Does AP make sense for pool competitions?

[Simos]

The AP system enriches the event.

IF we wanted to accept that such systems/games enriched the event (which I don't fully agree with) I would propose something along these lines (which will address some issues with the current AP system without removing it):

Points = AP + RP

And if AP is not achieved, competitor gets 0 points from the AP but gets the RP points.

e.g. Say I announce 100m and I end up doing 110m, I get 210 points.
If I announce 100m and end up doing 95m, I get only 95 points.

Obviously the formula can easily be weighted e.g. Points = AP + (2 x RP) and so on...

That would address a lot of the issues and would make AP a true announced performance. There is a very strong incentive to get it as close to your RP as possible but surpassing it still gives you a bonus. And there are still some tactics involved although it clearly stops anyone from announcing ridiculously high/low APs. The last diver doesn't have such a big advantage anymore either because they still have to reach their AP..

Also, you could easily resolve ties in points by making the person with the highest RP win.

What do you guys think?

 

[Haydn]

That works to a degree. But I am not sure its a better solution.

By enriching the event, I meant to suggest that without APs, the event becomes a simple matter of going the furthest. Therefore the person who goes last knows what to beat and the person going second to last is disadvantaged.

The APs provide for the dives order to be randomised by allowing the better freediver to go early if he chooses, and gain a perceived advantaged by being better prepared. The alternative is he would go last or near last and lose the advantage of going early, and also lose out by having to go one dive before his main competitor. I don't think it fair for the organisers to choose who gets disadvantaged by this order.

The AP goes a long way to addressing the issue of fairness and places the decision making into the divers choice when he would prefer to dive.

Another alternative could be six divers all going off together, but actually that would be dangerous and less exciting to watch.

The order could be simply oldest diver goes first or a random draw.

As it stands, the AP seems the best at the moment. Simos thoughts could disadvantage a diver by making a huge penalty on points and the comp will be decided more because of the maths and less because of the distance actually covered. A diver could wins by miles and still not get on the podium due to a penalty.

I think most of us would like to think the greatest distance would always win. Randomising the event order by the competitors drawing their race order out of a hat is probably the fairest way, but lacks the nuances of the AP strategies. This is why I believe the AP enriches the sport.

 

[efattah]

I think Simos' method is cool, but on some level what are we trying to accomplish? This would favor the athlete that can best predict his swim distance. So it is almost like that 'blind static' contest where you try to hold your breath for 3 minutes without having a watch. It is cool, but we need to ask what skill are we competing in-- who can swim the farthest, or some other metric.

If the goal is to make it exciting, I would remind you of several variants that have been developed over the years for spectators:

1. Dynamic, VS.
Two athletes swim side by side. The athlete that swims farther (with white card), moves on to the next round. Clearly the slower swimmer has the advantage.

2. Horizontal constant weight, VS.
Two athletes swim side by side. The athlete swims 'out', then turns around and swims back the same distance. For example the athlete can swim 85m, turn at 85m, go back. The athlete drops the 'tag' at the turn-around point. This simulates a dive. You must get back to the starting wall. If you do not, it counts as 0 (blackout in constant weight, you didn't make it back to the surface).
The athlete that makes the bigger 'simulated depth' moves on to the next round.

Both would be very exciting and introduce new strategies.

 

[trux]

By making higher AP win in case of same RP we are basically saying that divers who dive earlier instead of later are worse than those who dive later, whatever the reason.

Yes, and in fact it is true (if I exagerate a bit). If you announce low then you mostly either can't stand the pressure and prefer having it behind you fastly before the tension rises too high. Then we can call you whimp, and you deserve the worse rank Or you announce low because you do not believe you can do any good performance. Then, you get lucky and swim far over your normal capacity. In such case you are a lacky b@stard, and again you deserve the worse rank

 

[Simos]

I think Simos' method is cool, but on some level what are we trying to accomplish?

