What if Strongman Used a Different Scoring System?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Big Loz Official, in association with MIRAFIT. The best strength and conditioning equipment store in the UK. Shop here: bit.ly/44I90zf
For Strength and Conditioning coaching and enquires visit bigloz.fitphas...
For a 5% discount with Gold Standard Nutrition click tidd.ly/3ijhA4f and use code LOZFUEL at the checkout
Like a piece of music we used on this video? It's all from Epidemic Sound www.epidemicso...
For Training Plans, T-shirts, Video Messages and more, visit www.laurencesh...
Join our channel to get access to member perks:
/ @biglozofficial
Love what I do and want to see more of it? Maybe consider buying me a coffee ☕️
www.buymeacoff...
👋 Find me on Facebook: / biglozwsm
And Instagram: / biglozwsm
And here's Auntie Liz! / mrs_shahlaei
HR Labs 15% Discount with code LOZ15
hr-labs.co.uk/...
🦍 Cerberus strength equipment 10% discount code 'WARRIOR'
cerberus-stren...
🏆 Official channel of professional strongman, Laurence Shahlaei.
11 X World's Strongest Man competitor
2016 Europe's Strongest Man
2016 Ultimate Strongman World Champion
2 X Britain's Strongest Man
2 X Winner of Strongman Champions League
2017 UK's Strongest Man,
British RAW Powerlifting record holder
2023 Britain's Strongest Master
This is a much refreshing insight. Shows how amazing Hafthor and Magnus Samuelsson are!
When Thor and Mateusz win, they really smash everybody by significant margins
Here's my system, it has the advantage of rewarding larger gaps between 1st and 2nd in individual events and encouraging record breaking performances, it is agnostic to how other athletes fall between podium finishers on individual events, it doesn't punish a "zero/DNP" finish such as from injury, acute medical, apparatus, or rules debacles any more than an uninspired, mendoza performance:
-Each Event win is worth 100 points
-Each event has a minimum threshold established to score above 0 points
-Any event performance between between the minimum and the winning performance is given a proportional amount of points
(this is easy to calculate for events with one time/weight/distance, for other events, such a log medley for reps or time, guidelines would need to be pre-established for proportional points)
@@1vootman Exactly my issue. The placing point system doesn’t reward performance/effort. Even tho Thor and Mateusz are far far better at many events than anyone else in the world, they only get one point more than 2nd place, even tho they often did way better than anyone else.
@@SpiderWaffle elaborate on the calculation please?
@@GoofballLOL For single parameter events like deadlift for weight, carry for distance, hold for time ect. It's very straight forward. E.G. a carry for distance, the minimum line is set at 50ft, (decided beforehand), winner goes 150ft, 2nd place goes 100ft, 3rd place goes 75ft. Winner would get 100 points, 2nd would get 50 points, 3rd would get 25ft. You do a linear interpolation between the minimum and the highest number achieved.
For multi-parameter events you need to establish certain guidelines/formulas before the contest. Consider a multi-parameter event such as a 5 log log ladder for time. A possible system could be matching the highest log achieved will guarantee 75% of the points regardless of time, then time will add on more points from there proportionally to the winning time for that log minus the minimum time. Fastest time for one log below that will get 75% of the points and no add on for time. Next fastest time for that 2nd best log will get 50% + proportionality to fastest time for that log. ect. Yes some system would have be arbitrarily decided, but this could be done before the event, every athlete can see, guidelines and expectation can come to be and numbers can be more fine-tuned for future events.
Yeah the winner needs to be rewarded more. Just getting a single point over the second seems wrong
They score almost like decathlon in some grip comps.
Winner gets 100 points then it’s % based off of that, means you have to try your best on every event, but must be bloody difficult to work out 😅
That's exactly what I want. Everyone has to try and even the winners have reason to push further than they may need
This I could see more than any other suggestion I system I've heard suggested.
It would really negate when an event is too light and the separation is really small. While still showing the weaknesses.
I'm curious, is it a straight percentage? So a 800 lb deadlift would be 80 points if 1000 was the winner?
This system would be absolutely devasting to zero an event though.
@@stephenhagen8976it’s not absolute there’s some formula I guess - but in grip it’s pretty unlikely to zero as it’s normally light to heavy, strongman would be trickier
i can see that working on max events, like deadlift, however how would you score timed events like atlas stones or loading races?
Here's my system, it has the advantage of rewarding larger gaps between 1st and 2nd in individual events and encouraging record breaking performances, it is agnostic to how other athletes fall between podium finishers on individual events, it doesn't punish a "zero/DNP" finish such as from injury, acute medical, apparatus, or rules debacles any more than an uninspired, mendoza performance:
-Each Event win is worth 100 points
-Each event has a minimum threshold established to score above 0 points
-Any event performance between between the minimum and the winning performance is given a proportional amount of points
(this is easy to calculate for events with one time/weight/distance, for other events, such a log medley for reps or time, guidelines would need to be pre-established for proportional points)
How about keep the scoring and add a prize similar to the “Golden Boot”… strongman with most wins gets an additional trophy/prize/recognition
I would propose the "Mario Kart scoring system" where 1st place would get 3 extra points, 2nd 2, and 3rd 1. So 6 extra points in total which with ten athletes would look like:
1st: 16
2nd: 12
3rd: 9
4th: 7
5th: 6
6th: 5
7th: 4
8th: 3
9th: 2
10th: 1
I do have to say I'd like this better with more athletes like SMOE
This would be great!
