On bad scoring tables

As my regular readers know, I am a fan of scoring tables. And that has been true since a very tender age of 10. I cannot explain why this subject fascinates me, but there we are. Whenever I see a scoring table I feel immediately an attraction. From the outset in this blog, scoring was at the centre of interest. Already the fourth published article talks about scoring, and a whole series entitled "Theories of Scoring" appeared in 2021-22. Scoring was the subject of several articles of mine published in the New Studies in Athletics (alas, now defunct, killed by the belt-tightening measures of Lord Sebastian). And it is, of course, the origin of my collaboration with G. Purdy. While writing these lines I realise that I have never published the article I had promised in "A brief history of the IAAF/WA scoring tables" explaining the relation of the World Athletics scoring tables to the Weibull distribution and moreover I have never presented the results of my collaboration with G. Purdy. One day I will keep my word and explain in detail the relation between performance distribution and scoring.

But let's go back to the current business. As you may know, I am a subscriber to the newsletter of Art of Manliness. Contrary to what woke-brainwashed persons might think, the site is anything but macho. Of course it caters to men's interests and lifestyle, and some people find that they tend to romanticize older stuff, but, frankly, most of its articles (shaving excluded) would be useful to women too. From time to time they publish Army-related articles and they always attract my interest. In case you didn't know, I am a big Army fan. I like the Army discipline, even when it verges on the absurd. Discipline, even exaggerated one, is better than no discipline at all. (I just hope that you are not taken aback by my militaristic tendencies). 

No, it's not modern pentathlon

In an article entitled "Are you combat ready?" (reprinted from one published in 2016) AoM were talking about the "Physical Combat Proficiency Test" of the US Army. The test was designed to assess the soldiers' agility, coordination, and ability to perform what the Army calls “warrior tasks”. The test was introduced in 1969 and was replaced by the Army Physical Fitness Test in 1980. Several iterations and modifications of the latter existed up to 2025 where the Army Fitness Test was introduced (but some people consider the PCPT to be the high-water mark for the Army’s physical training tests).  

What was most interesting in the AoM article was the inclusion of the scoring table for the mile run (the last of five events of the PCPT). Mind you, the mile was to be run in uniform pants and boots, so don't be hard on judging the times.

Once I saw the table I could not resist the temptation. I read off the points and the times and I converted the latter to mean velocity. As I have explained in my article "Theories of scoring: the energetic cost approach", the energetic cost of running is essentially proportional to the velocity, in particular for middle-distance running. But this is something that scoring-table builders are systematically ignoring. As a consequence, the creators of the PCPT mile-run scoring table produced a perfectly regressive table where the points grow roughly as a power 2/3 of the velocity. 

But they are in very good company. In fact, since the introduction of the 1985 tables, that were meant to repair the damages done by the Ulbrich tables, we are living with tables that are regressive for track events. Below I give the corresponding fit for the 1500 m of the decathlon scoring tables.

Apart from the initial part of the curve corresponding to very low velocities, the scoring is regressive, the points growing roughly as a power 3/4 of the velocity. 

I mentioned Ulbrich in the previous paragraph. In fact, he was the one who understood that the quantity in which the tables must be cast for track events is the velocity. His fatal mistake was to assume that velocity was the quantity that was determining the performance in field events. Well, it is, but not the velocity itself. The energy expenditure for field events is proportional to its square. By introducing a scoring proportional to the velocity for field events, Ulbrich introduced a counter-productive regressivity. You can read about this in my post on theories of scoring.

The scoring tables I proposed in collaboration with G. Purdy are strictly progressive for all events. On the same point of progressivity, my Décapassion friends, F. et P. Gousset, make the remark that the current tables for throws are only slightly progressive and this lack of strong progressivity throws the tables off balance. I have promised the Gousset that one day we'll write a joint article on this point. (And when this is done I will give here at least an "executive" summary).

The best of the best of 2025 (according to Athletics Podium)

On several occasions I mentioned in this blog the excellent site "Athletics Podium". It is run by the turkish sports journalist S.F. Erbay, accompanied by a team of contributing editors. I cannot think of any better athletics-oriented site on the web. My Turkish neighbours are really the best and, on several occasions, they have pleasantly surprised me with the originality of their articles. (I must confess that quite often I am jealous when I compare the quality of their site to my blog, but, I console myself with the thought that I am a one-man operation).

At the end of the year they published their year's best athletes list and I must say that I found it original to the point that I had to share it with you. 

They did not follow the World Athletics classification of track, field and out-of-stadium, neither one like mine that lists, roughly, the ten best of each sex. The Athletics Podium people decided to list the best by continent, with America split, as usual to South America and NACAC (which stands for North America, Central America and the Caribbeans). They ended up with the following lists

WOMEN

Melissa Jefferson-Wooden (NACAC) and World
Maria Perez (EUR)
Beatrice Chebet(AFR)
Salwa Eid Naser (ASI)
Natalia Linares (S.AM)
Nicola Olyslagers (OCE)

MEN

Armand Duplantis(EUR) and World
Busang Kebinatshipi (AFR)
Sang-Hyeok Woo (ASI)
Caio Bonfim (S.AM)
Geordie Beamish (OCE)
Ethan Katzberg (NACAC)

I find the list interesting but also somewhat surprising. M. Jefferson-Wooden best of the World?  I would put at least three athletes ahead of her. At least B. Chebet gets plaudits for Africa, but this left no place for F. Kipyegon. (Sometimes choices are hard). N. Linares instead of J. Angulo, M. Perez instead of F. Bol or D. Kambundji would have also been my choices but, frankly, how can one ignore S. McLaughlin?   On the men's side I was happy to see that B. Kebinatshipi did get a mention (although that was at the expense of E. Wanyonyi).

