Everything you need to know about

Scoring Systems 101B

but didn't know who to ask

Low Point/Reverse Scoring works fine for many events but they have several inadequacies:

They fail to change All Race, By Fleet or Fleet by Class winners into Fleet/Class by Division winners for maximum recognition and awards;

They fail to allow Fleets combined for competition to be scored individually; and

They fail to provide Multi-Discipline compatibility regardless of the Competition Format used.

Fortunately, there are two Advanced Low Point/Reverse Scoring Systems

Low Point/Reverse/Relative Scoring

Low Point/Reverse/Conversion Scoring.

The first one, Relative Scoring, partially answer these inadequacies. The second one, Conversion Scoring, overcomes them all.

Low Point/Reverse/Relative Scoring figures All Race, By Fleet or Fleet by Class ranking then sorts the field by Fleet/Class by Division for recognition and awards. Relative Scoring can award any kind of points you want, your choice: All Race, By Fleet, Fleet by Class or Fleet/Class by Division. The term "Relative Scoring" comes from the fact that a racer's Fleet/Class by Division standing is interrelated or relative to his or her All Race, By Fleet or Fleet by Class standing. In other words, a racer's smaller group standing is interrelated or relative to their larger group standing.

Low Point/Reverse/Conversion Scoring, on the other hand, converts All Race finishing places to Fleet, Fleet by Class, or Fleet/Class by Division finishing places and awards Fleet, Fleet by Class or Fleet/Class by Division points; or converts By Fleet finishing places to Fleet by Class or Fleet/Class by Division finishing places and awards Fleet by Class or Fleet/Class by Division points; or converts Fleet by Class finishing places to Fleet/Class by Division finishing places and awards Fleet/Class by Division points.

Sound complicated? Let's see if we can make it easier to understand. You're the scorekeeper of a large Regional Championship. The Notice of Race offers 3 Fleets and a number of Classes and Divisions. The Race Director expects several hundred competitors and plans to run 3 courses, each with its own start and finish line. The turnout at Registration is disappointing and you check in just 85 competitors. The Race Committee decides to start all three Fleets on the same start line 6 minutes apart, race them on the same course (Open and One Design Fleets twice around and Sport Class once around) and use a common finish line. After the first race, the RD hands you one piece of paper with finishing places 1-85 for the combined Fleets and tells you he wants scoring By Fleet and he wants you to assign Fleet points.

In the example above, you can't use Relative Scoring. Although it can figure ranking By Fleet, it's finishing places and totals are unrelated to the racers actual finishing place By Fleet and the racer's actual total By Fleet due to the staggered starts, different number of laps and the lack of a separate finish line or at least separate scoresheets for each Fleet. The RD specified scoring By Fleet and awarding of points By Fleet which means you must use a Conversion Scoring system that converts All Race finishing places into By Fleet finishing places and awards By Fleet points. We could call this option All Race to Fleet Conversion (assigning Fleet Points)".

Here's another example. It's the same event but this time 300 competitors check in and each Fleet races on its own course and has its own start line and finish line. Four races are scheduled the first day and three races each for the second and third day for a total of 10 races. The RD tells you he wants recognition and awards by Fleet/Class by Division but he also wants to minimize the possible "disincentive" factor due to the large number of competitors in each Fleet with the resulting very large point spread. What scoring system do you use?

You have your choice. You can use:

Low Point/Reverse/By Fleet Relative and award Fleet/Class by Division Points. This option results in a printout that shows Fleet finishing places for each race, Fleet totals, Fleet/Class by Division ranking and Fleet/Class by Division points; or

Low Point/Reverse/By Fleet to Fleet/Class by Division Conversion and award Fleet/Class by Division Points. This option results in a printout that shows Fleet/Class by Division finishing places for each race and Fleet/Class by Division totals, ranking and points.

Select whichever scoring system you prefer but be aware of one thing: all scoring systems have inherent design characteristics which could result in ranking reversals! If you were the Race Director, which scoring system would you have chosen in the following true case?

1994 US Windsurfing / Snapple National Championships

Using Low Point/Reverse/By Fleet Relative scoring, the finishing places and totals (with two discards) for three One Design Fleet, IMCO Class, Lightweight Division racers were:

Racer "A": 5 6 6 5 6 7 7 2 10 7 Fleet Total: 44.0 Rank: 5

Racer "B": 6 10 7 6 8 10 23 7 6 8 Fleet Total: 58.0 Rank: 6

Racer "C": 4 4 4 3 2 9 3 34 34 34 Fleet Total: 63.0 Rank: 7

Using Low Point/Reverse/By Fleet Conversion to Division scoring, the finishing places and totals (with two discards) were:

Racer "C": 4 3 3 3 2 3 6 9 9 9 Div Total: 33.0 Rank: 5

Racer "A": 5 5 5 5 5 6 5 2 6 5 Div Total: 37.0 Rank: 6

Racer "B": 6 6 6 6 6 7 8 5 5 6 Div Total: 46.0 Rank: 7

Who do you think was the more highly skilled racer, "A" or "C"?