This is excellent
Brilliant
Need a blue shell event
This is the real right answer lol
Our Highland Games association scores events like golf. Smallest score wins. So first place gets one point and second gets two and so on. If you won 3 events you would have 3 points, if the next competitor placed 2nd in those 3 events they would have 6 points, so as you go, if someone is consistently first in the events, the margin gets greater as the events go on…
Assuming nobody drops out or zeroes an event, this is functionally the same as the regular system, since you're just awarding place and taking the lowest instead of (number of competitors - place) and taking the highest. In other words, you could take the number of events times the number of competitors and subtract your score under this system and get the score under the regular system and vice versa
+ 2 points for event win 12, 9 ,8 , 7 etc.. we don't know how much better top spot could've gone
I think a bonus like performance of the night on the UFC would be really awesome, especially to mark those specific incredible moments, like Mateusz stone to shoulder 2018, when Thor beat that blazing fast keg toss from Brian right after he said "no one is beating that", and stuff like that.
I just want it to be clearer who is on what points at what time. I think a LIVE scoreboard would create so much more hype with everything moving around a someone delivers an outstanding performance and upsets the leaderboard.
Just adding to that tension a little bit (and making the sport easier to digest)
The best scoring method would be to weigh the points on whose social media fanbase is the most vocal for each individual event. 😂
😂
😂😂😂
😂😂
Eddie Hall 8x WSM
@@danb2083 Eddie and Thor would be going head to head
I love these sort of statistical experiments - my kind of nerdy activity, Liz!
I think the current scoring system is good as is. I can see an argument for adopting a system that gives a SLIGHT point advantage for event wins but then you end up with a problem where beating someone in a timed event by .01 second is worth the same 'bonus' as beating someone in a for-reps event by 2x reps. No matter how you do it people are going to complain that the bonus was either unwarranted or not enough. Simple 1 point per placement sliding scale is easy to understand and remember and it allows athletes to strategize to save energy and plan out potential points breakdowns.
Just give the winner 100 points and then the rest in relation to the result of the winner. So that .01 second loss would mean he got 99 points.
It depends on the competition and promoter, but event wins do matter in the event of a count back.
Winning is winning, regardless of margin. Winning should mean significantly more point than the runners up. Quite simpel.
If you win 5 out of 8 implements, you win the event. You are literally strongest in almost all.
bt what you said is already happening, you get rewarded the same if you win by 1kg on your third lift than if you win by 50kg on your first lift, like Thor looks like hes never trying much at deadlift events because he doesnt get rewarded to push himself to perform
@@Goenie2005 No. Because if you win 5/8 but come dead last in 3/8 you are not better than someone who wins 3 and comes second in 5. That's a literal example they gave in the video for why most events wins overall. People would just stop competing once they win 50% of the events.
It'd be great to see the strongest man win, rather than the most consistent man
its overall strength and so the most consistent in all events is the strongest overall. otherwise you might as well drop the other events and just have a few you think make you the "strongest" maybe bench, deadlift and squat. maybe one day someone will put together a sport like that
@@sharpestbulb Not really if someone is way ahead in terms of strength and speed in 5/6 events, say 20% faster and lift 20% heavier stuff, but the seconds guy is always second, cause the competition is so behind these 2 and this 1st guy goes... in the bottom half of the pack in the last event with still a good performance... and he loses the competition. Despite being leagues ahead the 2nd guy in all of the events. The 1st guy who's stronger by 20% in 5 out of 6 events over the 2nd guy, or the 2nd guy who is only stronger by 40% in one event over the 1st guy? Who's stronger? Idk, u tell me.
@@likeyou3317 That's where the event win bonus comes in. If someone wins 5/6 events but really sucks at the 6th, the guy who comes 2nd in 5/6 then wins once is a better strongman - which isn't necessarily the same as the strongest, it's better at the sport of strongman.
Assuming 10 points max though, with that winning bonus system, guy A wins 5 and gets 50 points plus 5 bonus. Guy B gets 5x 2nd place for 45 points. That gives a gap of 10, so guy B wins the last event for 11 points (total 56) and guy A with 55 points only needs 1 point to draw or 2 points to win then. That's vs the current system where it'd be a 5 point gap.
Whether that's better is up for debate of course. Strongman is basically decathlon on steroids (figuratively...maybe literally...different debate 😆) so consistency should still matter. Otherwise it may as well just be powerlifting, i.e. having much more focused events.
@@ApothecaryTerry Yeah, the 1 point bonus is the middle ground. Some reward to the event winner, but keeping the proportionality. And it's simple.
You are obviously new. Consistent in strongman literally is the strongest overall athlete.
Liz is the queen of the strongman nerds!
For sure, and Nirmal is the king
@@giovannicupello1977Who
I think it would be really cool to see one of these variations just at one competition. One of the great things about strongman is that the formats of the major competitions are not all identical (wsm 30 man split into heat and final; Arnold 10 men 5event; smoe 15men 8events etc.) so it might be cool to see for example just the rogue invitational a different system where you get 1-3 additional points for the first three places: it would help make that competition distinct from the others
(before watching)
The only system I can think of that might be an improvement would be to somehow come up with a pentathlon style scoring system.
That might require unrealistic degrees of standardisation though.
The fact that it makes no difference whether you win an event by a kilo or a ton is sth I don't like about the current system.
But I don't think changing it would make it better overall. But who knows? Could be wrong.
I agree. When you completely dominate an event you should get awarded more than if you win it barely by 1 kg. If you are so much stronger at an event than everyone else than its obvious you deserve it. For example Zydrunas in overhead press Mark Felix in hercules hold or Mateusz in stone to shoulder. If you are better than the second place by a certain percentage maybe get 0.5 points extra?
@@TheDwight12 Mateuzs is a good example he gets penalized alot for his deadlift, but then he dont get any reward for being so dominant in other events like stone to shoulder
Deca/penta/heptathlons are so difficult to follow if you are not familiar with the scoring system, so I think moving to that kind of a scoring system would be a detriment to the entertainment value of the sport.
Here's my system, it has the advantage of rewarding larger gaps between 1st and 2nd in individual events and encouraging record breaking performances, it is agnostic to how other athletes fall between podium finishers on individual events, it doesn't punish a "zero/DNP" finish such as from injury, acute medical, apparatus, or rules debacles any more than an uninspired, mendoza performance:
-Each Event win is worth 100 points
-Each event has a minimum threshold established to score above 0 points
-Any event performance between between the minimum and the winning performance is given a proportional amount of points
(this is easy to calculate for events with one time/weight/distance, for other events, such a log medley for reps or time, guidelines would need to be pre-established for proportional points)
Great initiative Loz & Liz! Points should be awarded based on how athletes performed relative to each other. If you win an event and demolish the competition then you should be awarded more than one point more than second place (2 is reasonable). If you just barely win, then only one point makes sense. Breaking a world record deserves 3 points more than second place.
I like both mitch and thor, but I have been following thor since basically 2011-2012 ish so I like him more. I am ofc a bit sad he is punished so much due to overhead atm but I know for a fact once he improves/recovers more for that he is gonna be scary. It is just a matter of time if you ask me before he will be number 1 again if you ask me.
He isn't punished though. He just isn't good enough overall yet. Plain and simple. Strongman has always been about overall events instead of specializing
@@bronchoped If you are answer with a technicality I won't accept that use of "specializing", Thor didn't specialize in Deadlift or others in detriment of pressing. He had an injury that affects the pressing power. I find it weird that specializing is used when talking about someone who won 5 out of 8 events
@@eladrio2311 he wasn't saying Thor was specializing, he was saying that's how yhe scoring system works in strongman in general.
@@eladrio2311Talk about specializing. You my friend are, "special."
I love this video, such a great concept.
A system based on the decathlon type of scoring would be really possible. If you start an event now that is good for you, you get to go last in the following event and you can pace your effort based on the efforts of the previous competitors. If you start with a bad event, you have to go full throttle on the following events. A system like that of the decathlon would rule that out. If Thor for example would pull 480 kg and the second pulls "only" 450 kg, that would be a significant advantage in points. And be honest, of every one who is watching nobody is counting. They just look at the results and that is a simple excel file to calculate. If you look at the kegg toss, if 3 people clear the same height, and the next one is 1 cm off, that is a serious deduction in points, but in effort it is almost nothing. In my opinion it would be more fair system.
Bonus points should be given for every world record. We want to see more and more world records from the King. This would also encourage him to go for them rather than doing just enough to secure the event win. He definitely could have broken Jerry's 465 raw world record at SMOE and the only reason he did not was there was no extra benefit.
Definitely not. It’s already too heavy for many shows. Many events are not setup like Olympic lifting and y that creates risk.
Strongman Olympics Brother. The 501 wasn't going to be broken at SMOE anyway. He's not all the way back just yet. He will smash a big number when it makes sense.
It would be good to have the 3 judge/3 light system like in powerlifting. 2 out of 3 lights is a good rep.
And have all the athletes go through the same judge instead of side by side judges in head to head events.
I always thought about an ABSOLUTE scoring system... Not a relative one.
Suggestion; wr =100 points. Last place in the event =0 points. (WR - last place)/100=1 point.
It’s an interesting idea but seems like it would be hard to implement in practice across different types of events?
Best I can think is still somewhat relative. Winner = 100pts. Last = 0. And everyone else is scored off their percentage between the two.
Truly absolute scoring would be nearly impossible for new or uncommon events I would think?
@@lukebbuff An additional bonus is that it would motivate the event winner to giv a little extra to get distance to second place. As an example Thor at SMOE in the deadlift and keg.
Here's my system, it has the advantage of rewarding larger gaps between 1st and 2nd in individual events and encouraging record breaking performances, it is agnostic to how other athletes fall between podium finishers on individual events, it doesn't punish a "zero/DNP" finish such as from injury, acute medical, apparatus, or rules debacles any more than an uninspired, mendoza performance:
-Each Event win is worth 100 points
-Each event has a minimum threshold established to score above 0 points
-Any event performance between between the minimum and the winning performance is given a proportional amount of points
(this is easy to calculate for events with one time/weight/distance, for other events, such a log medley for reps or time, guidelines would need to be pre-established for proportional points)
We absolutely LOVE you Auntie Liz!!! ❤❤❤
I always love these stats breakdowns! I agree that the current metrics are most honest, because it rewards the total package aspect. That said, it's very interesting to see how some athletes would benefit and it shows just how good many of the winners were and how famed a couple would be under different circumstances. Samuelsson being a 3x WSM champ under the wins priority was a nice surprise for me haha.
Mitch is impressive as f#%k considering he's 40 to 50 KGs lighter than the biggest competitors. And he's still growing in strength, always working on his weaknesses. Good video. Thank you.
Would it be simple enough scoring system, if the 1st-2nd-3rd place would get 3-2-1 bonus points on top the current point system? So, with ten competitors in competetion, the points would 13, 11, 9, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
I like the 1 point more for the winner since its a relatively small bonus that generally wont make a difference but still awards being the best at an event. However I also feel the current system works fine and doesn't need to change.
the 1 point more for the winner doesn't improve nothing that is the least option I like
@@eladrio2311 "We wanted Thor to win, so you should agree with us."
I think extra points should be given for world records, since it motivates athletes to try for world records instead of just the amount of weight they need to get a certain position.
I don't think the athletes who are genuinely trying to game the points would care to much. Very often the top guy does the least he can do on each event. It's not about breaking a record it's about wining the show, so getting an extra point at the potential cost of gassing yourself out and loosing points in other events just doesn't ad up.
But strongman Olympics would be crazy cool to see. Imagine it's a record breaker show. And you win the show by breaking records.
Here's my system, it has the advantage of rewarding larger gaps between 1st and 2nd in individual events and encouraging record breaking performances, it is agnostic to how other athletes fall between podium finishers on individual events, it doesn't punish a "zero/DNP" finish such as from injury, acute medical, apparatus, or rules debacles any more than an uninspired, mendoza performance:
-Each Event win is worth 100 points
-Each event has a minimum threshold established to score above 0 points
-Any event performance between between the minimum and the winning performance is given a proportional amount of points
(this is easy to calculate for events with one time/weight/distance, for other events, such a log medley for reps or time, guidelines would need to be pre-established for proportional points)
The only change I think could be of any point would be the number of points = the placing on the event, and the lowest score at the end wins. But the only benefit there is that if someone drops out injured then it's of no benefit to any other competitor.
I'd like a system where you point the event proportionally to the best result in an event. Something like: Points=(Competitor’s Performance / Best Performance) × 100.
So if the best result is 500kg deadlift then:
- 1st guy - 500kg (500/500*100) = 100 points
- 2nd guy - 450kg (450/500*100) = 90 points
- 3rd guy - 440kg (440/500*100) = 88 points
and so on. Similarly if the unit is reps or seconds or meters. It'd more complicated if there are 2 units used in an event. Let's say the frame carry at Arnold, we have primarly seconds then meters, and we'd have to overcome that somehow.
More complicated than the current system, that's for sure but.. unlike the other sports, in Strongman it matters how much stronger you are than the others, in my opinion. It's just the raw strength superiority that leaves you in awe, that's what's strongmen is all about. And the current system hugely overlooks that. I can only wonder how many more fights for 1st place at an event we'd have seen with this system. It's the ultimate proportional system.
That's probably why people don't really enjoy Mitch winning... it's because he's too tactical, never overextending in an event, always looking for a loophole in the rules, never trying to make a record... we know why but it's not fun to watch as it is to watch Mateusz or Thor who just demolish competition at certain events... because they can. And they want to show us how much better they are. And I love it.
Personally I like watching Mitch be strategic and consistent. You know he’s going to do really well at nearly every event.
@@camzimmer6898 Well I get it but I disagree nonetheless. Doing well/average at each event is boring.
I agree that it’d be nice to reward demolishing the competition. But I think you’d probably end up with problems on most events using that system. So many events are two units, at least in the sense of “Time if you finish; progress if you don’t”. Any percentage of 4 objects in X vs 5 objects in Y time would be really arbitrary, and create more arguments than the current system.
@@likeyou3317 I wouldn’t say average…If he was average/mid-field in everything, by definition he wouldn’t win comps. He’s usually close to the top or at the top in every event. He won multiple events in SMOE. In other comps, he cleans up at yoke carries and other events.
@@JamesNeve Yeah... I know.
This video could have been an hour long and properly geeky! Loved it!
Edit: I see you guys had the exact same opinion as me about this scoring system haha. Great video! Super fun to do these statistics. I also agree that Formula 1 scoring sounds kind of fun.
As I see a few other comments mentioning, The only "improvement" I could see for the strongman scoring system would be somehow assigning value to how well an athlete does in an event according to some sort of standard, instead of against other athletes. That way if you bomb an event, or if you beat everybody by a mile, you would get more appropriately rewarded for it. The problem is that strongman is a highly non-standard sport, so while this scoring system works in things like pentathlon, decathlon etc. It would probably never be possible in strongman.
Really interesting. Thanks Liz. I like the current scoring system. It’s straight forward and promotes a varied skill set. ❤
Good for u Loz protecting ur boy Mitch
Formula 1 system should be tried out at a few events to make it more interesting
Great video, so interesting. I can picture Liz in peak spreadsheet mode figuring all that out! 😁
Thanks Sci-Aunty Liz for putting in the effort to go through it (I realise it's more maths, but enjoyed Loz referring to using Science in the other recent video!)! I like the current system tbh.
Great video! The effort is much appreciated.
I like the extra point for event win
How about a scoring system based on percentage discrepancy between athletes, or at least implementing a way of giving bonus points to event winners based on this? Of course, that would make it more complicated to figure out, and especially when applying tactics on the fly.
A good idea would be to eliminate as much tactics as possible. I dont want athletes to win because they made correct decisions i want to win because they are stronger than the others
About the percentage i also thouht about somethign like that, but majority of events its impossible to aply, but it is definetly something that should be thought about
Here's my system, it has the advantage of rewarding larger gaps between 1st and 2nd in individual events and encouraging record breaking performances, it is agnostic to how other athletes fall between podium finishers on individual events, it doesn't punish a "zero/DNP" finish such as from injury, acute medical, apparatus, or rules debacles any more than an uninspired, mendoza performance:
-Each Event win is worth 100 points
-Each event has a minimum threshold established to score above 0 points
-Any event performance between between the minimum and the winning performance is given a proportional amount of points
(this is easy to calculate for events with one time/weight/distance, for other events, such a log medley for reps or time, guidelines would need to be pre-established for proportional points)
@@SpiderWaffle 0 score is not punishing no1, if the athlete didnt manage anything he deserves 0, if hes injured he is already out of competition, we dont need to be pushing injured athletes to keep fighting.
The problem is not the scoring systme in those situations, it is bad event managemetn, like Shaw Classic squat, it was just a bad event, its ont the scoring system fault.
And about the "calculate" points is the same as percentage as the other dude said, but u cant use that method for alot of the events
@@wolololer "we dont need to be pushing injured athletes to keep fighting." I agree, the current point system absolutely does this to a significant degree. Almost athlete is competing with some sort of injury in every contest they compete in. It's matter of the type and severity. Often Athletes will already have or acquire a new injury in a contest that will prevent them from competing well in a specific movement pattern or event, but not other events. The current system can greatly reward mediocre performances and encourage injured athletes that might otherwise be great at an event to hurt themselves more to get a good amount of points doing a very lackluster performance. E.G. Mateusz Kieliszkowski in 2019 World Ultimate Strongman final. Or very injured athletes are encouraged to compete amongst themselves and very poor performers for the bottom amount of points in a particular event.
The other big reason to establish a certain Mendoza line for each event with this system is to have well defined lower bound. Without this, some events will have lowest score be a zero, and other events will have it just be the worst performer with a non-zero, reasonably good score. The zero lower bound events would effectively be random and then would greatly affect the points for that event.
Also zero scores, can come from things other than injury, such as Evan Singleton having an acute allergic reaction in World's Strongest man 2020 I believe. Or a poorly designed/implemented event. In Strongman new event ideas are always being tried out and sometimes things don't go as planned. Yes, that's more of a problem with the event, but a system that can buffer against this is much better than a system that exasperates it.
@@wolololer "but u cant use that method for alot of the events" You can, you just need establish certain certain guidelines or formulas before the contest. Consider a multi-parameter event such as a 5 log log ladder for time. A possible system could be whatever the highest log achieved is will guarantee 75% of the points regardless of time, then time will add on more points from there proportionally to time. Fastest time for 1 log below that will get 75% of the points. Next fastest time for that log will get 50% + proportionality to fastest time for that log. ect. Yes some system would have be arbitrarily decided, but this could be done before the event, every athlete can see, and guidelines and expectation can come be and numbers can be adjusted for future events, it would still be reasonable and much better than the current system.
Love the content, and I know you are re scoring comps already completed. That being said, cerebral athletes like most are would still play and game to whatever points system is in the comp. You have to compete to win. Keep up the good work!
I love these kids of videos. Thank you so much.
What about points by place finished? 1st place - 1 pt, 2nd place - 2pts, ... 20th place - 20pts, ... The one with the least points wins
Braindead
What a great idea for a video and great job collecting the stats!
What about relative strength scoring? First place gets full points and sets the standard for the other competitors' points to be calculated.
Example max reps:
1st = 8 reps = 10pts
2nd = 7 reps = (7/8)*10 = 8.75pts
Example speed:
1st = 45 sec = 10pts
2nd = 38 sec = (38/45)*10 = 8.44pts
Pros:
- still limit the max points per event
- award extra points to outstanding performances
- account for gaps eg: 10, 9.4, then 5.4 pts, instead of awarding 10, 9, 8
- account for similar performances eg: 10, 9.9, 9.8...
Point leaders going latter in the athlete order is a significant advantage even if not directly reflected in point totals. They can see how others do and know what performance they need to get what points while others can only make estimates that get less accurate the earlier they go out. At the 2024 SMoE Björnsson knew he could lift the second heaviest stone twice to win and that a warmup lift on the lightest stone might be help. That was certainly an advantage he had over Tom Stoltman and may have helped prevent him matching Tom's performance. Winning so many events lets Björnsson go last a lot.
You're right. But what else would you do?
I like these types of videos, very interesting! Thanks for putting the effort in 💪
I would love to see an adjustment in scoring to see a higher value for winning an event. The effort required in getting 2nd or 3rd is still significant, but not as much as pushing yourself to really get on top. It still requires strategy, but less so than now.
Liz's scientific methods, charts, and reasoning is exactly the nerdy type of stuff I enjoy
I´d propose keeping the scoring system we have, cause as Laurence say it punishes weaknesses enough and encourages wins enough in the great scheme of things. BUT, i would add giving extra points IF the winner of the event stablishes a new world record, someting like +2 or +3 points, this will keep things simple and ecourage atlethes to pursue WRs in competition, therefore we´d have Thor doing a third deadlift attempt even if he already won, for example, cause he can capitalize on that third attempt, or would give Mateusz a big boost back in the day despise loosing so many points in the deadlift so many times, and so on and on.
I disagree, WRs are nice, but they are a completely different competition. The all time best lifts shouldnt factor in to what the competitors do on the day of the competition, only what each of them do.
First place already has the advantage of going last the next event.
Pointsystem works.
Nothing to change.
If you want to win in strongman competition, you have to be good in every event, allround.
Event winner gets most points and others how comes up in results. Fair game 👍🏻
And we have seen some great last events when margins is so small, nobody cant denie that.
People makes 2nd place sound so easy to accomplish, just go and try...
I like an extra point for winning an event outright. Tied wins no reward. Make guys try to win events outright.
Absolutely great analysis thank you very much Liz and Loz! I would like to add that count back should based not on the tiebreaker event, but rather on the most event wins, like in other sports
Points should be awarded based on how athletes performed relative to each other. If you win an event and demolish the competition then you should be awarded more than one point more than second place. If you just barely win, then only one point makes sense. I'd like to see more incentive for these guys to try their hardest for first place.
Athletes are already scored on how they perform relative to each other. If you mean other than a point system, I'd be very interested in hearing your take.
Are you suggesting that we look at performance based on the relative percentage difference between athletes? For example, if an athlete finishes 2nd in 5 out of 6 events, but loses each by a margin of 15% to the same competitor who wins all 5. And then the athlete who wins those 5 events loses the 6th event by 40%.
If we break it down, the 15% margin across the 5 events adds up to 75% total dominance. So, even though the winner of the 5 events loses the final event by 40%, they still come out on top overall by 35% so they would win.
But if we look at strength in terms of percentage dominance over other athletes, it's possible for someone to win a competition by excelling in just one event, even if they don't perform as well in the others. Imagine a situation where most competitors fail to complete a single rep in an event-maybe only one or two manage a lift or two. Then, an athlete steps up and completes 12 reps, achieving over 600% more than anyone else in that event.
Now compare this to another athlete who wins five out of six of the other events but only by a margin of, say, 50% in each of those. While that’s impressive, it only totals to 250% stronger across those five events.
In this scenario, the athlete who dominated one event with a 600% performance would outscore the one who consistently wins multiple events by smaller margins, highlighting how a single extraordinary performance can outweigh consistent, but less extreme, dominance.
We all need an Auntie Liz in our lives..
@@GeorgeGallegos-k2n tits and stats
@@GeorgeGallegos-k2n cuz she’s great.
The fact the the winner of the event gets to do the next event last is probably worth at least as much as the suggested extra point. There's so many competitions where you see the leaders game their efforts in the following events.
AMEN
I think there should be a two-point difference between first and second and one point difference after that. That makes way more sense and motivates people to push harder
I think adding a point for winning a event makes sense, and maybe even adding another one if you beat a world record. It would encourage more world record attempts as a hail mary and probably make some dig harder to get a first place in certain events.
Also it would enforce some standardising in the equipment used in competition which I think is needed really
Why would the equipment become more standardized because they score an extra point for wining?
@Samuel-er6td not for winning, but if there were extra points in world records. Because then they would have to have similar equipment and weights to compare with, so there are actual records to break.
I would like to see scoring similar to a Decathlon. This would really separate competitors if there is a large gap in their ability.
Keep it as is but reward ezceptional preformances. For world records/records on that specific kit give an additional point, not just for the event winner but anyone who breaks that record on top of their event placing. Means more people will try deeper and adds incentive to put on a show
Been saying it for years, it has to be scored like a decathlon. Thor gets punished on the deadlift, since he is so much better than everyone else he should be rewarded points on a system like a decathlon. Also, it would make everyone push their hardest on every event
Then every event would have to be completely standard and regulated by a single governing body. The promoters won’t go for that.
Thor isnt really punished, he can comfortably win it without extending too much energy. Thats a bonus in my book.
You have what we like to call, "newbie vibes."
FYI, one of the most noticeable thing about the strongman sport, is the fact it doesn't have standardized events.
So, no it's not going to be scored like a decathlon.
@@Samuel-er6td I see your point about standardized events. I am still a bit new to the sport i've only been watching since around 2015, what i'ved noticed though is the athletes in my opinion would give more max efforts on each event if it was scored differently ; ie like a decathlon or something similar. Just my 2 cents.
correct me if im wrong but is a stopwatch still being used to take the accurate time in things like the truck pull ? we have seen some very close times lately i think we had 5 guys within half a second at one event and if that's how its being done the refs reaction time is basically dictating the winner.
And the reason for that is because the pulls don't differentiate between the good and bad pullers. It's too light. Vehicle pulls should always be heavy enough to separate.
Good point, human reaction time can be a quarter of a second. And that’s assuming they are trying very hard, paying full attention and don’t have a favourite outcome.
Strongman is a bit of fun, it’s not a standardised, regulated sport.
I mean, what do you expect from a sport where the so called "most prestigious competition" doesn't even have a live stream or way of watching it live...
Points 10 through 1 and bonus points for world records make perfect sense to me. 10 competitors and points according to placing.
the points are perfect how they are for the sport
The Formula 1 system is the best IMO: I think an event win needs to be awarded with more points because to be the best in a certain event usually takes more out of the competitor. Also I believe taht this scoring system would motivate the competitors to try to come first and not settle for 2nd or 3rd (to perserve energy), which means more action between the top competitors.
Only problem with the F1 scoring system, it would require all athletes to compete it all the competitions throughout the year to determine the #1 overall for the year.
Which would increase risk of injury, reduce the amount of competitions or athletes lose points for not competing. Plus it would require larger lineups at competitions, drawing them out longer than they already currently are.
IF it was going to change then I think there should be an extra point for event win if the winner surpasses a certain margin of victory.
If the event is decided by a tiebreaker (2 athletes get the same number of reps, and who got them faster wins) then no one gets the point.
If it is a timed event and no one finishes the whole thing, or the winner wins by less than 2 seconds then no one gets the point.
This is slightly more complicated, but I think it rewards event wins when the winner has a significant victory. Getting an extra point when you did something .01 seconds faster seems unfair.
I like the idea of a bonus point to anyone who finishes an event, so a full deadlift ladder, a full farmer's walk or whatever. Rather than comparative, you could then set a level for bonus points in other events, e.g. 10 reps of something, over a certain weight, under a certain time, etc. May take some tuning and inevitably some will turn out to be impossible (or too easy).
It potentially increases the injury risk, but I think it just makes people think differently about conserving energy and stop as many people from strategically beating opponents by 1cm/rep/kg.
The knock-on effect is that comps may have to be very slightly lighter to compensate, so records are less likely. I also really like someone else's suggestion of bonus points for records, but the more incentives there are to push hard, the more injuries we'll see and those ruin both comps and athletes so all this is complicated...
I agree with both of you, as someone who has just casually watched for a long time, that the current system and the F1 system are both great for these kinds of competitions.
That being said, I would always say unless there is a clear, and large, benefit to changing a system that you shouldn't do it. Not just because it isn't a clear improvement, but also it just makes it more annoying for records and past scoring. I hate when regular sports make changes for no reason that completely change how the stats for something works for no benefit.
Total pounds system! (*True Strength System)
You do a 1,100 pound deadlift, you get 1,100 points!
On events where reps are involved at a certain weight, you add the total weight moved.
Events where weight is moved for a distance/time you add up the weight for every inch moved. If multiple people finish, the difference in time is added to the winner.
This would actually measure how strong an athlete is AND encourage guys to give their absolute best at every event AND seriously punish guys for having glaring weaknesses.
The person who wins the vehicle pull wins the whole show!
@@aarons3014Ikr 😂😂😂😂😂😂
LOL you funny bro, GGs to keg toss. Not all weight is created equal bro.
@@Samuel-er6td that's really not hard to figure out... Your highest thrown keg gives you the weight times the height 🎓🙄🎓
@@joejensen932 It's not about calculating one event. It's about weighing the events against each other, and figuring a way to balance it out so someone like Mitch, doing 9 reps in the squat machine, doesn't end up with a giant lead. Then there's Thor who won the Keg toss, but scoring it by total weight x height, Thor wouldn't get to many more points than Mitch.
Some events don't have as large of a measurable difference compared to others, where someone might end up doing 3 or 4 times more than 2nd.
If you think you have a way to calculate it across multiple events in a fair way, please share.
I'd like to see slight augmentation to pay. It's mostly fine but maybe bonuses for top 3 in each event. For SMOE something like 2500, 1500, 1000 for top 3. So 5k bonus pool per event in SMOE and would vary depending on the overall prize pool for that show. Would still have the overall winner getting the Lions share but gives some of the other athletes a chance to bring home a little something extra.
