Fractured Axel

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know

So... taking the numbers available on the most excellent Virtual Freestyle page I have dredged up some "results".

• I only used the normalised scores, not absolute and not placing. Because.
• Two tables:- one is total, so biased towards participation. Another, decayed against time. 100% for the last round, 80%, 60%, 40%, 20% then 10% for all other rounds.
• I am considering a "top X" table with just someone's best few numbers.

And...
for the decayed scores:-

• Bryan Beasley
• Adrian Atherton
• Alex Belov
• Tom Patterson
• Krijn Hemminga

For all available results:-

• Bryan Beasley
• Tom Patterson
• Alex Belov
• Dave Hearn
• Gerardo Fisanotti

I find this interesting but then again I am distinctly odd that way. However, I don't think it proves much Presenting all the data for 96 different people in a comprehensible way seems unlikely. I may try to dig out the missing 10 rounds as the evenings draw in.

Mike.

And if anyone expected me to have an idea about playing with the data and not immediately do it....

All of the available scoring data is in (missing 14,9,7~1) and taking the top 5 rounds for each person:-

• Alex Belov
• Bryan Beasley
• David Rüger
• Davide Equizzi
• Will Sturdy

(I am going to need those missing numbers to get 6-time winner Piero Serra to the top of this list)

Looking at the squiggly lines that the scores produces I can see some things of note. But mostly it's just squiggly lines.

Mike.

I am not sure how you can extract a rank based on entirely subjective scoring values from a never-the-same set of judges. I would say the only thing that can be averaged across rounds is rank.

But for sure, if Piero is not #1, the system is broken.

obi

To Quote Disreali " There are 3 types of lies, white lies, damn lies and statistics"
Pretty much sums up how statistics works to me.
Mike