But come inside for a real mathematical look at WSL
judging!
(I lurv u beechgirt readers. I reely do an
its not jes the vodka typing. I meanitis butt i also do. Like, reed
this ledder her. Woh wood tak this mulch time? Only u! Becuz u
rooool and can do maths. I cant. At all. Bet jes lookit this! It
goooood. Suriously. From Parick Brewster who I enven luv mor then u
becuz…becuz… Well. just reed hiz maths!)
Add me to the club. I hate Chas Smith. I hate the man for two
reasons.
Reason 1: An electric version of his book is $14.99 (ridiculous)
(2 b honess that sux. U shudd hav bot the paperbak from
austrltia becuz my pichur is on the new one (COMING AUGUST
1!))
Reason 2: For what he has forced me to do with my spare time for
the past several weeks.
After reading the article “Revolution: Let’s dump the judges” I
(idiotically) took it upon myself to see if “a system of speed,
torque, amount of time in the air, number of spins in the air,
amount of time in the barrel” was possible, or, better yet, if it
already existed – if only in the ether.
I took on this moronic and thankless project because I am of the
firm belief that competitive surfing needs an element of
objectivity if it is to become respected. As it stands, the knower
of all things (Wikipedia) defines surfing as “a surface water
sport in which the wave rider, referred to as a surfer, rides
on the forward or deep face of a moving wave, which is usually
carrying the surfer towards the shore.”
This is a stark contrast to something like basketball which “is
a sport, generally played by two teams of five players on a
rectangular court. The objective is
to shoot a ball through a hoop 18 inches
(46 cm) in diameter and 10 feet (3.048 m) high mounted to
a backboard at each end.”
Such objectivity! Such order, justice, and beauty!
It irritates me to no end that there is no true definition of
surfing. The feeling I get when someone who floundered on a
soft-top claims to have ‘surfed’ is similar to one I had couple
years ago:
(Bare with me, I promise it will come full circle.)
I was in my final semester of college wrapping up an, all to
easy in retrospect, degree in economics at my overpriced private
alma mater. The school had recently been accused of ‘rigging’ the
college rankings in large part by accepting rich foreign students
who paid full-freight but whose grades and test scores, which were
often sub-par, did not factor into the ranking equation.
I was settling down in front of one of the library’s computers,
hoping that its stats program would be able to find some
correlation robust enough for me to write a 20-page paper and
graduate. Naturally, the stats program I was working on crashed and
failed to reopen.
I moved to the adjacent computer and began work there. After a
few minutes, a tall, skinny, Chinese guy who I recognized from my
final class sat down next to me. When I leaned over and told him
that the program was broken on that computer he looked back at me
blankly. “The math program is broken on that computer,” I
said again.
“English?” he replied, with a confounded expression.
I slowly reiterated, “The pro-gram for the MAAATH is bro-ken,”
before deciding to let him figure it out on his own.
As far as I know, him and me earned the same piece paper. Just
as a person on an 8’ soft-top hopelessly flapping while being
sucked out to sea is also ‘surfing’.
I never would have imagined that I would return to the same
library, to the same computer, two years later to answer
Chas’s call. (Fuk thatguy!)
The process began by going through each wave of finals day of
the Fiji pro and logging some objective aspects of the each wave (#
of turns, tube time, etc.) along with the score. In reality it took
maybe two hours tops, but between cursing Chas’s name (Its
dumb! Who call himself CHAD CHAS? Fukin retard!) and beer
breaks it felt eternal. Spreadsheet in proverbial hand, I plugged
the numbers into a stats program and voilà, a hideous, premature,
wave-scoring model is born.
Without further ado, I present to you with the equation for
finals day of the Fiji pro:
1.08516362*(# of top turns) + 1.057755641*(Seconds of tube
time)+ 2.259198138(if completed) – .63
In words: each top turn added 1.08 points to a wave score. Each
second (measured in the very scientific ‘one thousand’ system) of
tube time added 1.06 points. Add 2.26 for completing a wave. Then
subtract .63.
Using just 3 variables (#of top turns, tube time, and
completion) we can explain 70% of the score (69.6258% to be
precise) which is pretty damn good. With enough time and beer,
someone could log wave size, airtime, etc., and the model could get
much, much better. Maybe good enough for a robot judge. We could
name it Chas.
Cheers,
PB
(Parrtick Bruwstur)