Deca Scoring Tables?

[proofs in the pudd'in]

Ok, before I start this let me say I know squat about the Deca Tables. Frankly what the hell does 9039 points mean anyway?

With that said why not always have the scoring related directly to the present WRs. 10,000 points would equal the WR in each event. Whatever the WR is in each event should be set at 1,000 points. This way we could see and evalute their performance against these WRs (the highest standard in each event). Even if the WR changes the relationship would not. If for instances Ashton scored 9039 points it is easy to see how great that is compraed to these standards, as a percentage or a faction. The same with each event - if he scored a 938 in the 100m then we can really see how he is performing not just against some table or the other athletes but the WR holders in these events. As a percentage it would be a good way to compare different eras against their WR holders and the contemporary WR holders and Decathletes.

Ok tear it apart :mrgreen:

[TimRoy]

Re: Deca Scoring Tables?

Let's imagine Eaton has the decathlon he did (the one that earned him 9039 points). A week later, a rival has the exact same marks in every event, except that he puts the shot 10 cm further.

Between the two decathlons, the shot put WR is increased by 30cms.

Thus, Eaton and his rival have identical marks in 9 events, and the rival outdoes him in the 10th, yet gets a lower score for his decathlon?

Is that a fair understanding of a possible scenario in the system you propose?

[trevorp]

Re: Deca Scoring Tables?

Ok, before I start this let me say I know squat about the Deca Tables. Frankly what the hell does 9039 points mean anyway?

Credit is due for your honesty, but you really shouldn't start interfering in things you know nothing about.

That's the Government's job.

[proofs in the pudd'in]

Re: Deca Scoring Tables?

Let's imagine Eaton has the decathlon he did (the one that earned him 9039 points). A week later, a rival has the exact same marks in every event, except that he puts the shot 10 cm further.

Between the two decathlons, the shot put WR is increased by 30cms.

Thus, Eaton and his rival have identical marks in 9 events, and the rival outdoes him in the 10th, yet gets a lower score for his decathlon?

Is that a fair understanding of a possible scenario in the system you propose?

I see what you are saying. Then why not fix the 1,000 point mark at some high even mark like 9.50 for 100m., etc. so that a deca man is not able to go over this mark? I think something that represents perfection should stand as 1,000 points and 10,000 points.

[proofs in the pudd'in]

Re: Deca Scoring Tables?

Ok, before I start this let me say I know squat about the Deca Tables. Frankly what the hell does 9039 points mean anyway?

Credit is due for your honesty, but you really shouldn't start interfering in things you know nothing about.

That's the Government's job.

He! He! :lol: It's fun to interfer - I am just talking out loud hoping some dialetical musings will improve the tables - everyone complains about them or does not understand what the scores actulaly relate to and how to read them other than against the immediate competition. :mrgreen: