Static points discusion

[Goran Colak]

Ok, I have been thinking of this for some time now. The thing is, I think points for static performances in competition is under rated in compare with points for other disciplines.

Let's look at 8:00min static, on competition I don't know that much people ho did that, and I think we will all agree this is world class static. How much points one will gain from this? 96!

Lets put this on dynamics, result of 192m is ok result but far away from world class. A huge bunch of guys and couple of girls will do that regularly. And that is distance you need for 96 points.

I know the world record in static is over 10min but, this is world record, made by one man and he is miles ahead of other guys. I am talking of something else.

Well this is a discussion, I am weary interested of other opinions on this subject. At the end my seance of "right" will put static points per second on at least 0.22 points instead of 0.2 points.

 

[H.Balázs]

Hi Goran,

I agree with you, the 0,22 points seems to be more fair than the present 0,2 points, related to this dynamic 'revolution' with new gen monofin types and kick and glide style...

Best regards,
Balázs

 

[chrismar]

So you consider it fair that the no fins disciplines get the same points at with fins then? How about the fact that an 85m CWT is a much harder dive than a 170 dynamic? Static points are the least of the worries points-wise. How about just reducing what a dynamic is worth?

 

[Goran Colak]

So you consider it fair that the no fins disciplines get the same points at with fins then?

Of course it is not right, mostly we have a way to recalculate that on competitions that are serious. But yes I think we need new way to calculate DNF to. Reason why I stated STA in this topic is because on pool competitions on 90% of cases you do STA+DYN for final placements.

How about the fact that an 85m CWT is a much harder dive than a 170 dynamic? Static points are the least of the worries points-wise. How about just reducing what a dynamic is worth?

CWT by my opinion is not that big of a problem, because wherry rarely you have competition that mix pool and depth disciplines in one. And when you do not mix it then all number of points per meter or second are fine. Big majority of competition are in the pool so, by my opinion pool disciplines are the biggest problem for scoring points. You have 3 wherry different disciplines, and they all mix together in scoring points.

 

[H.Balázs]

So you consider it fair that the no fins disciplines get the same points at with fins then? How about the fact that an 85m CWT is a much harder dive than a 170 dynamic? Static points are the least of the worries points-wise. How about just reducing what a dynamic is worth?

I dont think it would be a fact that a 85m CW is much harder or harder than a 170m dynamic !? In my opinion, it depends which kind of freediving do you train regularly, openwater or pool...If you live near of the see or deep enough lake you wil prefer deep diving instead of clorin water. I know many athlets who can dive under 85m, but can't dive further than 170, and vice versa! So, what is with the facts??

Balázs

 

[rxcnc2]

I am glad to see this discussion, though I have little hope that it will lead to much change.
The standard answer is that AIDA defines the points for a discipline, and that it's up to the organizers -if they want to choose a winner for all the various disciplines- how to combine them.

I think that a new rule, if someone wants to consider that, could be that for each discipline the points are measured against the average of the 5 best results of the previous year. I mean in the general competition ranking, without including the record attempts.
So using the 2007 ranking (I compute only for some disciplines)
Men
STA 100 points for 7'45"
DYN 100 points for 220m
DNF 100 points for 166m
Women
STA 100 points for 6'46"
DYN 100 points for 176m
DNF 100 points for 130m

Of course the point scale would change each year, but then who cares.

And since we are talking of DNF/DYN, I would also make a difference between points for bi and mono. This is such an obvious thing to do (see finswimming).

 

[Goran Colak]

Well rxcnc2, this is great stuff you wrote there, simple, effective, easy and fair!

I could not agree more with you...

 

[chrismar]

I dont think it would be a fact that a 85m CW is much harder or harder than a 170m dynamic !? In my opinion, it depends which kind of freediving do you train regularly, openwater or pool...If you live near of the see or deep enough lake you wil prefer deep diving instead of clorin water. I know many athlets who can dive under 85m, but can't dive further than 170, and vice versa! So, what is with the facts??

Balázs

Fair enough, the type of diving you regularly do defines what you will do best at. On the other hand, the ranking lists only show 13 divers EVER doing 85+ CWT, but 28 have done 170+ dynamics. Even worse, 91 divers have done 150+, but 33 have gone 75+.

I'd say that's reasonably conclusive.

CWT by my opinion is not that big of a problem, because wherry rarely you have competition that mix pool and depth disciplines in one. And when you do not mix it then all number of points per meter or second are fine. Big majority of competition are in the pool so, by my opinion pool disciplines are the biggest problem for scoring points. You have 3 wherry different disciplines, and they all mix together in scoring points.

How about the biggest event on this year's calendar, the Team World Champs?

rxcnc2 - Your relativistic ranking system seems reasonably fair, though still has some question marks.

First, your calculation of dynamic is incorrect. The average of the top five results is 229m, a distance only one person has ever done, but did the top three dives in that year. What happens if Dave does that again this year? Dynamic points plummet, while static is untouched since almost all static WRs are done in attempts rather than competitions. End result it a thread suggesting dynamic is underrated next year.

How about Free Immersion? Going on last year, the top five average is 58m. This year it is over 78m. Last year just happened to not have many big free immersion attempts in competition because the top depth guys were focusing on the WCs.

This is a difficult imbalance to correct, but I don't see an easy solution. Statics for the moment would be even worse off with a basis on the world record, but dynamics are messed up if you take the top five and the less popular disciplines vary wildly year to year. Does anyone else have suggestions?

 

[rxcnc2]

Chrismar, you are right. I was looking at an older version of the 2007
rankings. With the updated version, 100 points would correspond to
229m in DYN and 7'52" in STA (for men). It seems to me fair, or at least fairer
than the 114.5 and 94.4 points that these two performances would
get under the current system.

My suggestion can certainly be improved if the AIDA think-tank wants to ponder it. For example, 5 can be changed to another number.
I don't want to make it overly complex, but I would
actually remove the top result (so take for example the best 2nd thru
6th result) in order to avoid some exceptional result biasing the rest,
as in the example of Mullins' DYN (or should T. Sietas decide to enter a regular competition again

For disciplines that are evolving, such as FIM that you quote, the system
would still be fair since one wants to compare points within the same competition (say DYN-STA, or CWT-FIM) and not compare competitions in different years. Moreover, it would give an incentive to people to enter a competition with a discipline which is "underrated". To be practical: if I get the same points for CNF or CWT, obviously when I have to choose one I will always choose CWT. Even worse, some organizers will not even schedule a discipline such as CNF or FIM. With a relativistic point system, these underrated disciplines would certainly get more contestants, so that their points would quickly go up for the next year and be at the right level.

Also note that the "relativistic" system would actually put women and men on the same scale, and actually allow to define the "best person" in a competition independently of gender - something that the ladies might appreciate. Also define a "best of the year" if you wish.

------------------------

For those who are interested, here is the hypothetical point scale
for 2008 under my suggestion of "best 2-6 in the previous year".

100 points would correspond to
Men
STA 7'38"
DYN 223m
DNF 160m
CWT 100m coincidence
CNF 74m
FIM 79m

Women
STA 6'24"
DYN 167m
DNF 124m
CWT 80m
CNF 47m
FIM 57m

 

[chrismar]

You make some good points there rxcnc2. It would be interesting to see if in fact the rankings would be self-correcting with CNF/FIM/DNF. It's quite a bit more complex than the current system, but I agree that it holds merit. Maybe something for AIDA to consider?

 

[Will]

Funny, I just noticed yesterday how the the current world records in DYN and STA give equal points:
10:12 = 122.4 points
244m = 122.0 points
If anything, CWT should be given more weighting:
113m = 113.0 points

 

[ADR]

That's great, nice work Will. Funny how a little analysis sheds a bright light on things

 

[rxcnc2]

That's great, nice work Will. Funny how a little analysis sheds a bright light on things

Funny ok, but it deserves a closer look.

For one, the results mentioned by Will are only for men. And what about CNF or DNF, which get a lot of points less while the performance in my opinion is an equally respectable feat. The point (ooops) being that nobody will enter CNF or DNF in a competition where there is an equal point system against CWT or DYN if they are interested in a combined ranking (the cases of competitions which foresee both DNF and DYN or both CWT and CNF are rare).

For two, the STA of 10:12 was obtained in a world record attempt. I have no doubt that Tom would dominate also a regular competition, but clearly a record attempt has very different conditions. If I remember well, Tom tried for some days. If we take the best STA result in competition, it's quite a few points less than the 244 DYN and we are back to the initial remark by Goran.

 

[Will]

Female world records are 103 (DYN), 96 (STA) and 95 (CWT) points - once again if anything CWT should be credited more.

Of the three, DYN is easily the most trained discipline, so it stands to reason that we will see more points here in competitions, but this is a trend, whereas human potential is more accurately reflected by WRs.

Freedivers are generally weaker in STA at comps, mostly because of nerves. Do you want to compensate for a weakness by giving them more points?

The CNF & DNF topic is a different subject, and I agree with you there.

 

[wolleneugebauer]

Funny, I just noticed yesterday how the the current world records in DYN and STA give equal points:
10:12 = 122.4 points
244m = 122.0 points
If anything, CWT should be given more weighting:
113m = 113.0 points

I think the World Records allone are not the best for comparing. Better is the Competition World Rankig (without the attempts). And dont forget: Tom made a bigbig Step in Static (more than 15 Points in 2 months only).

The Static Competition Alltime Topten is much better to compare:
1) Tom 8'58,
2) Stig 8'40,
3) Sam Still 8'21,
4) Timo & me 7´53...

 

[Bill]

'clearly a record attempt has very different conditions'

Might also factor in something to allow/not allow one man competitions, some real complicated formula involving distance from home, definition of home or a compulsary airplane ride to the meet and a correction for those poor divers that don't have a high percentage of magic muscle fiber.

I'm half-joking of course but I think that AIDA is evolving into a pretty good organization that is making well thought out changes.

My preference is to base the points on an average of performances, including record attempts.

 

[rxcnc2]

Whatever, but it's good to have the discussion (including jokes

Will, your reasoning that DYN is the most trained might be right, but I would have thought that the real reason why DYN gets so many points is the new generation of mono's. I think most will agree that a high-end mono will easily add 10 points or more to your performance, and they did not exist when the current point system was created. I am not aware of a new technique that adds 1' to your STA.

Perhaps another approach would be to treat STA, DYN, CWT as entirely different, and never mix them in a combined result. This would be easy, but organizers would have to find more prizes

 

[B-J]

How about the Nordic Deep point system. Here the Depth diciplines gives you more points and also "nofins" will give you more points.

Nordic Deep point system

CWT - 1 point per meter
CNF - 1.3 points per meter
FIM - 1 points per meter
STA - 0.18 points per second
DYN - 0.45 points per meter
DNF - 0.55 points per meter

Please correct me if my calculations are wrong but I think 100 points would be something like this:

STA - 9,16min
DYN - 222m
DNF - 182m
CWT - 100m
FIM - 100m
CNF - 77m
You can read more here:

Nordic Deep alternative point system

 

[chrismar]

You won't make any friends with the statics guys, but the rest seems close to reality.

 

[efattah]

I think Will T. brought up the most important point. Before we can decided upon a point system, we need to decide what the point system MEANS.

For example,

Approach #1:
- Points are based on how many people in the world can do that performance

Approach #2:
- Points are based on how much training is required to do that performance

These are not at all the same.

Since so many people have access to swimming pools, way more people train dynamic than constant weight.

One diver may have done 300 training sessions in dynamic, and only 10 sessions in constant weight.

Using approach #2, you imagine what is possible with, for example, 100 training sessions in dynamic and 100 training sessions in constant weight.

Approach #2 is better reflected by the best performances EVER of perhaps the top 5 athletes in each event, who have the ability to train a lot in their event.

Approach #1 would be be better reflected by some sort of max/median statistical distribution based on the previous year's rankings.