by **Cyclingman1** » August 18th, 2017, 11:33 am

The fairness of nonathlon scoring comes up every now and then. The main argument is that the algorithm favors older and lightweight rowers. Furthermore, scoring well over 1000 for an event seems odd for times well below WRs. For example, 1160 is currently awarded for a FM time that is 14 min over WR time for a 60+ F, LWt.

Just did an experiment comparing an actual 71 M, HWt versus a hypothetical 41 M, HWt for nine distances. These rowers are actually in nonathlon standings. The 71 HWt is the baseline. First percentages of actual pace over WR pace are calculated for all events (excluding FM). Those percentages range from 9.1% to 0.6%, most of them being less than 3%. Despite the fact that all paces are slower than WR pacing, 7 of 9 events are scored from 1007 to 1038 for a total of 9134. The target times for 1000 points for all nine events are quite a bit slower than WR times.

The hypothetical 41 HWt is scored dramatically different. If you give him times over WR times using the exact percentages calculated above for nine events, the total score is 8789, some 345 pts below the 71 HWt. In looking at target times, four of them are actually below WR times and the others are quite close.

The 41 HWt receives a score that is only 96.3 % of the score given to the 71 HWt despite rowing at a paces over WR paces identical in terms of percentage to the older rower. I think this discrepancy is only partially related to out of date data. This set of data makes nonathlon seem substantially flawed.

JimG, Gainesville, Ga, 72,190lb,76”. PBs since age 66: (.5,1,2,5,6,10K)1:30.8, 3:14.1, 6:40.7, 17:34, 21:18.1, 36:21.7;

(1,30,60’)332, 8337, 16237; (HM)1:20:25.