From: europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik)
Subject: Re: Gymnastics: Score Inflation (was:Instant Replay for Judging)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 20:14:55 GMT

From article <1992Aug13.172728.26204@ms.uky.edu>, by morgan@ms.uky.edu (Wes Morgan):
> europa@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (r.j.capik) writes:
>>
>>I don't believe that the judges are "virtually required" to keep the first
>>scores low. (that they in fact do keep their first scores low is another
>>story) Yes, there must be room at the top, but if the first performance
>>was the best in the meet then everyone else should score below that level.
> 
> They *should*, indeed; however, this rarely happens in major meets.  I've
> seen too many wonderful routines receive scores in the 9.7-9.8 range, merely
> because they came in the early stages of the competition.
> 
>>Now, if the driving force here is that people (the public, the media, the
>>coaches, the parents... ) want to see 10.0s, then the answer is to normalize
>>all scores. 
> 
> Actually, I'm one of those people who has a hard time accepting the notion
> of a *perfect* routine.  In fact, I don't believe I've ever seen one.

OK, fine, but this is not addressing the issue of inflated scores.
What is the force that drives these judges to push for ever higher
marks typically awarded only to the last few competitors?
Can anyone out there think of ways to keep the inflation under
control?
Then too, there is the question of "at what cost". If we should
find a way to control the score inflation that makes the sport
unwatchable, is it worth the cost?
(hint: the NFL got rid of their replay official because...   )

> 
>>But then, who am I to say. I'm not a gymnastics judge.
> Neither am I; I've just been watching for years and years.....

BUT, I am a judge in another sport...      :-)

>>As above, the scores are not too high as much as the head room is too 
>>small. Sad to say, it looks like this has become a judges game of
>>'how close can we come to giving the winner a 10'.
> Yup, and that's ridiculous.
> Thanks to this inflated scoring, gymnastics is falling into the same trap
> as figure skating, namely the "gotta kick their butt" factor.  Did you watch
> the Winter Olympics' figure skating?  Every major competitor fell at least
> once!  There was no aesthetic beauty in the performances; everyone felt obli-
> gated to try the triple jumps, since "you just can't win without them".  Feh.
> 
> What would happen if the scoring were broken down into categories?  Consider:
> 
> 	Balance Beam - 10-point maximum
>         Mount - 1 point
> 	Dismount - 1 point
> 	Artistic Expression - 2 points
>         Difficulty - 2 points
>         Execution - 4 points
> 
> Why wouldn't something like this work?

-For starters, there is nothing in here that addresses the score
 inflation issue. 
-Is this proposed to be an additive or subtractive process?
-What is "Artistic Expression" or "Difficulty" or "Execution"?
 By that, I mean how would you codify the perfect any-of-the-above?
-Would there also be a code of deduction points?
-Can a judge, in reality, keep track of 5 isolated factors, each with
 a different point range AND watch the run at he same time?

> --Wes
> 
Ron Capik  at AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ

(yes, I used the Dan Quayle spelle checker)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics