Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516
Results 301 to 306 of 306

Thread: Olympic 2008 - Women's Gymnastics

  1. #301
    Senior Member yittz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    it does because we do not know the true difference. for example, say the true difference between Liukin's routine and He's routine is a 9.1 and a 9.0 respectively, then the true difference would be 0.1 in favor of Liukin. However, if one judge gives Liukin a 9.2 while giving He a 9.0, the difference only deviates 0.1. However, if the judge gives He a 9.2 and Liukin a 9.0, then the diviation is not 0.1 from the "true value" but 0.3. since we do not know the "true value" in this case, we cannot determine the "true deviation". However, the main point is...it matters whether the difference lies in favor of Liukin or in favor of He. Therefore, the 0.15 average deviation you suggest MUST indicate who it is in favor of.



    inaccurate statistical models...yes. you cannot claim statistical significance if you model contains too many possible inaccuracies in the first place. it's been a while since i've taken a stats class, but a puny pool of 6 samples is way too small givin the possible variations.

    just out of curiosity, which model were you using?



    the IOC must check before the final scores are released to the public. That's standard procedure regardless of this incident. For example, in the women's all around, the judges had to recheck Nastia's balance beam score.


    now you are just pushing it. the australian judge is psychic and knows what the max and min scores will be? didn't you just say earlier that each judge judges differently? how does the australian judge know that other judges won't go super easy on both girls?



    you know how to deduct for each mistake or exactly which mistakes there are? sorry, i didn't know you were an professional gymnastic judge.

    it all comes down to whether 0.3 is a significant deviation. 6 is clearly a puny sample size given the possible variations. why don't you look at more data? take the pommel horse tie for example. the "average" difference was 0.3. while the romanian judge thought that the two performances only differed by 0.1, the bulgarian judge believed they were different by 0.7. what now bulgarian judges also suck at their job?

    http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/EN...html#GAW007101

    Agreed. Statistics can be easily misused and people who have don't stats know the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".

    In Chance's case:
    - You have a crap sample size, and yes it does matter.
    - You don't know the true mean, as far as I am concerned I can argue that 0.3 difference in favour He is the true mean and the Polish and Bulgarian judge should be shot.
    - You don't know the population variance nor what kind of distribution it follows, and assuming the sample variance is the true variance, even suggesting manipulating data to narrow the variance.
    - I agree with RYY that it makes more sense not using absolute differences.
    - Even if you find it's statistically different, you haven't established causality, you can argue the Aus judge was biased, but I still trust Australian Committee over your opinion, considering the respective experience/knowledge in gymnastics judging.
    Member of HYS fanclub -> click here to join group.

    Member of TC fanclub.

  2. #302
    Senior Member ChanceEncounter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    it does because we do not know the true difference. for example, say the true difference between Liukin's routine and He's routine is a 9.1 and a 9.0 respectively, then the true difference would be 0.1 in favor of Liukin. However, if one judge gives Liukin a 9.2 while giving He a 9.0, the difference only deviates 0.1. However, if the judge gives He a 9.2 and Liukin a 9.0, then the diviation is not 0.1 from the "true value" but 0.3. since we do not know the "true value" in this case, we cannot determine the "true deviation". However, the main point is...it matters whether the difference lies in favor of Liukin or in favor of He. Therefore, the 0.15 average deviation you suggest MUST indicate who it is in favor of.
    And you can argue this point all day. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether or not the "true" value is a 9.0 or a 9.1.

    When you have 1 judge that differs significantly from the other 5, you have a problem. That's all you need to have reason to be suspicious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    inaccurate statistical models...yes. you cannot claim statistical significance if you model contains too many possible inaccuracies in the first place. it's been a while since i've taken a stats class, but a puny pool of 6 samples is way too small givin the possible variations.
    Which is why I said assuming that the two were tied.