The "Rising Stars" are called "Prospects" by the Athletics Podium people. And out of the 12 names I had to look up almost half of them.

Europe: Kelly-Ann Douala Edimo and Jarno van Daalen 
Africa: Prestina Ochonogor and Justice Oratile 
Asia: Puripol Boonson and Yan Ziyi 
NACAC: Liranyi Alonso and Kamari Kennedy 
South America: Maria Maturana and Ricardo Montes de Oca 
Oceania: Reki Selita Roberts and Gout Gout 

As you may have noticed I am not very good when it comes to the Rising Stars list (although I feel that I have made some progress these last years). So, I don't have major objections to the list above. But, still, I think that if there is one young European athlete who merits the distinction that's Hubert Trościanka. (But then, I am a combined event aficionado, so this explains that). 

I mentioned F. Kipyegon, S. McLaughlin and E. Wanyonyi as being left on the shelf. Well, apart from F. Kipyegon, the other two got a mention in the "Top Performances" list. I reproduce it below but I don't know if the order means something.

MEN

1) Armand Duplantis - 6.30m (PV)
2) Emmanuel Wanyonyi - 1:41.86 (800 m)
3) Mykolas Alekna - 75.56m (DT)
4) Rai Benjamin - 46.52 (400 m H)
5) Jacob Kiplimo - 56:42 (Half Marathon)

WOMEN

1) Beatrice Chebet - 13:58.06 (5000 m)
2) Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone - 47.78 (400 m)
3) Anna Hall - 7032 pts (Heptathlon)
4) Ditaji Kambundji - 12.24 (100 m H)
5) Valarie Allman - 73.52m (DT)

It is my feeling that F. Kipyegon's 1500 m 3:48.68 World Record (and her 3000 m 8:07.04 one) should have secured her a place in the Top Performances list. But where I strongly disagree with the AP list is with Rai Benjamin 46.52 s performance trumping the 46.28 of K. Warholm. We are talking performance here and world champion or not, Benjamin does not have the best performance of the year. At least I console myself seeing two throwers and one combined-event athlete included in the top-5 list, as well as J. Kiplimo who was totally ignored by World Athletics in their out-of-stadium choices.

Although I do not agree with all the Athletics Podium choices, I find their approach most interesting and very well researched. But, of course, this is not astonishing: as I said already, they are the best in what they do. So, if you haven't already done so, bookmark their site and think about visiting it regularly.

On the forbidden cartwheel

I have written, on several occasions, on the "spanish style" for javelin throw. It is in fact a permanent regret of mine that this style was banned and it is not used even for demonstrations. A commenter on my article "The javelin controversy" wrote:

The barra vasca [the throwing style of which led to the spanish one for javelin] was the same for javelin as Fosbury flop was for high jump. The javelin community was appalled: "That's not how you are supposed to throw it!".

With the spinners dominating the shot put, it is now clear that the rotational style is the most efficient one for all throws. So why prohibit it in the case of javelin? But this article is not about javelin. Those who are interested in the latter can read my article on the "javelin puzzle" and track my other articles on the same subject from there.

World Athletics is known for their over-conservative attitude. They only allow something revolutionary (like the fibreglass poles) when they are caught unawares by the evolution of styles or implements and cannot preempt it. 

At the beginning on the 00s, Veronika Watzek, an austrian thrower, invented a new rotational throwing technique, the cartwheel. 

(The thrower in the gif above is not V. Watzek)

Nicky Watzek was more of a discus thrower with a 58+ m personal best (and a 15 m shot put record). Googling for photos of her one finds plenty where she is throwing the discus and in fact the logo of her current enterprise "Athletic Academy" depicts a discus thrower.

It has been impossible to find out whether Watzek's shot put personal best was obtained with the cartwheel style. But I did find an article on a young german thrower who decided to try out the cartwheel style. Certainly his past as a gymnast (which by the way was true also for Nicky Watzek) was helping. Starting with a personal best of 10.98 with the 6 kg shot he had a series of shots culminating to to 13.49 m. Does this suffice in order to conclude that the cartwheel technique presents an advantage over the more conventional ones? Certainly not, but it is a clear indication that exploring different techniques, in particular ones that appear revolutionary, may lead to a progress in performances.

When Watzek introduced the cartwheel the latter obeyed perfectly the rules which stated:

The shot shall be put from the shoulder with one hand only. At the time an athlete takes a stance in the circle to commence a put, the shot shall touch or be in close proximity to the neck or the chin and the hand shall not be dropped below this position during the action of putting. The shot shall not be taken behind the line of the shoulders.

And then the codicil appeared:

Cartwheeling techniques are not permitted.

The official reason: cartwheeling is not safe enough. Of course this is pure hogwash. The real reason is that, were the cartwheel method to be proven more effective, there would have been a monstrous push-back by the existing elite who are throwing in one of the "classical", glide or spin, styles. So WA banned the cartwheel style and that's that.