Contests today are scored the same way they were when Dorian was competing. Each competitor is scored 1,2,3,4....etc. for each round. Add up these scores from the 5 judges, and that's the total for the round. So, if a competitor gets a 5 for the round, that means he received straight firsts. A 10 might indicate straight 2nds, or it could be another combination that equals 10 such as three 2nds, one 1st, and one 3rd. It has nothing to do with normalization.
yes it does.
Do you really think that the top 3 guys in a given Mr. O. were given scores like this (1999 for example):
1 Ronnie Coleman USA 5 5 5 5 20
2 Flex Wheeler USA 10 10 10 10 40
3 Chris Cormier USA 15 15 15 15 60
if they were not "normalized" in the judges minds? The judges were clearly giving scores that reflected the relative placements of the competitors as they saw fit.
The fact that there was a difference of 5 points between EACH competitor in EACH round makes it pretty obvious that the scores
reflect nothing more than assigned placements.Thus, you CANNOT use numerical values
directly to compare different contests.
This means that saying that so and so won by 4 points in 1998 but someone else won by 6 points in 1999 is useless because you are not comparing similar scoring methods- sometimes the judges assigned the same value to each competitor with the exact same difference between different competitors and sometimes they did NOT.
eg. here is another Mr. Olympia (2002)
1 Ronnie Coleman USA 5 5 11 8 29
2 Kevin Levrone USA 15 11 5 7 38
3 Chris Cormier USA 10 14 18 17 59
notice the difference -
so, its easy to see whynumbers themselves mean nothing.
You can use PLACEMENTS in given round to argue a point, but you CANNOT use NUMERICAL VALUES to argue a point because the system of assigning the values (as I have shown above) differs
from contest to contest.