They should do a bonus for a World Record. Then no need for someone to "push" Thor into a wr attempt, he'd just do it anyway.
This definitely needs to be done.
Great shout, although there's some complexity to it. You'd need to give points for beating the old record - otherwise you could have someone lifting 505kg for the record, next person lifts 510kg for a record and then someone lifts 507.5kg but no record even though they beat the person who got a record 2 minutes earlier.
However, it would also need to reward the person who ends the event with the record, otherwise it somewhat loses the incentive. Mostly this scenario applies to time/distance events, so ignore my stupid deadlift example but it was the easiest one to come up with a good example to explain 😄
On that basis, perhaps 5 bonus points for breaking a record and holding it, or 2 bonus points if you beat the old record but yours is broken during that event.
An extra point for event wins would be good. Reward event wins and create more competitiveness.
Another system that biases towards event wins is to multiply the altheletes placings on each event and say lowest score wins. It was tried once in Olympic rock climbing, and was disliked for many good reasons so I'm not recommending it, but it'd be interesting to see how it changes things
If half squats are considered good. Hum, Mitch did what the rules allowed. 3/4 squat...
OK Thor fanboy 😂
Get over it, for your own health's sake.
Brian already explained it was not a squat event, it was a move the apparatus event
@@bdegrdsBs
@@bdegrdsBrian is/was coping.
How about implementing all of those scoring systems into every competition and give competitors a medal for each system win and a prize for winning in the most of scoring systems? :P It could be confusing at the start for regular watchers but with growing of the sport the knowledge would grow too. And it would be fun how competitors swap their places on the podium when different scoring system winner would be announced :D. And finally the winner of most scoring systems would be the overall winner of the competition.
My problem with the current system is it doesn’t measure performance, like a powerlifting total. I don’t have a solution. But ex. If Thor out deadlifts everyone by 20/30kg easily, he still just gets 1 point more, even though he’s much stronger than anyone. And if someone in loading is 10 sec’s faster than anyone he also just gets 1 point more than anyone. The point system sometimes makes athletes get “lazy” if someone is really good or strong at something, or are way ahead in points. A performance based point system would make everyone give full effort all the time, and much less chance for ties. Again I don’t know how to make such a system, just saying my opinion.
This all basically depends on whether you think someone finishing 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd in a 10 man competition (46 points in current system) is stronger than someone who finishes 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st (47 points).
One thing I would note about the different winners under other scoring systems - although it's just for a bit of illustrative fun, it's worth bearing in mind that athletes would train differently if the scoring system was different. So while it may look like Brian Shaw would have lost some of his titles under other systems, I imagine he would have simply changed the focus of his training so he won more events and just didn't bother trying to improve on things he wasn't so good at.
I kind of like the fact the current system makes it difficult for athletes to win overall if they've got a significant weakness. For example, as great as Mariusz is at certain events, it's totally fair that his inability to address his infamous deadlift weakness stops him winning competitions.
FACTS bro.
When it's this hard to figure out a better system, that's when you know there's bigger fish to fry. AKA Athlete safety, and viewer experience.
Tacky, in atlas stones, is it too big of a factor and should somehow be limited?
Problem is, tacky needs to be picked perfect or it ruins the lift. But it does help transfer full power into the stone.
I would think a Strongman comp that scored events instead of placement would be interesting. Events like get the most log lifts given period of time where each lift is worth 10 points or every meter on a truck pull is with 1 point. There would be different incentives to the comp and strategy in events that would be fun to watch tackled. For example, now "just getting 8" to match or beat a competitor's number might not be the best strategy when getting 10 gives you 20 more points. There would also always be incentive to compete - thinking about Mitch really not needing the stones in Giants - because you are always going to be at risk of losing if you can "do as many as you can", it means total scores could be vulnerable till the end. Should this be for WSM...nope. But a new comp using this is something I'd watch!
The whole world of strongman is talking about Thor since his return and even before that. Man is just that great icon of the sport.
There's two MAJOR flaws with the current point system:
1. There's no incentive for stand out or record breaking performances, that is the gap between 1st and 2nd for a given event is meaningless. This extremely bad from a viewer and marketability standpoint as incredible feats of strength are what the vast majority of the general audience wants to see. Shows would even have to put on a record breaker series because otherwise no one will see any records broken, these paid side events often provide just as much if not more entertainment than the regular show. This is also really bad for determining who is stronger or a better strongman athlete. It should matter how much you beat someone by in a given event for the overall assessment. This is very pertinent as usually the podium finishers will have events where they place 1st and 2nd, this is very common, such as in SMOE, Mitch and Throw placed 1st and 2nd in 4 of the 8 events. If Mitch has already secured 2nd but Thor is way better than Mitch at keg toss and deadlift and can put up a WR, I want to see this, I want Thor to be incentivized by the point system to do this and not have to put on a charity show where he has to waste his nervous system to do so and get no reward for it. This is clearly bad for sport on many levels and squanders what could and should be a good opportunity to align the point incentive structure with everyone's interests.
2. The outcome of the podium is heavily dependent on how other athletes do in do in individual events. This is very unintuitive and nonsensical when you consider that their individual performances in any particular event are all entirely separate affairs in which the athletes have virtually no control or direct competition which each other. In F1, they are actually racing directly with one another all together at the same time. In strongman there's no more events like Arm wrestling or murderball anymore, no round robbins, grand melees, or royal rumbles. Why should it matter how far Evan, Tom, Wesley, and the rest throw a keg when determining who's better and by how much at keg toss between Thor and Mitch? You might as well be slotting in how well Brian Shaw practice tosses a Keg in Colorado that day, or if and how much Loz decides to deadlift that day, or if Manchester got a shutout.
