leichtathkletik im wandel mit nbl
Verfasser : G.Sonnemann , Berlin , Dez.2010
A. english version of the n b l - method Sonnemann , scoring table combined event
1. Preliminary remarks
The english version the NBL – method is no literal translation of the
In the english version only the important staps of the development of the NBL – method are describel.
In “links “ it is expelled to the german first version.
The new scoring table for performance of all athletics disciplines – NBL
– shows a new quality in the history of the scores.
For the first time there is a point table which brings a fair same
settlement of performance in all performance areas.
( performance equivalence )
Therefore combined events as well as ranking / team events and
indirectly also senior citizen`s performance with a point table can be valued.
The result can be seen in II. /1 D.7.2 ( in pdf )
However, first must be ascertained which mistakes have the valid tables
of the IAAF.
2. Criticism of the current tables of the
The valid evaluation tables IAAF are :
Combined event table IAAF, in 1985 from Dr.Trkal
Individual event score table after Dr.Spiriev
Senior citizen`s evaluation table of the WMA, with
factors in 2010
These tables are examined according to the criteria :
Observance of the performance point- equivalence
Progressivität of the point rows for every discipline
What is understood by progressivität of the point rows, is
explained in :
3. Installation of the new
NBL – method Sonnemann
2.1 the combined table IAAF, 1985
- to the performance – point - equivalence
Which performance are to be considered as equivalent , is also defeated
by the subjectived consideration.
Many performance same settlements of the combined event table IAAF
contradict the event practice,however, so much that they must be called faulty.
Same examples of it :
_ 9,77 sec. in the 100 m –run are after IAAF - table = 1154 pt.
this corresponds with :
long jump = 8,36 m shot putting = 20,87 m
pole vault = 5,77 m javelin throw = 87,15 m
discus throw = 63,42 m
The 100 m performance is undervalued her strongly.
_ 12,88 sec. in 110 m hurdles – race are = 1124 points.
this corresponds :
high jump = 2,34 m long jump = 8,25 m
javelin throw = 85,22 m pole vault = 5,67 m
shot put = 20,39 m discus throw = 62,01 m
The hurdle – race is undervalued in the uppermost performance area.
The score difference of the world – records applying in 1985 was at the
time of the installation of the IAAF-table already 222 points.
Too much with the performance which are to be seen best of all as equivalent.
False scores in uppermost performance area always produce false scores in other performance area.
See in addition the charting in
II. /1 E.6
at the side end, pdf .
The lower performance area is given in the equivalence by the least
All performances are measured according to this by the score formula.
The least performances are protected by no statistics and not to see as
Are 1,50 m not worse in the shot put than 82,00 sec. more than 400 m ?
Or 4,00 m in the discus throw as well 18,00 sec. more than 100 m ?
To the problem of the least performance later more.
_ Investigation of the point rows on progressivität
Progressively is called that the point increase ( Diff.1 ) is itself
rising curve ( Diff.2 )
The following table will make this clear.
Example pole vault with points to IAAF – table 1985 :
Diff.2 Diff.1 points performance
1400 6,50 m
169 1231 6,00 m
5 164 1067 5,50 m
7 157 910 5,00 m
7 150 760 4,50 m
7 143 617 4,00 m
8 135 482 3,50 m
10 125 357 3,00 m
10 115 242 2,50 m
13 102 140 2,00 m
One sees, Diff.2 decrease to better performance.
This is against the logic.
Increase in performance in the higher area must be recompensed more,
than in the lower area.
The reason is the mathematical score formula.
With exponents smaller 2 the 2 nd derivation is always a falling curve.
_ logical appraisal of the score formula IAAF
The score formulae show that performance are always put in the relation to a “ least performance “ .
Where from does this “ least performance “ come ?
It comes not from statistics, but is a purely mathematically necessary
number , so that defensible points are calculated.
Therefore the “ least performance “ have to be valid no claim as
The formulae have with a only one variable.
The allocation performance to points cannot be steered.
Only one equivalence point can be brought by means of a on the point
level which is wished.
All the other performance are automatically assigned to points.
_ the result of the false scores
All Championships and Olympic Games were evaluated in the decathlon
It has appeared, with use of a fairer scoring table :
Every 3 rd
final result on the first three places would
have been different.
To 90 % the order on the first 10 places would be have been different.
See in II / 2 N.2 some competitions in confrontation NBL / IAAF.
2.2 individual event score after Dr.Spiriev
_ to the performance – point equivalence
The table has been put up above all the score by top performance.
In this narrow area the equivalence is also given satisfyingly however,
in the middle and lower performance area the same settlements are not right at all.
Some examples in addition :
_ In lower performance area
_ 1,18 m shot put = 2,41 m long jump ?
_ 2,86 m shot put = 71,23 sec. 400 m ?
_ 3,72 m discus throw = 2,41 m long jump ?
_ 11,96 m javelin throw = 14,70 sec. 100 m ?
_ in middle performance area :
_ 6,44 m long jump = 11,24 sec. 100 m ?
_ 14,38 sec. 110 m H. = 57,34 m discus throw ?
_ 47,95 sec. 400 m = 57,34 m discus throw ?
_ 7,40 m long jump = 18,00 m shot put ?
A continuous performance – point equivalence between the disciplines is not given.
_ to the progressivität of the scoring table
The same statements are valid it like the criticism of the
IAAF – table , no performance – point curve has a progressive increase.
With the jump and throw disciplines these are practically to straight
For a firm increase in performance there is always the same point
more in : II. /1 E.2 , pdf - file
here was shown which there is under the disciplines a natural relation which determines the course of the performance – point curves.
As a example :
Concerning the shot put the long jump cannot have a even as achievement point curve.
This automatically brings false scores.
Exactly like the combines event table IAAF the table Dr,Spiriev is also
to be called only in a narrow performance area fair.
2.3 WMA , Senior citizen`s evaluation , modell 2010
The point calculation for senior citizen`s performance are based on the IAAF – table.
With factors the performances are converted and then read from the IAAF – table the points.
Therefore the senior citizen`s evaluation of the WMA takes over all
mistakes of the basic table IAAF.
Moreover the stiff factor discipline changes the achievement equivalence
of the basic table IAAF.
Other mistakes follow from it.
Some examples :
_ in M 45 are european-record in shot put = 20,77 m.
These are 1414 points and corresponds more than
110 m H. = 10,91 s/0,9151 = 11,92 sec.
Better than the world record in the open class !
_ M 45 : 62,62 m in discus throw =9,465 sec. than
100 m ?
_ M 65 :2,00 m long jump = 2,10 m in shot put ?
= 7,50 m in discus throw ?
= 8,50 m in javelin throw ?
Already achieved senior citizen`s performances of a discipline correspond in other disciplines performances which are far better than the world record in the open class.
Of course nonsence !
The point installations show an overview of all senior citizen`s
classes in II. / C.4.1
and the detailed analysis in II. /1 E.1
in German version.
To make the method on the base of a faulty basic table ( IAAF ) with
stiff conversion factors a good senior citizen`s table ( WMA ) , can lead to no good result.
3. Installation new
N B L – method Sonnemann
In analysis of the valid evaluation systems of the IAAF ascertained
mistakes ( under 2. ) are the starting point of the development of a new table.
With suitable principles , mathematical knowledge and athletics
understanding the mistakes of the current table are avoided.
A good scoring table requires the observance of principles which are
following for the new NBL – method Sonnemann :
which they get the same score must be equally good in the quality.
= principle of the performance – point equivalence
b.) The point increase for the same increase in performance must grow in the performance area higher in each case stronger.
The point increase itself must be a rising curve.
= principle of the progressive point increase
c.) The discipline score formulae must admit a change of the score.
( e.g. cause by better pole vault sticks )
Besides the most important principle is the principle of the performance
– point equivalence.
To the increase of the point rows see also in II. /1 E.4 , pdf
3.2 the concrete development
The quality of a scoring table depends on how well the calculation
formulae can illustrate the performance reality.
Therefore the basic formulae must guarantee a ring point increase as the first.
The principle of the progressive point increase ( 3.1.b. ) is fulfilled.
The point distribution looks – like in the high jump – thus :
Performance points Diff.1 Diff.2 points Diff.1 Diff.2
2,80 m 2029 1623
2,60 m 1484 249 1403 9
2,40 m 1188 85 1192 11
2,20 m 977 44 992 11
2,00 m 810 30 803 13
1,80 m 673 20 627 13
1,60 m 556 17 464 16
1,40 m 456 12 317 18
To fulfill the principle of the performance – point equivalence ( 3.1.a ) one must find the performancewhich one can call after the best conscience equivalent.
It are searched for every discipline and for every performance area ,
performance which come close to be equivalence demand.
= leading points
_ As the first one can call world records equivalent.
Here taken = state 31.8.2007
The evaluation of statistics brings other leading points . These must be evaluated in her plausibility
_ Other leading points are :
. Average performances of 10 world best combined
events athletes of the year 1999 + 2005 .
. Average performances of the top lists DLV ( Germany ) of
the spezialists; place 1 – 10 .
. world records of the woman, state 31.8.2007, in the
100 m / 400 m / high jump / long jump / pole vault
. Average performances of 1955 + 1963 from the former
GDR for the lower performance area .
It is to be noted that also the average performances of the combined
events and the top lists do not have the same level.
The combined events promotes in his composition the sprint-/ jump and produce thus throwing performances which are not virtually the sprint and jump performances.
