Author Topic: IFBB SCORING - HOW DOES IT WORK? (Read 3229 times)

Sam · « **on:** March 08, 2009, 12:08:10 PM »

I know the lowest score wins but how do they calculate them?

EG. round 3 Kai has 5 points and Vic has 12. How did they arrive at these numbers?

Sam · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2009, 12:13:39 PM »

Come on Chick- Help me out here

i gotta know!

Sam · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2009, 03:51:42 PM »

CHICK, CHICK, COME OUT WHERE EVER YOU ARE.

How does this damn thing work?

Switznegger · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:13:57 PM »

Ask Milos he seems to know more about IFBB Judging than most.I like how the Judges names NEVER APPEAR.What are they hiding???Pussies.

Sam · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:22:22 PM »

Quote from: Switznegger on March 08, 2009, 04:13:57 PM

Ask Milos he seems to know more about IFBB Judging than most.I like how the Judges names NEVER APPEAR.What are they hiding???Pussies.

I just cant get my head around the randomness of the scoring numbers. There must be a maths formula for it but What the hell is it?

I, for one, am intrigued

Boost · « **Reply #5 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:23:57 PM »

Quote from: Sam on March 08, 2009, 04:22:22 PM

I just cant get my head around the randomness of the scoring numbers. There must be a maths formula for it but What the hell is it?

I, for one, am intrigued

The lowst overall score wins....

But looking at the score card. Vic looks ahead at prejudging?

Chick · « **Reply #6 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:30:05 PM »

scores are added up, and the lowest and highest are thrown out (sometimes 2 high and 2 low depending on how many judges are on the panel)

Example:

Kai : judges 1,2,3,4,5, give 1's...judges 6, scores him a 3, judge 7 gives a 1.....3/1 are thrown out....leaving 5 for the total

Vic: judges 1,2,3, give a 2, judges 4,5,6 give a 3, judge 7 gives a 1 ..........1/3 are thrown out...leaving 12 for the total

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #7 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:31:50 PM »

Quote from: Boost on March 08, 2009, 04:23:57 PM

The lowst overall score wins....

But looking at the score card. Vic looks ahead at prejudging?

You're right lowest score does win and Vic was ahead at the prejudging not by much , back in the old days that's where the contest was usually won at the prejudging very rarely would a guy win the prejudging and loose the show. Chick commented on this last night how they judges use the latter rounds , Kai won both the posing rounds ( individual and posedown ) with straight 5s ( perfect score ) to beat Vic by 10 points not a close contest , he won decisively by clinching rounds 3 & 4

in contrast the 1998 Mr Olympia Ronnie just beat Flex by 3 points one of the closest Olympias ever

Boost · « **Reply #8 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:33:42 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on March 08, 2009, 04:31:50 PM

You're right lowest score does win and Vic was ahead at the prejudging not by much , back in the old days that's where the contest was usually won at the prejudging very rarely would a guy win the prejudging and loose the show. Chick commented on this last night how they judges use the latter rounds , Kai won both the posing rounds ( individual and posedown ) with straight 5s ( perfect score ) to beat Vic by 10 points not a close contest , he won decisively by clinching rounds 3 & 4

in contrast the 1998 Mr Olympia Ronnie just beat Flex by 3 points one of the closest Olympias ever

At the 07 Olympia didn't Jay beat Vic by just 1 point?

Sam · « **Reply #9 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:33:56 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 08, 2009, 04:30:05 PM

scores are added up, and the lowest and highest are thrown out (sometimes 2 high and 2 low depending on how many judges are on the panel)

Example:

Kai : judges 1,2,3,4,5, give 1's...judges 6, scores him a 3, judge 7 gives a 1.....7/1 are thrown out....leaving 5 for the total

Vic: judges 1,2,3, give a 2, judges 4,5,6 give a 3, judge 7 gives a 1 ..........1/3 are thrown out...leaving 12 for the total

Explained perfectly - Thanks chick

Switznegger · « **Reply #10 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:37:10 PM »

Why Not print the Judges names beside their score or is there SOMETHING???

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #11 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:38:57 PM »

Quote from: Boost on March 08, 2009, 04:33:42 PM

At the 07 Olympia didn't Jay beat Vic by just 1 point?

I believe it was by 4 points

Chick · « **Reply #12 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:40:12 PM »

Theyre posted up after the show

Boost · « **Reply #13 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:44:25 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 08, 2009, 04:30:05 PM

scores are added up, and the lowest and highest are thrown out (sometimes 2 high and 2 low depending on how many judges are on the panel)

Example:

Kai : judges 1,2,3,4,5, give 1's...judges 6, scores him a 3, judge 7 gives a 1.....7/1 are thrown out....leaving 5 for the total

Vic: judges 1,2,3, give a 2, judges 4,5,6 give a 3, judge 7 gives a 1 ..........1/3 are thrown out...leaving 12 for the total

Sorry,

In this example where did anyone give a score of 7?