    Notice how there's considerable outpour claiming that Nastia was underscored. I'm not even going to go there. Assuming the two were equivalent, the .3 difference represents a statistical divergence from the other 5 judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    just out of curiosity, which model were you using?
    A t-test, which does compensate for sample size.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    the IOC must check before the final scores are released to the public. That's standard procedure regardless of this incident. For example, in the women's all around, the judges had to recheck Nastia's balance beam score.
    The judges can recheck the scores all they want. Only the technical team has instant replay, and as long as there is no challenge system using instant replay (like the majority of sports worth a damn now in the modern era), or the over/underscoring is not comically done, the judge's original score is going to stick. Which means nothing when the allegation is that the judge was biased. You can't use the judge's own belief in the score to prove his fairness when the allegation in the first place is that he's biased; that's begging the question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    now you are just pushing it. the australian judge is psychic and knows what the max and min scores will be? didn't you just say earlier that each judge judges differently? how does the australian judge know that other judges won't go super easy on both girls?
    You're simply not understanding anything I'm saying.

    Your argument is that the high and low scores are thrown out. This doesn't mean that bumping a score up or down doesn't have an effect. If you bump a score up, it makes your score more likely to get thrown out and minimizes the possibility of a lower score counting.

    In short, one judge is all it takes to throw off the scoring system just enough in close instances like this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    you know how to deduct for each mistake or exactly which mistakes there are? sorry, i didn't know you were an professional gymnastic judge.
    Anyone can grab a rubric and watch the tape in slow motion. You can try it yourself to see if you find the errors. You can even ask a professional gymnastics judge to try to find 3 noticeable errors that differ between the two of them.

    Furthermore, this point is irrelevant, the point is that the routines were supposed to be 'tied.' In the event that someone has a significant deviance from this, when the others did not, implies several possibilities:

    1.) The judge saw/deducted for what no one else did.
    2.) The judge did not see/did not deduct what everyone else did.
    3.) The judge was more lenient on one gymnast than the other.

    In case 3, you have two further possibilities:

    1.) The judge simply missed it/made a mistake.
    2.) The judge is biased.

    The allegation is that the judge is biased. The numbers show that this is possible. QED.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ren Ying Ying View Post
    it all comes down to whether 0.3 is a significant deviation. 6 is clearly a puny sample size given the possible variations. why don't you look at more data? take the pommel horse tie for example. the "average" difference was 0.3. while the romanian judge thought that the two performances only differed by 0.1, the bulgarian judge believed they were different by 0.7. what now bulgarian judges also suck at their job?

    http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/EN...html#GAW007101
    Judging by just what you said, then yes, the Bulgarian Judge sucks at his job. A tie should not have anyone score a .7 difference in execution. Are you telling me that a 9.7 is the same as a 9.0?

    Otherwise, the information that you gave me is too limited. I don't know the start values for the pommel horse routines, and I do not have the other judge's numbers to compare them to. The .7 to .1 difference differs by .6. The .3 to -.2 differs by .5. The two differences are roughly equal, and both of them can raise flags.

    In this case, the fact of the matter is that the Australian judge disagreed with the other 5 judges to a large enough extent to raise suspicion, which called for the allegation of bias.

    No one said that the judge was crooked, and there are certainly plenty of people out there that feel Nastia was underscored altogether, but if you want to argue that the judge's score did not differ, the evidence is not in your corner. The Australian judge had the most extreme difference of the six.

    That's why that judge needs to come out and give an explanation. The original point is that the judge was under fire, and just because the Australian committee, and the IOC that put her there backs her, does not mean that she is cleared from suspicion based upon the evidence.

    That's it.

    Quote Originally Posted by yittz View Post
    Agreed. Statistics can be easily misused and people who have don't stats know the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
    And people who know social sciences know that people and the 'eyeball test' is wrong the most. Humans are inherently irrational.

    You can take your random barometers, and I'll take my statistics, and I guarantee you, over the long run, I'll be right more often than you.

    Quote Originally Posted by yittz View Post
    - Even if you find it's statistically different, you haven't established causality, you can argue the Aus judge was biased, but I still trust Australian Committee over your opinion, considering the respective experience/knowledge in gymnastics judging.
    Which means you don't trust logic, because this is begging the question fallacy.


    You're not understanding the entire point. Let me break it down for you. We know the following:

    1.) The allegation is that the Australian judge was somehow biased (this could be chance error, or this could be other outside factors).

    2.) The statistical test shows that the Australian judge COULD be biased.

    3.) The Australian committee and the IOC support the Australian judge.

    From this evidence, we can not conclude that the Australian judge was fair. We also can't conclude conclusively that the judge was biased, because as you say, we don't know the ACTUAL score of the routines.