An overview for the leading points offers : II./1 D.7.1 and pdf- file
Here one also sees how the “ leading points “ with the assessment
formulae are illustrated to NBL.
All leading points are well illustrated with the new score formulae.
In addition several variables are inserted in the score formulae.
Then the general score formulae looks thus :
y = a * f [ b,d; ( x ) ]
y = point value x = performance to be valued
a; b ; d; = variables f = function from x
The variables are so variad that all leading points are illustrated as
good as possible.
An example of the procedure offers: II./1 D.7.3 pdf
Because the leading points from all performance areas are, is protected
that the NBL – method Sonnemann fulfils the principle of the performance – point equivalence in all performance area.
The difficult score of “ superperformances “ and quite bad performances is made easier by the introduction of the upper limit ( = 1600 points ) and a lower limit ( = 100 points ).
The 1500 m – race receives a special score for the combined event.
He fits as the only long run distance. Therefore, 1500 m – race
performances are better valued in the combined events than they are worth in the quality.
A point plan for all disciplines of combined events is in
II./1 D.7.2 , pdf
3.3 the senior citizen`s table NBL
The installation of the scoring table for senior citizen`s from M 30 is
based on the basic table NBL .
The point values of senior citizen`s performance are calculated as
y ( s ) = y ( b ) * M
_ y ( s ) = point value senior citizen`s performance
y ( b ) = point value senior citizen`s
performance after basic table NBL
_ M = multiplier
The point value of the senior citizen`s performance is multiplied the
value of this performance after basic table NBL by M.
The multiplier M is determined age group and discipline.
As opposed to the factor regulation WMA the right equivalences of the
basic table NBL are taken over with this method.
Only point values are converted. ( see also explanations in III. / 2.3 )
Example of a multiplie`s regulation
A graduation of the score are the European – records age group, state
It is considered that the absolutely performance level is not completely
exhausted in the age group yet.
Therefore, record-performance are not valued like in the open class to M
30 with 1250 points.
From M 35 = 1200 points the value falls up to M 90 = 1100 points.
Specifically in M 35 for long jump :
The point average of the age group records in 100 m / 400 m / high jump / long jump / pole
vault / amounts to NBL = 1073,6 points.
It follows for the multiplier long jump M = 1200/1073,6 = 1,1177 .
In some disciplines other evaluations bring corrections of the 1 st
calculation, thus in 100 m in M 35 with M = 1,1177 * 0,96 = 1,073 .
The NBL table is substantially better than table
Basic idea is, which all records and top lists performance / average
performance have in the possible same level.
The span between records valued most badly and best of all disciplines and age group is :
<<< after senior – NBL = 108 % - 131 %
<<< after WMA 2010 = 104 % - 158 %
The span with top lists performance are :
<<< after senior – NBL = 111,8 % - 181,5 %
<<< WMA,2010 = 108 % - 307 %
A fictive combined event with top lists performance for the discipline groups
. run = 100 m / 400m / hurdles
. jump = long jump / high jump /
. throw = put shot / discus throw /
<<< after senior-NBL = 28,5 % - 30,7 %
<<< after WMA, 2010 = 26,5 % - 33,8 %
from the whole point result.
Theoretically everybody would have to receive group 30 % .
The overestimation to WMA 2010 with 33,8 % refers to the group throw, which is strongly overrated to WMA , factors 2010.
All evaluations book the better score after senior-NBL, because is
valued more steadily.
Details in : II./1
and in pdf-file
4. Advantage of the N B L – method
The scoring tables of the NBL – method Sonnemann have score formulae of a new quality.
The points which arise for the event practice are given to the
performance by the possibility of the variation of several variables.
This is reached by :
Adaptability of the score formulae by variation of
( IAAF 1985 has only one variable )
Protection of the performance point equivalence in all performance
areas by installation of leading points.
An exit of the calculation are world records , state 31.8.2007 .
These can be seen as best of all equivalent.
( with IAAF every score is measured in a least performance b )
use of the score formulae NBL
which have all one really
progressive point increase.
The achieved performance – point – equivalence in all performance areas of the NBL – table Sonnemann also produce a fair Senior citizen`s table.
As opposed to the factors of the valid WMA regulation the multipliers of
the Senior – citizen`s evaluation NBL change not the equivalences
of the basic table.
The NBL – table valued only equivalent performances with the same score in all performance areas.
Therefore, she is useful for all areas of application like Combined events / Rankings / Senior citizen`s ….
See also in :
The progressive point increase of the N B L – table Sonnemann causes that it is worthwhile again more to develop performance strengths, than to diminish as weak performance .
The N B L – tables serves to have more top-performance in the Combined events.
The NBL – table increase thus the attraction of the Combined event.
See also in : II./ 1 E.5
Detailed implementation to difference NBL / IAAF in :
Details to the picture of leading points to the NBL / IAAF
in : II. /1 D.7.4