In the links below, you will find the final results for FrostFit 2014. We’ve reformatted so that you can see your reps as well as your percentage points for each event. These sheets also indicate the weight for each event. In the last few columns we’ve indicated the points after each cut, as well as the final rankings.
There was a lot of discussion regarding the scoring this year, and I would like to comment on this. First, it is important to understand that the events and the scoring system were designed hand in hand, so any analysis of how rankings might have looked with another scoring system is essentially meaningless, particularly because the events were weighted in such a way as to try to equalize the number of points allotted to skills, strength, conditioning and gymnastics. You can find more details about our approach to scoring HERE.
The main reasoning for not using a simple ranking point system, is that it can artificially inflate or deflate scores, particularly in the event of a tie. To read more about why this is problematic, check out our explanation for FrostFit 2012 scoring details. Our scoring system is more accurate in that it scores actual performance rather than just ranking athletes in order for each event. Under our system an athlete is rewarded for each rep that he completes, as opposed to only the reps which allow him to reach or pass another competitor. One of the effects of this system is that to some degree it favours well rounded athletes or well rounded teams, because scoring close to the bottom on an event may lower your score significantly, even if you scored well on other events. Conversely, winning an event can also significantly boost the rank of a well rounded athlete.
Having said that, no scoring system is perfect, and hind sight is always 20/20. Looking back at the events and the results, we could certainly have made some improvements. It would have been absolutely reasonable to count partial laps for Event 3B. This would have been slightly more precise but would not have affected the final standings in any way. The other part of the scoring that is interesting to look back on is the first event, the 3RM overhead squat. We did not predict that many athletes would snatch the weight and not be able to complete the overhead squats. In our system, doing just a snatch made almost no difference in the score, because the goal was to complete the entire complex. However, watching our men’s individual second place finisher Zack snatch 240 was great and it got me thinking about whether that snatch should have been rewarded with more points. Out of curiosity I analyzed how many points we would have needed to award for the snatch to make any difference in the standings and as it turns out it would not have affected final results.
Regardless, we had some fantastic people who worked their butts off for judging, scoring, and everything else that goes into the final results and we thank them for all their hard work. Thank you in particular to my brother the scorekeeper, Charles, who devised this innovative scoring system, complete with spreadsheets and formulas and lookups. You’re amazing! And finally, a huge thank you to the athletes who gave it their all, you were a true inspiration. Without the athletes, statistics geeks like us would have no data to work with! All in all, it was a great weekend, and we hope that the athletes and spectators enjoyed the events.