Search results

Here's a real example of someone who isn't even close to making regionals, but can show how the system works: CF: (4574th) 1480-4172-3319-9089-11034-3393 JM: (3270th) 1226-2727-2302-3233-03251-2790 overallDelta: -1304 He did all 6 workouts, so after removing the rankings of people who...

@aaron2025 Correct. A negative delta means that your rankings were falsely inflated by people who were less fit overall than you. This can be beneficial for you if you had a bad score in one workout, but really good scores in all other workouts.

@blessing2012 I pulled all of the 2017 data, and should be able to post it by the end of next week. It probably wouldn't be too hard to add a column for percentile. You could do that in the sheet if you download it to excel and do a little googling to set up the formula. I'll consider adding...

@rom1974 Let's look at the guy who got 1-1-287-134-9 In Central East in 18.2a: 312 lb is 287 points 313 lb is 278-280 (because of tiebreakers) 315 lb is 223-277 (the next weight, there is no 314) 316 lb is 218-222 So there is already some question of should I really gain up to 54 points...

@olboodog Do you know the three well enough to know how they generally rank against each other in workouts? And if so, how would you perceive their overall fitness realtive to each other? Would it align better with the original system or the normalized system (or neither system)? Like you said...

This is an alternate view of the 2018 Open data where the rankings of each workout (18.1 - 18.6) and overall ranking are re-calculated using a normalized system. Athletes who failed to submit a score for one or more workouts are sorted to the bottom of the list (below athletes who scaled all...

@georgearriolamusic Absolutely.

@georgearriolamusic That's what the spreadsheet is for. I wrote a script to make a computer do all the work and tell me the results. Each time the least-fittest athlete is determined, all the remaining athletes are re-calculated to find the next least-fittest athlete.

@goldielocks I agree that the current system probably is what it is, because it is simple. And it does find the athletes who are the very best at everything, the top10 stay in the top10. Of course I plan to re-run it after 18.5 is posted, and I can add a column for competitor id (and affiliate...

@misseldiva Of course. I would love to post the women's data too. And even re-analyze the 2017 results. There's a lot of data out there, so I'm trying to figure out what is the most important, how to display it, how to automate my process a little better, and of course pick out any bugs in the...

@pinfonlica It was all written in javascript using .json files, with .csv to .xls to upload. I'll have to have to check out your repo sometime.

@adenna I don't think the workouts are flawed. What if one workout was just too run 5k for time? It's the same argument that a specialist could win. It's a useful measure by itself, but needs to be combined thoughtfully with other workouts to determine an overall score.

@adenna It doesn't actually care if your scores are consistent. It only cares if your overall combination of speed and strength are better than the next athlete. If you compare someone with 10-10-10-10-10 placement vs 06-11-11-11-11, you could say they are equally fit overall, even though one...

@uncertainthomas Sorry, maybe the wording is a bit tricky. Their "scores" are static (raw reps, lbs, time). The "placement" is how those scores relate to each other per workout (higher "score" means lower "placement"). In the CEF example, assume that we have already dropped all other athletes...

@littlefox Someone who improves overall is a beast in all 5 workouts with a bad score in one workout. But the bad score is not actually that bad if you compare it to people of the same overall fitness level as them. It's a mis-represented score of their overall fitness. People whose overall...

@littlefox Sorry, I was trying to order them by overall total points. At one point I was going to say they go from AJHEFGCDIB to AHJEFGCDIB but that sounded like some weird crytpic code, and it's hard to see the ordering change. Since I was making up the examples as I went, and going from...

@lyliarose When we get down to the 2 fittest athletes, Jason Carroll would have a 1 in 18.1 with 471 reps, Samuel Kwant would have a 2 with 448 reps. This is because there are only 2 athletes to compare that that point, and Samuel is worse than Jason for that one workout. But then Jason Carroll...

@aimee3915 I completely agree that maybe there is some secret pre-requisite strength to make it to the next level. If that's the case, then they should make that the minimum work requirement for rx. Or they should increase the weights of the other events to further separate the athletes if they...

@samuelcox003 I'll try to run NE data again today :)

@jony1996 Sorry, some error occurred when I was pulling data from the leaderboard for that region. I'll try to include it next time.