These problems encourage collusion, such athletes agreeing on numbers to tie each other at. It also gives a large advantage to going last in an event which ends up helping the previous winners win again and make comebacks harder and the shows less entertaining. It makes drawing straws or doing group stages, both things that athletes don't want do, a large factor and both receive very little viewership. They also make comebacks less likely, as compared to the possibility of a standout performance garnering a large amounts of points; often shows are mathematical finalities for the last one or two events and it kills the entertainment value for the rest of the show.
When taking a broader view, the current system discourages athletes from bolstering their strengths; especially if they already the best at something, and heavily encourages rounding out weakness which makes for a more bland and homogeneous show that's less dynamic and entertaining. People want to see differences among competitors, they want matchups and comebacks, they want to see freaks at something be more of freak at that thing.
Other, smaller, yet similar contests like with grip can do it, why can't you strongman? Do better!
It's easier said, but you failed a saying it, so the world my never know. lol
One way to think about it is: If there where only Thor and Hooper competing, Thor would win 5 events, Hooper 3. Then who is stronger?
If it were only you in this world we wouldn't be here to listen to this nauseating logic.
I think that randomizing the events would also make things more even, in addition to a new scoring method that rewards things like countback in the case of ties, and things like world records and winning by large margins, as well as winning more events in general.
Because so often we hear about how much the events will dictate the outcome of the competition, so if we had a ruling that a show had to be a minimum of 6 events and they were randomized and announced on the day of the comp, it would mean that consistency would still be rewarded.
In all of these hypotheticals that were run using alternative scoring methods, I didn't hear or see anything that I was opposed to. If the point of the sport is to find out who is the strongest, then why not do that?
I don't understand what Loz is saying when he says these other systems reward specialists and don't punish weakness enough, when clearly they do, since you lose dramatically more points if you lose an event.
Right now, Mateusz is 3 ASC titles short because of literally 1 single event: deadlift.
When it comes to pulling planes and lifting logs and stones, Mateusz is king. Those are the events that define the sport.
If I wanted to see who the strongest deadlifter is, I would watch the world deadlifting championships, or powerlifting.
Clearly you need to seek medical attention for that concussion buddy.
Thank you for enlightening some people hopefully. There seems to be so many people upset over false premise.
I don’t the people whining about Thor winning 5 out of 8 did not think it through.
Thor fans are like maga cultists, don't care, not interested in facts or reality, just want their guy to win
@@bdegrds You must be new to sports
@@bdegrdswhat's maga?
@@WinstonGoldstein It's Trump's slogan. Basically OP is a woke liberal who has to make everything political
@@bdegrds Hafthor's fans are loyal and supportive to him because he is kind to each and every fan. I was a Brian fan from the beginning and never realized how kind Hafthor was until I met him. His family is also the same.
The current system works fine, it awards consistency and being good at most things over being very good at 1 thing. Do you get ranked if you have 1 bad event? Yes, but that’s how it should be, it’s a competition not a school sports day. And these are professional athletes
A point for EVERY KILO LIFTED during the event. Most at the end, wins....thats the only other way i could see, to effectively have a scoring system. To where the one who just lifted the most wins.
.......just a thought....feedback???
GGs to keg toss. Why would someone even bother doing an event like the axe hold. You may as well title your competition, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.
Doing 1 rep of a deadlift puts you above someone who who won the sandbag carry.
Top 5 get points in each event, 5pt for 1st place, 4pt for 2nd, and so on.
F1, absolutely, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Very interesting video guys! I knew Liz would be crunching the numbers for us. I like the current scoring model just fine.
I will never get tired of Auntie Liz Science
Great video and interesting result's 👌🏻
Couple finnish guys would have lost titles but Riku Kiri would have been champion one time 🇫🇮💪🏻😎
I firmly believe a system that gives a slight point bonus for event wins will make the events much more entertaining on top of a bit more fair. The athletes will push harder to try and grab the win which in turn will make the events more entertaining to watch for the viewers.
It would make it a much more exciting watch over watching someone strategically aim for middle of the pack positions in order to save himself to reach an overall winning score.
Either that or you take the event winners time and give points to the others based on how much slower they were compared to the winning time. The guy 1 second slower gets close to full points but if 4'rd place is 4 seconds slower and 5'th place is 9 seconds slower, then fifth place shouldn't just get a single point less than fourth place.
Significant bonus points for a world record.
It would be nice so we could see more records go down. Give Thor a reason to hit 505
That is even worst than giving points for an event win, that way u are comparing athletes from the present with athletes from the past
interesting idea but then what happens if guys tie on a world record? or going off other people's comments, what if the WR is only broken by half a second or 1 kilo? is that really worth a massive jump in points?
@@wolololer new competition: world's strongest man ever
Agreed.
I've complained about this a lot , I talked to the US champ that won three out of five events and placed fourth !But that's universal in sports ,not just strongman,in weightlifting the press out rule and inconsistent refing has been an argument for years . Mitch Hooper is a great champion,what ever the scoring method is you have to beat him first.
Great great great video. I hope everyone sees this that complained so much about Thor not winning.
I’m leaving lots of same messages… I’m so excited about this topic.😂
Decathlon scoring system would be the best, simply because other athletes would no longer have any influence on the individual performance of the other athletes.
Right now athletes making mistakes (like Tom on stones) or most being poor at a certain event, have a far too big influence on the points other athletes get.
Right now you can be lucky that if your weak event is also the weak event of the rest, or unlucky if the rest is good at that event.
You don't have to standardize every event to use a decathlon like system, just make a point system for a certain show (for example: deadlift 360kg 1 point, 370kg 2 points, every 10 kg extra gives 1 extra point). Another big advantage of this system is: athletes would push a lot harder on an event they are good at, which is good for the audience. Right now they think: I get this place with this weight/performance so that is enough.
The only change I would make would be extra points for setting a World Record...as it stands now, an Athlete gets to certain point in the event, beats all other athletes, and the stops to conserve their energy...