we should try to promote.

We could promote art / style / flow / grace / elegance... you name it. This would profoundly
change our sport. You would need 10 judges on the pool side. We would have a note and some point
system with score = speed*note. And we will end up like skating, with corruption, and endless
discussions on proper lumbar arch, rolling, loping... Sounds familiar: I would prefer to keep
these discussions here!

A better approach would be to promote efficiency. The most efficient swimmer would win. We could
use the now famous Swim Efficiency Index (or golf score, as computed by Bill's Stroke Monitor).
score = SEI = 100 * distance / (cycles + time)

That would give efficient technique a chance to win over pure conditionning.

That's not a bad idea, but I worry that big people can't be as efficient as small people, so we
would be back to the thoroughbred problem we have now.

Quoted message said:

See "Differences in propelling efficiency between competitive and triathlon swimmers.", Toussaint,
H. M. (1990) Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 22, 409-415, and "Biomechanics of competitive front crawl
swimming", Toussaint, H. M. and Beek, P. J. (1992). Sports Med. 13, 8-24 :

"propelling efficiency seems to be important since it is much higher in elite swimmers (61 %)
compared to triathletes (44 %); and distance per stroke gives a fairly good indication of
propelling efficiency "

...but I'm a bit concerned that this formula would give good kickers too much of an advantage.
Efficiency is solely measured by the ability to have a long distance per stroke, without taking
kicking into account.

In fact, what we should promote is: "swimming as fast as possible with as little effort as
possible".

That would make make your score look like:

Score = speed / power.

...but wait, power is a linear fonction of V^3 !

So, if you don't want a guy like me beating Thorpe, you should use:

Score = speed^n / power with n >= 3

How does one measure power? You can simply measure the average volume of O2 per second, consumed
during the swim (VO2). Some enhanced snorkel can do that.

So you end up with:

Score = speed^n / VO2

which will decide who is the fastest and most efficient swimmer, discouraging a purely "big
engine" approach.

BTW, this is what they do in formula 1 (limiting fuel consumption), in sailing (limiting sail
surface)... Going better, not only faster.

I think your suggestion makes the genetics effect worse. Plus it will just change the drug
designers' goal to be designing drugs that increase VO2. I still think combining speed and accuracy
(pace) provides a better solution.

martin

M.W. Smith said:

What we are would actually be promoting is pace, and pace is something that swimming coaches really
do promote.

Swifter, Higher, Stronger, .... More Accurate?

Might as well just cancel the whole thing.
--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke said:

Quoted message said:

What we are would actually be promoting is pace, and pace is something that swimming coaches
really do promote.

Swifter, Higher, Stronger, .... More Accurate?

Might as well just cancel the whole thing.

Did you ever actually train with a coach? It sounds like you didn't.

Never with one that considered pace remotely as important as performance.

Running surfaces aren't uniform and there is a significant advantage to staying with your opponents.
Not so in the pool, but different people have different best practices to score their best time.
Reverse splitting has never been effective for me.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

M.W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Never with one that considered pace remotely as important as performance.

That doesn't make sense, Jason. Pace is part of performance.

No. Performance is seen in the final result. Whether you opened fast and finished slower, or the
reverse, is irrelevent. Scoring based on finishing at a predicted time is about the most ridiculous
thing I've heard since watching the French judge ice skating. (note again how the French and
Russians formed an axis of evil!)

Quoted message said:

I don't think that is criticism of incorporating pace in the scoring system. It does show you don't
understand the importance of pace in achieving better results.

Go out too fast, burn out. Go out too slow, finish with gas in the tank.

It ain't rocket science.

--
Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W. Smith said:

What we are would actually be promoting is pace, and pace is something that swimming coaches
really do promote.

Swifter, Higher, Stronger, .... More Accurate?

Might as well just cancel the whole thing.

Did you ever actually train with a coach? It sounds like you didn't.

martin

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W. Smith said:

Jason O'Rourke said:

>What we are would actually be promoting is pace, and pace is something that swimming coaches
>really do promote.

Swifter, Higher, Stronger, .... More Accurate?

Might as well just cancel the whole thing.

Did you ever actually train with a coach? It sounds like you didn't.

Never with one that considered pace remotely as important as performance.

That doesn't make sense, Jason. Pace is part of performance.

Quoted message said:

Running surfaces aren't uniform and there is a significant advantage to staying with your
opponents. Not so in the pool, but different people have different best practices to score their
best time. Reverse splitting has never been effective for me

I don't think that is criticism of incorporating pace in the scoring system. It does show you don't
understand the importance of pace in achieving better results.

martin

Jason O'Rourke said:

M.W. Smith said:

Quoted message said:

Never with one that considered pace remotely as important as performance.

That doesn't make sense, Jason. Pace is part of performance.

No. Performance is seen in the final result. Whether you opened fast and finished slower, or the
reverse, is irrelevent. Scoring based on finishing at a predicted time is about the most
ridiculous thing I've heard since watching the French judge ice skating. (note again how the
French and Russians formed an axis of evil!)

But you have no argument. At least you haven't given one. It just sounds ridiculous to you because
you think you aren't good at it.

And the scoring system I proposed is *not* "based on" finishing at a predicted time. It is "based
on" speed *and* accuracy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't think that is criticism of incorporating pace in the scoring system. It does show you
don't understand the importance of pace in achieving better results.

Go out too fast, burn out. Go out too slow, finish with gas in the tank.

It ain't rocket science.

That's right. Pace.

martin