I was just trying to keep Trux happy Eric and not drive him mad by insisting that we drop APs completely as we should rofl

 

[MikkoP]

Yes, and in fact it is true (if I exagerate a bit). If you announce low then you mostly either can't stand the pressure and prefer having it behind you fastly before the tension rises too high. Then we can call you whimp, and you deserve the worse rank Or you announce low because you do not believe you can do any good performance. Then, you get lucky and swim far over your normal capacity. In such case you are a lacky b@stard, and again you deserve the worse rank

Maybe I deserved that with all my 1m announcements.

However, I once heard a wise man say (earlier in this thread), that "At competitions, people often need to determine their starting time - for example they want to coach each other in a team, or they want to focus on a certain discipline, or they want to take a nap or something to eat between disciplines, or they need to catch a train before the competition is fully over, etc." I don't consider those reasons worth penalizing.

 

[Simos]

This would favor the athlete that can best predict his swim distance.

You are right of course but basically this is also what happens in depth disciplines today in a way, so I thought since it's a pool comp and safety is not an issue I would allow the diver to dive past the 'plate' (i.e. AR) and get some bonus points for that.

 

[trux]

However, I once heard a wise man say (earlier in this thread), that "At competitions, people often need to determine their starting time - for example they want to coach each other in a team, or they want to focus on a certain discipline, or they want to take a nap or something to eat between disciplines, or they need to catch a train before the competition is fully over, etc." I don't consider those reasons worth penalizing.

Hehe, yes, yes, that's also why I wrote "If you announce low then you mostly either...". But again, if you chose starting early, then it is for some reason, and it is up to you to consider wheather it is worth of the possible loss in case of a tie. It is completely up to you to take the risk or not. You get certain advantage by having the free choice (whatever time you chose by the AP), and should face the risk it presents (either loss in case of a tie and a low AP, or penalty in case of a too high AP). If you do not care about STA and announce low to have more time for the DYN preparation, then perhpas it is just that the guy who annouced fairly gets over you in case of a tie.

I find this way much more just than freely picking any top time you want without any risk, as well as more just than assigning the lineup by a draw or other method. Besides it, exactly as Haydn wrote, it adds some thrill to the event. It makes from the rather boring discipline not only sport, but also a game.

That told, I won't cry if the AP system is abandonned, but bet all my money that there will be always complaints, whatever system you chose for assigning the lineup, and perhaps even more than there are currently.

 

[Jouskari]

Hehe, yes, yes, that's also why I wrote "If you announce low then you mostly either...". But again, if you chose starting early, then it is for some reason, and it is up to you to consider wheather it is worth of the possible loss in case of a tie. It is completely up to you to take the risk or not. You get certain advantage by having the free choice (whatever time you chose by the AP), and should face the risk it presents (either loss in case of a tie and a low AP, or penalty in case of a too high AP). If you do not care about STA and announce low to have more time for the DYN preparation, then perhpas it is just that the guy who annouced fairly gets over you in case of a tie.

I find this way much more just than freely picking any top time you want without any risk, as well as more just than assigning the lineup by a draw or other method. Besides it, exactly as Haydn wrote, it adds some thrill to the event. It makes from the rather boring discipline not only sport, but also a game.

That told, I won't cry if the AP system is abandonned, but bet all my money that there will be always complaints, whatever system you chose for assigning the lineup, and perhaps even more than there are currently.

Following the discussion it seems that the current AP system is rather ok, or that any other system would be just as flawed or too complicated.

Maybe we could keep the current system with APs etc. it´s not perfect but it works. The biggest issues at the moment seems to be with the amount of penalty points applied for "touch", "short" and "grab" dives. With the current touch rule and grab penalties its almost like chopping off someones head for crossing on red.

 

[chrismar]

Following the discussion it seems that the current AP system is rather ok, or that any other system would be just as flawed or too complicated.

Maybe we could keep the current system with APs etc. it´s not perfect but it works. The biggest issues at the moment seems to be withe the amount of penalty points applied for "touch", "short" and "grab" dives. With the current touch rule and grab penalties its almost like chopping of someones head for crossing on red.

Agree. The AP system is actually rather useful at comps and the ranking rule seldom comes into it anyway. There are bigger fish to fry in the rules. Mind you, as someone who has never had a penalty for grabbing, pushing or DQ for touch (or touching someone else), maybe it's in my best interests to block any changes

 

[finflyer]

To make pool disciplines more approachable to public the AP rules should be abandoned. There are only few if any other sports where performance must be announced beforehand, so it is not a known method for a random spectator. A spectator should see the result (length) of the dive as soon as the competitor surfaces and completes the protocol and there should be no complicated calculations, reductions or whatever in between the result and points.

In most sports the starting order is decided by draw or ranking. If there is no ranking to apply, then the draw is most fair method. If there is a qualifying round before the finals, the results of the qualifying round should be used to define the final starting order weakest first, best last. This makes the competition format much more enjoyable to the watching public.

just my 5 eurocents.

V

 

[Jouskari]

To make pool disciplines more approachable to public the AP rules should be abandoned. There are only few if any other sports where performance must be announced beforehand, so it is not a known method for a random spectator. A spectator should see the result (length) of the dive as soon as the competitor surfaces and completes the protocol and there should be no complicated calculations, reductions or whatever in between the result and points.

In most sports the starting order is decided by draw or ranking. If there is no ranking to apply, then the draw is most fair method. If there is a qualifying round before the finals, the results of the qualifying round should be used to define the final starting order weakest first, best last. This makes the competition format much more enjoyable to the watching public.

just my 5 eurocents.

V

Strangely I´m slowly starting to defend the current AP system. Well that´s what good discussion should do. Bring up new thoughts and perhaps even change opinions.

Clearly in a WC the finals start order could be based on the outcome of the qualifications. That would also add some tactics to it as one would need to figure out how far should to go to make the finals, but still not be the first if you want to start early in the finals.

In a no finals competition a random draw is indeed kinda unfair as the further you get to the end everyone knows what amount of meters or seconds to beat. The AP system has the same flaws but adds tactics as the athlete can affect the starting order to certain degree...

Regarding other sports. I think they had wind compensation points in ski jumping last time I watched. And I still haven´t figured out American football...

 

[finflyer]

Regarding other sports. I think they had wind compensation points in ski jumping last time I watched. And I still haven´t figured out American football...

I thought we were talking about sports, not shows

 

[Haydn]

In a comp its not good enough reason to go early so you have spare time to do other things. The reason you would go early should solely be based on whether it gives you an advantage for your style of competing. This way, you get the best chance to do your very best effort. When you give your best effort, you honour your fellow competitors by ensuring they too have to do their very best,

When I was 11, I competed in my towns 100 yd freestyle in the senior age group. There were half a dozen 'senior' squad swimmers aged between 16-20 (one swam in the 1968 Olympics and had just returned from Mexico. In the heats, these swimmers messed about on the first length (they thought it was a good joke, so all six swam like they were drowning). They all expected to make the final. One of them was a fraction slower than me (I swam my best in the heat) , and I my time made the final. I swam next to an Olympic swimmer. 45 years later, I still get a thrill remembering how small I looked on the starting blocks. In the final , they raced properly and of course, so did I. In a 25 yard pool, they all finished within a second or two of each other, a whole length in front of me but when I swam the last length, it was me who got a huge applause. For 15 seconds I was the only one still swimming and the noise was sooooo exciting, I recorded the fastest age group time that year for my county.

What I am saying is its the performance that counts, not the maths. Penalties should not be the way to decide results.

 

[Billextreme]

..really funny tread

Does AP make sense for pool competitions?

Yes.

This because it's about knowing what you can do, announce and then perform.

For many years ago we had this very same questions, about AP for depth and pool, and the answer was that apnea is about knowing your own capacity and then show this in competitions. This was and are still the "number one" thing to remember when it comes to AP vs apnea. Full control is/was as important (or more) than/as long/deep result.

This is also the main reason we use AP when athletes perform the same result in dynamic. The AP is there to show who know themselves and what they can do. And a closer AP to RP is better, ranks higher, than the opposite.

Then you also have to remember that the AP do not have to control the start order in a competition. The organizer can choose to use "random" order if they like. But this is sadly not used that much and the result of this is that the athlete announce 1 meter just to go out first, even if they do far over 200m in dyn. (use it as a way to control when to start)

If we ask AIDA to go over to "only random" in pool disciplines, we would have more understanding to the origin of our AP, and also credit close RP to AP's very much more. And by that also "go back" and underline the the importance of knowing your own body and apnea capacity.

have a nice day
/Bill

 

[trux]

If we ask AIDA to go over to "only random" in pool disciplines, we would have more understanding to the origin of our AP, and also credit close RP to AP's very much more. And by that also "go back" and underline the the importance of knowing your own body and apnea capacity.

Well, if we go to a random lineup, then the AP system loses the sense to great extent, since ties are relatively rare (in most pool competitions there are none), so the AP would have practically no effect at all then.

 

[Simos]

..really funny tread

Does AP make sense for pool competitions?

Yes.

This because it's about knowing what you can do, announce and then perform.

For many years ago we had this very same questions, about AP for depth and pool, and the answer was that apnea is about knowing your own capacity and then show this in competitions. This was and are still the "number one" thing to remember when it comes to AP vs apnea. Full control is/was as important (or more) than/as long/deep result.

This is also the main reason we use AP when athletes perform the same result in dynamic. The AP is there to show who know themselves and what they can do. And a closer AP to RP is better, ranks higher, than the opposite.

Then you also have to remember that the AP do not have to control the start order in a competition. The organizer can choose to use "random" order if they like. But this is sadly not used that much and the result of this is that the athlete announce 1 meter just to go out first, even if they do far over 200m in dyn. (use it as a way to control when to start)

If we ask AIDA to go over to "only random" in pool disciplines, we would have more understanding to the origin of our AP, and also credit close RP to AP's very much more. And by that also "go back" and underline the the importance of knowing your own body and apnea capacity.

have a nice day
/Bill

Sorry Bill but I neither understand why it's funny, nor understand your explanation I am afraid. Like Trux pointed out, with the current rules if you took out the start order (which I agree with you by the way) then surely AP doesn't not make any sense (ie has no effect).

Firstly, we're not arguing or discussing 'historic' things that have been argued before and they're obvious etc.

We just had the World Championships - problems with the rules nearly meant that a perfectly fine WR/gold medal was a DQ <- needs urgent fixing!

Also problematic rules (hence this thread) determined the position between Mikko and Guy. I still don't get what happened there - but in a nutshell, Mikko deserved it, the rules say it should have gone to Guy and in the end somehow Mikko got it? <- rules urgently need changing

What could be more important or worthwhile discussing than fixing these? Having rules that make sense is super important if we are to be taken seriously as a sport.

Imagine if you were watching the final of the 100m in the Olympics, and some odd rules meant that the guy who ran the fastest and made a WR got DQ (and all other athletes had to protest) and the guy that ran the second best time was supposed to get bronze according to the rules but ended up again getting silver. Would you keep watching or even want to take part?

 

[Simos]

If we ask AIDA to go over to "only random" in pool disciplines, we would have more understanding to the origin of our AP, and also credit close RP to AP's very much more. And by that also "go back" and underline the the importance of knowing your own body and apnea capacity.

Surely the important point here (for general freediving, not sure this applies to competitions anyway) is LISTENING to your body and adjusting your dive accordingly for each dive, not knowing or trying to predict your capacity beforehand and sticking to what you thought you could do at the beginning.

Predicting your performance before you dived is only testing your ability to predict the future in my opinion! :martial

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

 

[efattah]

Surely the important point here (for general freediving, not sure this applies to competitions anyway) is LISTENING to your body and adjusting your dive accordingly for each dive, not knowing or trying to predict your capacity beforehand and sticking to what you thought you could do at the beginning.

Predicting your performance before you dived is only testing your ability to predict the future in my opinion! :martial

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying here?

I also believe that freediving is about listening to your body, and this means giving people the right to come up early if they want to. Even a world champion can have a bad day. So what, they did 250m in practice, so they announce 240m? So what? They have a bad day, or they are sick, and they want to come up at 180m? Yes, allow them to. Don't punish them for it. Same thing for deep diving. So the diver equalized to 100m many times in practice, but can't equalize on the competition day. Should we force him to break his eardrums? No, let him turn early.

There is also something else extremely important happening here which no one has mentioned so far. Freediving competitions, both pool and ocean, can be very stressful. So stressful that most people I see eventually 'burn out' and lose interest, because they are not having fun anymore. This 'loss' of athletes creates a major problem for the growth of the sport. Look today, how many people are still competing in international competitions, and were also competing in 1999-2002? Of 1000 active competitors you will probably find perhaps 20 people or less still competing from 10 years ago. At Lignano there were only a few old timers, J.M. Pradon, Battaglia, Junko.

Part of growing the sport is growing the number of athletes. Part of growing the number of athletes is retaining athletes, keeping them interested, keeping them motivated, making sure they have fun.

Part of having fun is being free to do what you feel like doing, listening to your body, not feeling huge stress. The stress of a dive or a swim is MUCH greater if you know that you cannot turn or come up early. By forcing the athlete into the performance by making huge penalties or DQ for coming up short, we unnecessarily increase the stress, decrease the enjoyment, and 'lose' athletes each year.

In my opinion, the best approach to a low stress competition is:
1. Allow the athlete to select the approximate time of the performance (early, middle, later)
2. Allow the athlete to come up early without penalty points
3. Remove stressful rules such as the 'grab the side of the pool' rule, which makes the athlete worry during the whole performance that the timing of the exit might not be 100% perfect. This rule also exists in the ocean, if you grab the float or rope before your airway exits, you get a penalty or DQ. I recall in 2004 Nationals, my whole dive I was afraid that I would screw up the exit by a fraction of a second.

When training depth, I *never* decide the depth that I will dive in advance. How can I possibly make that decision? It depends 100% on how the dive is going. Was the preparation good? Did my preparation feel good? How was the final breathing, packing, and the early descent? How good was the mouthfill? Am I relaxed while sinking? Do I feel an early urge to breathe?

Typically I decide my target depth, during the descent, around 40-50m, after the mouthfill and in the early sinking phase. I am still clear headed, no narcosis, and I have everything I need to know to decide what the safe depth will be.

In the competition of course it is different. I am not allowed to wait until 40-50m on the descent to make a choice on the depth. I have to make the choice the day before-- and I have no information at all, I don't know if I will sleep well, how will I feel, how will the prep go, how the early dive will go, and without any of that information I must decide on the depth.

I think if we reduce the stress on the athletes, the performances would actually go UP, not down, because people would be more relaxed, less afraid.

 

[Billextreme]

Hi friends

Maybe my text was unclear, sorry for that.

I am not talking about the point system and how to use penalties with the use of AP and RP. What I try to say is that the AP was before more important, this because it was considered a good thing to know your capacity and "prove it".Then it was also a tool to separate to exact same performances, and that was a bonus, and also to make sure to have the most excitement in the end of a DYN comp. But the last part there is more or less gone because of "start-strategy" that was very rare earlier when the DYN comp started to be more popular.

Of course we could say yes for similar results in the comp-resultslist, we already do this if an athlete announce the same and then perform the same. And it would not be that big step if we just took away on "step" in that ranking procedure.

Of course we could adjust and make the penalty-system better than today, there is plenty room for that. The evolution of our sport is going quick forward and our rules have to follow. But I most say that the AP is heavily needed for our depth-dicsiplines in the way we perform those competitions today.

Then I would like to end with saying that I favor a system that keep a perfect record of all BO's in all AIDA competitions...

have a nice day
/B