According to FINA’s event comparison system, Sun Yang’s Textile World Record and 2011 World Championship winning time in the 800 free is worth 958 points. Christian Sprenger’s 2014 World Leading time in the 100 breaststroke, which is neither the fastest in textile, or the fastest of Sprenger’s own career? 979 points.
The system is supposed to be an accurate measure of times across events. In this writer’s estimation, this isn’t always the case. In a fair system, there’s no way that the fastest time ever swum in textile should rank 20 points lower than a time that has been surpassed, in textile, no less, by Alexander Dale Oen, Cameron van der Burgh, and Sprenger himself.
The reason for this is the flaw in the methodology of how the points are calculated. The formula is so simple that I could easily expect any high school freshman with a calculator and no knowledge of swimming to be able to do it in fifteen seconds flat:
1000 x ( World Record / Time Swum ) ^ 3 = FINA Points
This metric takes one data point in each event, and compares every time swum to it. It’s flawed in a plethora of ways. Records, even world records, are not created evenly. It’s true in track, where Asafa Powell’s 2005 100m record was broken six time before Usain Bolt ran a currently unassailable and much more impressive 9.58 in 2009. It’s true in football, where Eric Dickerson’s rushing record from 1984 has been challenged only once, but indications are that Peyton Manning’s passing record from 2013 could be beaten next year, possibly by Manning himself. And it’s true in swimming, where Andrey Sernidov’s 2003 100 fly world record doesn’t really stack up against Mary T. Meagher’s 100 fly record from 1981.
Given the presence of records done in polyurethane swimsuits, the FINA system makes even less sense. In the women’s 200 breast, the 1000 point mark is 2:19.11. In the women’s 200 fly, the 1000 point threshold is 2:01.81. One of those times is a standard, that people can, actually do. Given Pedersen being the record holder, and Efimova being 2:19 mid, there’s a sizable chance the record will fall by 2016. However, world championship titles can literally be won in times well over two seconds slower than Zige’s 2009 record. Indications are that record won’t be broken until 2036, at the earliest. It’s ridiculous to pretend that a 2:19.00 and a 2:01.70 are equally impressive for their respective events.
Even putting aside times inflated beyond the reach of human capacity, judging the quality of a swim by one standard doesn’t really indicate the strength of a swim relative to era. Take for instance Ian Thorpe’s 3:40.08, which is essentially still the standard used today (technically it’s 3:40.07, but we’re not talking about super suits anymore). Going by the formula, a 3:45.00 would have been 935 or so points in 2003. The same time would be the same score in 2013, giving the impression that the level of competition in the event is the same. However, today a 3:45 is much less impressive. That 3:45 could have won silver at the 2003 Worlds, but would have been just ahead of Cochrane for 4th, and ranked 6th in the year. To say that the 400 free has not gotten any faster would be simply incorrect, yet owing to the longevity of Thorpe’s record, the “gold standard” remains the same. The FINA system does not take into account the overall improvement of the world beyond the very top time.
Because of those shortcomings, I propose a new system, which I call “Swimswam Points.” Swimswam points are designed to adjust more finely to the changing tides of training and technology and measure performances more accurately based on the swimming of the overall World Class Community, not one or two legendary outliers.
In the proposed system, the time in each event corresponding with 900 points is equal to the averages of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th ranked times from the world ranking. For each of the past three years, the times from each Long Course season are added up and divided by five to get an average for each year. Then, the averages for each year from the past three years (for 2014, it would be 2011, 2012 and 2013) are averaged together to form the final, overall benchmark. The 800 point minimum is the same, except the times ranking 18th-22nd are used.
For example, the men’s 100 free, based on 2013 times:
900 points: (47.82 + 47.84 + 47.88 + 47.98 + 48.11 ) / 5 = 47.926 → 47.93
800 points: (48.51 + 48.53 + 48.53 + 48.54 + 48.58 ) / 5 = 48.538 → 48.54 (always round up unless zeroes)
Then the overall benchmarks are based on the averages of each year combined and divided by three.
Overall 900 Point Mark = ( Average of 2013 places 3-7 + average of 2012 places 3-7 + average of 2011 places 3-7 ) / 3
In order to calculate the other point requirements, the difference between the 900 and 800 point mark is taken. Using 2013 times alone, it becomes 48.54 – 47.93 = 0.61. The 1,000 point mark is the 900 point mark with the difference subtracted. The 700 point standard is the 800 time with the difference added. Successive point values are calculated by continuing the subtraction. If a time falls in between the set values, it’s rating is calculated by finding what percent of the way it is to the next one. For instance 48.21 is 0.31 faster than 48.54. Because 0.31 / 0.61 is 0.508, we round to the lower score and assign a value of 850 points, because it is halfway in between the boundaries.
(Times based on 2013 rankings alone. If instituted, times from three years would be averaged to create a long-term standard.)
1,000 points: 47.32 [47.93 – 0.61]
900 points: 47.93
800: 48.54
700: 49.15 [48.54 + 0.61]
600: 49.76
500: 50.37
400: 50.98
300: 51.59
200: 52.20
100: 52.81
000: 53.42
Nathan Adrian 2012 (47.52): 967
James Magnussen 2012 (47.10): 1036
Men’s 400 IM (2013 alone)
1000: 4:04.64
900: 4:09.67
800: 4:14.70
700: 4:19.73
600: 4:24.76
etc.
Ryan Lochte 2012 (4:05.04): 992
Michael Phelps 2008 (4:03.84): 1016
Men’s 1500 (2013 alone)
1,000: 14:34.05
900: 14:50.98
800: 15:07.91
700: 15:24.84
600: 15:41.77
etc.
Grant Hackett (2001): 997
Sun Yang (2012): 1017
The system is both effective for shorter races, such as the 100, mid/long-distance races like the 400 IM and true distance events, like the 1500. Granted, there are flaws, for instance the dilemma of top swimmers skipping races or otherwise being not on top form, for instance Park Tae Hwan and Paul Biedermann in the 200 free, or Phelps, Matsuda and Le Clos either retiring or being less than their best in 2013. However the long term 3-year average seeks to minimize that, meaning that one “off year” at the top of an event cannot counteract the true upper limits established by the other years. There’s also a relatively limited range of times accepted. For example, a 365 point swim for FINA in the men’s 100 long course free is a 1:05.63. That can be limiting of the ability to follow your trip up the FINA points table from 10-years old to Olympics, for example. However, for elite swimmers, I feel that the above-proposed system is a fairer comparison across events and generations.
Just for some Info.. except from De Brujin there was any swimmer who broke 3 individual WR on the same OG textile??
Shane Gould.
Gould won 200/400 free and 200 IM all in WRs, as well as winning silver in 800 free and bronze in 100 free.
Unless you think the east germans do not count, Kornelia Ender also broke 3 individual WRs in 1976 Montreal: 100/200 free and 100 fly.
In the above, Robert tried to make a point that Serdinov’s 2003 WR is in different class than Mary T.’s 1981.
Using FINA points:
Serdinov’s 2003 = 1000 x (51.81/51.76)^3 = 1003
Mary T.’s 1981 = 1000 x (59.26/57.93)^3 = 1070 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aaaannddd… we have the winner!
And stunningly, this humongous point was not the result of beating an old previous WR, the previous WR of 59.26 was hers also that she broke in 1980.
This 57.93 must be in the top three greatest swims ever, even a lot more so than her 2:05.96 (only 1010 points as it didn’t much improve the previous WR of hers of 2:06.37)
Krisztina Egerszegi 200 back was worth 1053 points..
De Brujin 56,69 1064 points
According to my calculations:
Egerszegi’s = 1000 x (2:08.60/2:06.62)^3 = 1048
De Bruijn’s = 1000 x (57.88/56.69)^3 = 1064
Men 100 free (textile only):
Biondi’s 1985 = 1000 x (49.36 /48.95)^3 = 1025
Biondi’s 1988 = 1000 x (48.74 /48.42)^3 = 1020
Popov’s 1994 = 1000 x (48.42 /48.21)^3 = 1013
PVDH’s 2000 = 1000 x (48.21 /47.84)^3 = 1023
Magnussen’s 2011 = 1000 x (47.84 /47.49)^3 = 1022
Magnussen’s 2012 = 1000 x (47.49 /47.10)^3 = 1025
Here’s Phelps’ 2007 Melbourne point scores:
200 free = 1000 x (1:44.06/1:43.86)^3 = 1006
100 fly = 1000 x (50.40/50.77)^3 = 978
200 fly = 1000 x (1:53.80/1:52.09)^3 = 1046
(note: the base is the previous year’s WR, not that year’s WR which he broke in February in Columbia)
200 IM = 1000 x (1:55.84/1:54.98)^3 = 1023
400 IM = 1000 x (4:08.26/4:06.22)^3 = 1025
I have always argued that Phelps’ 2007 200 fly WR is his greatest swim ever, and now I have the justification and the basis for that argument. Just look at that 1046 points! mindboggling.
Totally agree with aswimfan last intervention. 0.61s is very diferente from 47.0 to 47.61 and from 53.0 to 53.61… I really think that in that way fina points are better.
I know fina points aren t fair. Especially beause longer races tipically do more points than shorter races because % of time affected in shorter races were bigger with the suits than in longer races (maybe except the 800 by zhang Lin)
The point system would also have to be adjusted as the times slow down and the points get lower; perhaps that could be fixed by adding a percentage of the time you’re adding each time. Add an extra 5% each time, for example. Like, in the 100 free, the first time you would add .61, then the second time you would add (.61)(1.05)=.64. So 700 would be 49.15 still, but then 600 would be 49.79 and then 500 would be 50.46.
also when I read the title, illogical and impractical. I just keep picturing Spock saying it. anyone else agree?
Here’s the correct application of FINA pint system if you want to compare the strength of times (or even WR) across years and across events:
Hackett’s 2001 WR = 1000 x (14:41.66/14:34.56)^3 = 1025 (rounded to the nearest integer)
Yang’s 2011 WR = 1000 x (14:34.56/14:34.14)^3 = 1001
Yang’s 2012 WR = 1000 x (14:34.14/14:31.02)^3 = 1011
Kitajima’s 2003 WR = 1000 x (59.94/59.78)^3 = 1008
Hansen’s 2004 WR = 1000 x (59.78/59.30)^3 = 1024
Thorpe”s 2001 200 free WR = 1000 x (1:45.35/1:44.06)^3 = 1038
Phelps’ 2007 WR = 1000 x (1:44.06/1:43.86)^3 = 1006
Agnel’s 2012 = 1000 x (1:43.86/1:43.14)^3 = 1021
(I am treating Agnel’s 2012 as the actual WR and totally… Read more »
I believe the source of confusion was a type that I made. I should have specified clearly that I meant his EIGHTHUNDRED, not his WR setting 1500. His 800 is about 958, owing to Zhang Lin’s 7:32 world record being the “golden standard.”
Also, it could be said that in your comparison system, there are flaws. For instance, Ian Thorpe’s 1:44.0 vastly outscores Phelps’ 1:43.86. On one hand, yes it was a larger improvement of the record. But Phelps swam faster, and between 2001 and 2007 the world was pretty much the same, no one re-invented the wheel, so to speak, with new suits, or new rules or blocks. I am of the opinion that in this case, the… Read more »
Well, that would be unfair and not very wise to compare textile and shiny (and this case you were trying to compare WRs of 800 and 100 breast). The fair comparison would be made by ignoring the shiny Lin’s, so
Yang’s 7:38.57 is worth = 1000 x (7:38.65/7:38.57)^3 = 1001
So Yang’s 2011 textile WR is still worth much higher than Rickard’s 2014 leading time (979)
I can understand your point of view about faster time is faster and if we only want to have a simple idea which shows that, say,1:43.86 is faster than 1:44.06, than your proposed system is better. But if you want to compare the strengths of times across the years accounting for context, then… Read more »
The point is that every year the system would change. Theoretically, it could be backdated with the top-ranking times from 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1980 to see what Mary T’s swim would have done.
I should have been clear: I have the historical swims (ie Hackett’s 1500 etc) for context. If I was going through with making the final points scored on the system, I would use ’97, ’98, ’99, ’00 times to calculate Hackett’s time. Considering the fastest swim during those years in the 1500 was 14:48, give or take, it would score a ridiculous number.
Also, you misinterpreted what I meant by comparing Mary T and Sernidov. I did not mean to say that they they… Read more »
Robert,
In general I agree with you that point system should be dynamic and should incorporate actual development and that there is a weakness in FINA point system.
But you misunderstood and misapplied FINA point system.
Fina point scoring is dynamic and changes yearly based on the latest WR (for LCM, it’s WR at the end of the previous year). And it’s not retroactive.
In the first paragraph of your article, you give an example of Sun Yang’s 2011 WR of which you said is worth 958 points. But this is not true. In 2011, that WR 14:34.14 was worth 1,001 (as Hackett’s WR that served as the base was 1,000). Yes, in 2014 that 14:34.14 is now… Read more »