    However, if we assume that the scores were equal, it becomes more likely than not that the Australian judge actually suffers from some bias.

    Now this bias could be as range from, "oops, I blinked and missed her legs coming apart," or "wow, the crowd is really reacting, it must have been pretty good," to "I hate Americans and I'm going to **** with them." No one says it has to be the latter.

    There's no conclusive proof that the judge was biased, but there is reason to suspect, especially if you're Valeri Liuken. There's enough there that the Australian judge is not above criticism, and it's not going to get covered up just because the Australian committee supports their buddy. That's that.
    Last edited by ChanceEncounter; 08-23-08 at 12:18 AM.

  3. #303
    Senior Member Guo Xiang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The bubblehead
    Posts
    8,571

    Default

    Nadia Comăneci is still the best. There will be nothing to argue about had it been her who's competing.
    Join us at The Mandate RPG!
    Join the Discussion thread for The Mandate RPG!
    Quote Originally Posted by athlee View Post
    DZC - "Your wife and I, we are old friends."

  4. #304
    Senior Member Ren Ying Ying's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    hell in the middle of nowhere
    Posts
    3,240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter View Post
    And you can argue this point all day. Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether or not the "true" value is a 9.0 or a 9.1.

    When you have 1 judge that differs significantly from the other 5, you have a problem. That's all you need to have reason to be suspicious.

    Which is why I said assuming that the two were tied.

    Assuming the two were equivalent, the .3 difference represents a statistical divergence from the other 5 judges.
    it doesn't matter whether the true value is 9.0 or 9.1, but you can't make significant statistical claims otherwise. You are basically making statistical claims based upon a faulty hypothesis...which of course, makes it even more faulty.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    Notice how there's considerable outpour claiming that Nastia was underscored. I'm not even going to go there.
    from who?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncoutner
    A t-test, which does compensate for sample size.
    i'm not a stats major, but it does NOT accurately & effectively compensate for a puny sample size. secondly, what is your standard deviation and how did you calculate it?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    The judges can recheck the scores all they want. Only the technical team has instant replay, and as long as there is no challenge system using instant replay (like the majority of sports worth a damn now in the modern era), or the over/underscoring is not comically done, the judge's original score is going to stick. Which means nothing when the allegation is that the judge was biased. You can't use the judge's own belief in the score to prove his fairness when the allegation in the first place is that he's biased; that's begging the question.
    the judges may not get instant replay, but the computer does check for statistical deviations. I'm sure you're good at stats, but i'm also sure the computer doesn't suck at it either. if the aussie's judge's score were a significant deviation, don't you think the computer will also detect it? Or wait, is the computer biased, too?


    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    You're simply not understanding anything I'm saying.

    Your argument is that the high and low scores are thrown out. This doesn't mean that bumping a score up or down doesn't have an effect. If you bump a score up, it makes your score more likely to get thrown out and minimizes the possibility of a lower score counting.

    In short, one judge is all it takes to throw off the scoring system just enough in close instances like this one.
    I simply don't understand your manipulation of the data.
    Secondly, i could care less if the high and low scores are thrown out. your initial statement that the aussie judge gave He the highest score while giving Liukin the lowest score is just untrue. Had the aussie judge dropped He's score by 0.1, it still would not have made a difference. Had the south afriacan judge raised nastia's score by 0.1, it still would not have made a difference. I absolutely don't see any sense in your argument here unless the aussie judge KNOWS what the other judges will give He. Considering that all the judges scores for He differ up to 0.4 (including Aussie) scores for Nastia differ up to 0.5, i don't see how the Aussie judge can predict the scores that other judges will give He.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    Anyone can grab a rubric and watch the tape in slow motion. You can try it yourself to see if you find the errors. You can even ask a professional gymnastics judge to try to find 3 noticeable errors that differ between the two of them.
    I don't know which errors to look for and don't know how much each error is worth. I also do not share the same artistic values as the judges and I don't know any professional gymnastics judge to ask for the info.