The highest score is a 3 from judge 6

Or am i just missing something

fathead · « **Reply #14 on:** March 08, 2009, 04:45:46 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 08, 2009, 04:30:05 PM

scores are added up, and the lowest and highest are thrown out (sometimes 2 high and 2 low depending on how many judges are on the panel)

Example:

Kai : judges 1,2,3,4,5, give 1's...judges 6, scores him a 3, judge 7 gives a 1.....7/1 are thrown out....leaving 5 for the total

Vic: judges 1,2,3, give a 2, judges 4,5,6 give a 3, judge 7 gives a 1 ..........1/3 are thrown out...leaving 12 for the total

divide the score for EACH round by 5

Sam · « **Reply #15 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:01:30 PM »

Quote from: Boost on March 08, 2009, 04:44:25 PM

Sorry,

In this example where did anyone give a score of 7?

The highest score is a 3 from judge 6

Or am i just missing something

Chick means judge 1 and 7's scores are thrown out - not a score of 7

Boost · « **Reply #16 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:05:12 PM »

Quote from: Sam on March 08, 2009, 05:01:30 PM

Chick means judge 1 and 7's scores are thrown out - not a score of 7

That doesn't make sense.

If the highest and lowest scores are thrown out, then the score of 1 will be thrown out (the lowest score)
and the score of 3 will be thrown out (highest score)

Judges 1 and 7 both scored Kai a 1 in Chicks example

Or am i just being stupid

Boost · « **Reply #17 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:09:25 PM »

Quote from: Sam on March 08, 2009, 05:01:30 PM

Chick means judge 1 and 7's scores are thrown out - not a score of 7

Check the Victor example.

Chick says 1/3 are thrown out.

Here he is talking about a score of 1 and 3.
Not judges 1 + 3

Must be a typo on the First example

Sam · « **Reply #18 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:09:50 PM »

Boost you are not being stupid at all looking at it again.

Judges 1 and 6 will be thrown out

We still get 5 however.

Good spot

Chick · « **Reply #19 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:11:42 PM »

sorry boys....my error...it was JUDGE 7....there was no 7 in the scoring...it's been changed

total score of 9, minus the high of 3 and low of 1 (4) TOTAL SCORE: 5

Sam · « **Reply #20 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:13:04 PM »

Quote from: Chick on March 08, 2009, 05:11:42 PM

sorry boys....my error...it was JUDGE 7....there was no 7 in the scoring...it's been changed

total score of 9, minus the high of 3 and low of 1 (4) TOTAL SCORE: 5

No Dramas Chick, thanks for explaining anyway

just_a_pilgrim · « **Reply #21 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:16:51 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on March 08, 2009, 04:31:50 PM

You're right lowest score does win and Vic was ahead at the prejudging not by much , back in the old days that's where the contest was usually won at the prejudging very rarely would a guy win the prejudging and loose the show. Chick commented on this last night how they judges use the latter rounds , Kai won both the posing rounds ( individual and posedown ) with straight 5s ( perfect score ) to beat Vic by 10 points not a close contest , he won decisively by clinching rounds 3 & 4

in contrast the 1998 Mr Olympia Ronnie just beat Flex by 3 points one of the closest Olympias ever

Yes but only because Ronnie was overlooked in round 1. Ronnie had straight firsts rounds 2-4. After round 1 he was 3rd behind Nasser.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #22 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:19:47 PM »

Quote from: just_a_pilgrim on March 08, 2009, 05:16:51 PM

Yes but only because Ronnie was overlooked in round 1. Ronnie had straight firsts rounds 2-4. After round 1 he was 3rd behind Nasser.

Who says he was overlooked? obviously he wasn't overlooked if he won the contest just because he didn't clean house in the pre-judging doesn't mean he was overlooked , he was right up top.

just_a_pilgrim · « **Reply #23 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:24:10 PM »

Quote from: NarcissisticDeity on March 08, 2009, 05:19:47 PM

Who says he was overlooked? obviously he wasn't overlooked if he won the contest just because he didn't clean house in the pre-judging doesn't mean he was overlooked , he was right up top.

MM thought his colour was off in round 1 maybe that was it. But round 1 and 2 are held right next to each other and his condition didn't change.

If he wasn't overlooked why didn't he finish behind Flex in round 1 in 1999? Or 2000?

Lets face it, Flex was overriding favorite going into that contest with Nasser built up to come 2nd. That's what FLEX mag had and that was the gospel back then. Ronnie had to come from behind.

NarcissisticDeity · « **Reply #24 on:** March 08, 2009, 05:33:43 PM »

Quote from: just_a_pilgrim on March 08, 2009, 05:24:10 PM

MM thought his colour was off in round 1 maybe that was it. But round 1 and 2 are held right next to each other and his condition didn't change.

If he wasn't overlooked why didn't he finish behind Flex in round 1 in 1999? Or 2000?

Lets face it, Flex was overriding favorite going into that contest with Nasser built up to come 2nd. That's what FLEX mag had and that was the gospel back then. Ronnie had to come from behind.

Could be his color was off ...that could explain it and Flex was off in 1999 and Ronnie was noticeably bigger in 1999 and 2000 he was a LOT bigger

Flex was the odds on favorite to win but if they truly overlooked Ronnie in 98 he wouldn't have won it would've been impossible if that were the case , Flex was sharp in 98 and it's been said the reason he lost was because his hams/glutes were soft and Ronnie's weren't that's why he won