Ranking reversals like this occur when you convert larger group (in this case, Fleet) finishing places to smaller group (in this case, Fleet/Class by Division) finishing places. The larger group finishing place "point spread" is totally lost due to "point spread compression"; all you have left is the relative standing. Thus, in a way, Conversion Scoring creates a bias in favor of inconsistency, and the greater the inconsistency, the greater the bias!

Note that after the second day of competition (seven races), Racer "C" was clearly the best racer but he left the event a day early and thus received three Penalty values of 34 (NRacers in Fleet + 1), two of which were discarded. However, in Relative scoring, the remaining Penalty score value of 34 dropped him to 7th place while in Conversion Scoring, the remaining 34 converted to a Penalty score value of 9, too low to counter his otherwise excellent scores and he earned 5th place.

So, which scoring system do you think is preferable? Regretfully, the jury still hasn't reached an unanimous decision on this matter! Many respected RD's prefer Relative and many respected RD's prefer Conversion. Generally speaking:

If you value skill level more highly than consistency (remember, Racer C was clearly the better racer after two days of racing), you'd select Conversion Scoring. On the other hand,

If you value consistency more highly than skill level (remember, Racer A was clearly more consistent after three days of racing) then you'd select Relative Scoring.

Both are equitable indicators of who should win and it's your decision which to use.

This same "point spread compression" challenge also prevents Conversion Scoring from being used in multi-heat Slalom Racing, since the compression can be extreme with the small racing groups. For example, take a Slalom Heat of 8 racers representing 5 Divisions. If you converted their overall finishing places of 1 through 8 to their Division finishing places, you'd have five First Places! The resulting totals and ranking would probably be meaningless. If you want to maximize recognition and awards, then, for Slalom Racing (and Course Racing with small Divisions), your best option would be Low Point/Reverse/Relative scoring!

Conversion Scoring also has a couple of other downsides. When scored manually, the conversion process is slow, complex and extremely subject to error but these objections are irrelevant with good software, like RaceManPro, and a fast computer. Finally, the conversion process may result in more ties which in the interest of fairness should be broken in favor of the racer with the higher Fleet ranking, which adds a third tie-breaking rule.

Maybe We All Take It Too Seriously

Now, just for the fun of it, I'd like to leave you with some "food for thought". I've been asked many times, concerning the example above, which system I personally prefer and my answer is simply, "Neither". You see, "point spread compression" actually occurs in both systems which is why neither system can determine the top performer with total accuracy! Let me explain.

The bottom line of windsurfing racing is who makes it across the line first (e.g. who has the shortest elapsed time) and, if the event has more than one race, who does it most often (e.g. who has the total overall shortest elapsed time).

However, in scoring windsurfing races, we don't record starting and finishing times like our sailboating friends! Instead, we record finishing places which effectively compresses time differences (in hours, minutes and second) to exactly one second or "place".

For example, the first racer across the line might have an elapsed time of 25 minutes and 30 seconds; the second racer 25:35; the third racer 29:05; the fourth racer, 35:15 and the fifth racer, 40:30. Obviously, the top performers were the first and second place racers (only 5 seconds apart with everyone else trailing by up to 15 minutes) yet only one ranking place or point separates the top five or the entire group for that matter.

Thus, the only measure of which racer is really the top performer in the 1994 US Windsurfing Snapple National Championships is which had the total overall shortest elapsed time and since we don't have that data, then neither system has any edge over the other except in terms of the previously defined preferences of skill level over consistency, which remember, are moot points!

While yacht racing uses FINISHING TIMES, windsurfing racing uses FINISHING PLACES ... so, in the case of a multi-race event, why are we taking our racing results so seriously as if our scoring system was completely and totally valid? I think we put way too much emphasis on who wins, when in fact, the scoring procedures we use really can't tell us clearly who wins because we don't keep track of the most important indicator of skill there is: who has the total overall shortest elapsed time

Robby Naish and Paolo Rista Compete With the Oahu Locals

Here's another example of the point I'm trying to make. For three years, I was Race Coordinator/Race Director for all the races on Oahu and we scheduled Saturday events every two weeks plus two or three week long regattas during the summer. One week, Robby Naish and Italian Paolo Rista were in town so I invited them to come race with the locals, which they graciously agreed to do. This particular day we scheduled Course Racing and set a M" course with a long upwind leg and each race was TWO LAPS. Robby and Paulo didn't want to interfere with the "real competition" so delayed their start but still they lapped the rest of the fleet! They finished their two laps just as our local leaders completed their first lap! On the score sheet, it was Robby 1st, Paulo on his heels for a close 2nd, and our fastest local contender 3rd ... but since Robby and Paolo lapped him, he took twice as long to finish as they did! On paper, his 3rd Place ranking would certainly give him bragging rights and who would know far behind he actually was? In all honesty, that was a humbling experience for all the local racers! We saw a lot of heads down and shaking that day! Now you see how recording of finishing places really may not be a good indicator of skill level ... so why are we taking racing so seriously?

If you're just starting a racing program in your area, keep it simple, put everyone in the Sport Class and use "Cooperative Competition" scoring! If you must go in for "Antagonistic Competition" scoring, at least keep it simple, use the Low Point/Reverse/Relative Scoring System, and remind everyone not to take the results too seriously.

Remember, an Event conducted properly is more fun for everyone! Best wishes for a successful racing season.

>>>