    But, i do trust professional judeges to know more about gymnastics scoring than I do, and I do believe the olympic comittee has taken their time to choose professional judges, not amateur judges.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    Furthermore, this point is irrelevant, the point is that the routines were supposed to be 'tied.' In the event that someone has a significant deviance from this, when the others did not, implies several possibilities:

    1.) The judge saw/deducted for what no one else did.
    2.) The judge did not see/did not deduct what everyone else did.
    3.) The judge was more lenient on one gymnast than the other.
    Given that some judges thought He did better while some judges thought Nastia did better. Clearly, these judges did not see eye to eye. as i mentioned earlier, the scores for He differed up to 0.4 and the scores for Liukin differed up to 0.5. there is also room for artistic deductions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chance Encounter
    In case 3, you have two further possibilities:

    1.) The judge simply missed it/made a mistake.
    2.) The judge is biased.

    The allegation is that the judge is biased. The numbers show that this is possible. QED.
    FQED---Faulty quod erat demonstrandum
    You cannot even show that 3 is likely to be true.
    Seriously, go to your stats professor and ask if you can make significant and precise. Anything is possible, it really depends on the degree of possibility. You need to show that something is likely, not just a pure possibility. It's possible that I might win the lottery tommorrow, but I wouldn't count on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    Judging by just what you said, then yes, the Bulgarian Judge sucks at his job. A tie should not have anyone score a .7 difference in execution. Are you telling me that a 9.7 is the same as a 9.0?

    Otherwise, the information that you gave me is too limited. I don't know the start values for the pommel horse routines, and I do not have the other judge's numbers to compare them to. The .7 to .1 difference differs by .6. The .3 to -.2 differs by .5. The two differences are roughly equal, and both of them can raise flags.
    the website has the start value. they differ by 0.3. the average execution difference was 0.3, but one judge gave 0.7. That's a 0.4 deviation from the "assumed true value of 0.3 deviation", which is one ore than the 0.3 deviation the aussie judge had from the "assumed true value of 0.0 deviation".

    The point is, scoring a 0.3 deviation from the "assumed true value" is not unheard of nor is it uncommon. how many gymnastics competition have you scored? in order to make the claim that having 0.3 deviation from the "assumed true value" is significant, you need an ample sample size (not a puny 6 in this case). to increase the validity of your conclusion, you need a large sample pool. the FIG have probably seen more competitions and have more experience over what is signficant and what isn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    In this case, the fact of the matter is that the Australian judge disagreed with the other 5 judges to a large enough extent to raise suspicion, which called for the allegation of bias.

    No one said that the judge was crooked, and there are certainly plenty of people out there that feel Nastia was underscored altogether, but if you want to argue that the judge's score did not differ, the evidence is not in your corner. The Australian judge had the most extreme difference of the six.

    That's why that judge needs to come out and give an explanation. The original point is that the judge was under fire, and just because the Australian committee, and the IOC that put her there backs her, does not mean that she is cleared from suspicion based upon the evidence.

    That's it.
    Pretty much ALL the judges disagreed with each other. some by 0.1, some by 0.2, some by 0.3. The aussie judge is at the high point, but the scores are not extreme enough to be considered an outlier. I see no need for the aussie judge to explain herself because of a 0.3 deviation from the "assumed true value". In that case, the bulgarian judge also needs to explain himself. if we take into account of ALL the scorings, god knows how many judges need to explain themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter
    And people who know social sciences know that people and the 'eyeball test' is wrong the most. Humans are inherently irrational.

    You can take your random barometers, and I'll take my statistics, and I guarantee you, over the long run, I'll be right more often than you.
    Statistics need to be applied and interpreted correctly, which is not what you have done.
    Last edited by Ren Ying Ying; 08-23-08 at 02:47 PM.

  5. #305
    Senior Member yittz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChanceEncounter View Post
    And people who know social sciences know that people and the 'eyeball test' is wrong the most. Humans are inherently irrational.

    You can take your random barometers, and I'll take my statistics, and I guarantee you, over the long run, I'll be right more often than you.

    Which means you don't trust logic, because this is begging the question fallacy.

    You're not understanding the entire point. Let me break it down for you. We know the following:

    1.) The allegation is that the Australian judge was somehow biased (this could be chance error, or this could be other outside factors).

    2.) The statistical test shows that the Australian judge COULD be biased.

    3.) The Australian committee and the IOC support the Australian judge.

    From this evidence, we can not conclude that the Australian judge was fair. We also can't conclude conclusively that the judge was biased, because as you say, we don't know the ACTUAL score of the routines.

    However, if we assume that the scores were equal, it becomes more likely than not that the Australian judge actually suffers from some bias.

    Now this bias could be as range from, "oops, I blinked and missed her legs coming apart," or "wow, the crowd is really reacting, it must have been pretty good," to "I hate Americans and I'm going to **** with them." No one says it has to be the latter.

    There's no conclusive proof that the judge was biased, but there is reason to suspect, especially if you're Valeri Liuken. There's enough there that the Australian judge is not above criticism, and it's not going to get covered up just because the Australian committee supports their buddy. That's that.
    Damn your post is long.

    1st point: I never intended to imply eyeball test is better than statistics. My point was on the inappropriate use of statistics, not comparing it to gut feelings. Irrational human + bad statistics still = useless proof. Unlike you with statistics, if I don't stick my neck out and make claims, I don't have to worry about being right or wrong. I am not saying she's definitely clean, but saying your statistics don't prove either or.

    2nd point: Meh you still have addressed the causality issue. The allegations in general were made by biased people, most who don't know the first thing about judging, using eyeballing methods. Bias isn't the only cause of a score difference.

    Liukin has every right to suspect and complain in the appropriate way. What he did wasn't, nor those Americans who jumped on the bandwaggon. If score was appropriate, i.e. what many other people think, or an honest mistake, then the Australian judge doesn't deserve that treatment. If she hates Americans, good job reenforcing that.

    You haven't addressed my other points. But meh, I am sick of this, lets debate how the Chinese diver choked on the last dive.
    Member of HYS fanclub -> click here to join group.

    Member of TC fanclub.

  6. #306
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1

    Default Olympic 2008 - Women's Gymnastics

    On July 19th, USA Gymnastics announced the names of the 2008 Women's Olympic Gymnastics Team. Find out who made it and how likely they are to win in Beijing.

    For the most part, there were no surprises in the selections made after the training camp in Texas. Along with automatic team members Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin, the first- and second-place finishers at Trials, gymnasts Chellsie Memmel, Samantha Peszek, and Alicia Sacramone were more-or-less locks for the team. The one surprise is the sixth member, Bridget Sloan, an internationally inexperienced 16-year-old whose only experience at a World Championships was as an alternate in 2007.
    The three alternates are talented 2007 World team member Ivana Hong, daring vaulter Corrie Lothrop, and experienced gymnast Jana Bieger, whose falls on the uneven bars at the selection camp cost her a starting spot according to team coordinator Marta Karolyi. In a July 20th Los Angeles Times article, Diane Pucin noted that there were some disappointing moments at the selection camp, including lack of confidence from Hong and injuries that cost Shayla Worley and Mattie Larson a chance at a spot on the team.
    Strengths and Weaknesses of the US Olympic Team

    During the team finals, the US will have to put three gymnasts up on each event, and every score counts towards the team total. The uneven bars is the team’s weakest event, and could be the deciding factor in the competition, where the Chinese are particularly impressive. Liukin is strong on bars, with a 2005 World gold medal, and Memmel finished second in the same competition, though a sore neck kept her from doing much bars work at the camp. The two also finished one-two on beam in 2005, an event on which Johnson is likely to compete as well.
    On vault, Sacramone is particularly strong, with several World medals. She and Shawn Johnson are also both excellent on the floor exercise. Johnson and Peszek are also very strong vaulters, and Peszek could compete on floor as well. Sloan is something of an unknown factor, but she may compete on uneven bars along with Memmel and Liukin. The Americans will have to score very well on beam and floor, and stay steady enough on bars and vault to keep up with the Chinese strength on those events.
    [COLOR=#000000]
    $this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://www.asianweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/china1.jpg')
    [/COLOR]

Similar Threads

  1. 2008 Olympic Theme Songs?
    By Ren Ying Ying in forum Music
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-14-08, 12:28 PM
  2. Gymnastics
    By Kolab in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-16-07, 09:08 AM
  3. Women's Aerials Final
    By mysterl0us in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-01-06, 01:31 AM
  4. favourite Olympic star
    By strawberry in forum Sports Talk
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-20-05, 08:58 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •