Anon Do some regions actually score harder than others? Data analysis says no!

[Anonymous (0c18)]

Posting anonymously as I also posted this data on Facebook under my real name.

I was curious what the numbers showed after hearing person after person claiming region X scores harder than region Y. Guess what, they don’t. It’s all anecdotal.

I took all the scores from 2023 nationals, and all those same girls scores from 2023 regionals and looked at the difference between scores at both meets and took the average by region.

Data shows almost no statistical significant changes between regional and national scoring, with scores on average going up slightly for all regions except region 4.

 

[JBS]

Regionals and Nationals are both a 4 judge panel… scores are typically much more stable with 4 judges.

I remember one Regionals where the vault panel was just hammering the athletes… but that’s about it… normally the 4 judges stabilizes it.

I would say the Region that was high scoring by us has changed over the last couple of years to more stable. As technical chairs and judging assigners change... so do how things play out. One thing I would say too is that I think I would pick specific states to go to for high scoring... not necessarily regions. Probably even more than states or regions... specific meets.

As far as the data... I think you would need more of an NQS type data set like college does. Just as one example from 2023 Nationals. One of my athletes went .6 up at Nationals with a fall... no fall at Regionals. Another one had scores that were almost the same at both Regionals and Nationals full hits on all 8 routines. The difference... one was a Jr. and one was a Sr. at Nationals... totally different sets of judges. However... just the one fall to no falls is enough to really throw the data. Again... I really think you would need much more data to show anything... or not show anything.

I really think you are correct though... there is not much difference at Regionals and above.

Now 2 judge panels... that's a junk show of inconsistencies. My pet peeve is when the judges talk to each other while watching the routine... totally useless having a 2 judge panel if they are going to sit next to each other and talk.

 

[Anonymous (0c18)]

Yes I agree more data would be needed to truly analyze. Still think it’s interesting that on average scores didn’t change much.

 

[Anonymous (4029)]

You need to show your methodology. Just doing a comparison of regional scores and national scores does not validate anything, what sort of statistical test did you run? Did you identify judges at regionals versus judges at nationals? What was sample size, did you do trend analysis? There are a lot of things that would go into a proper quantitative analysis.

 

[Anonymous (0c18)]

What was sample size, did you do trend analysis? There are a lot of things that would go into a proper quantitative analysis.

Sample size was all scores from 2023 nationals compared to 2023 regionals, 676 athletes (X 4 scores, I didn’t use any scores of 0).

All that being said I’m not a data scientist and I’m sure there’s more accurate ways to parse the data. I just looked at the difference between regional and national scores per event, per region. I still think it’s enough to show there isn’t a significant difference in scoring comparing regionals to nationals, but would happily be proven wrong if someone with more experience wants to do a full analysis.

Here it is broken down by event.

 

[Anonymous (2622)]

Thanks for doing this. I think the differences are seen more at the state level. It would be interesting to compare how the same gymnasts score in certain states that are known for high scoring versus those known for low scoring versus nationals and regionals. For example, and I could be wrong, but NorCal is sort of thought of (by those in NorCal) to have tougher judging than say, SoCal or Texas. I imagine there are similar states in other parts of the country that have similar beliefs. And it could just be perception. (Maybe socal gymnasts think their scoring is tougher.) But it would be super interesting to see how a specific gymnast’s scores change as they move from their state to regionals to nationals.

 

[Anonymous (0c18)]

I think the differences are seen more at the state level. It would be interesting to compare how the same gymnasts score in certain states that are known for high scoring versus those known for low scoring versus nationals and regionals.

Yea you could be right, and I’m sure the fact regionals has 4 judges makes it more even/equal too. I’d imagine if you analyzed all scores from regular meets you may see some patterns emerge, but maybe not. It’s hard to truly compare when girls might only compete in their state or region.

I was really just curious about regionals vs nationals after seeing comments here and on Facebook about how you can’t raise the qualifying score for nationals, one regions 36 is another’s 38, and other similar comments. Which I think this at least shows that scores at regionals are accurate enough and there isn’t a huge difference regional to regional.

Obviously it will never be a completely even playing field unless the same judges are judging everyone, and even then if you look at NCAA there are discrepancies between different session with the same judges.

 

[Anonymous (8cfb)]

No data here but an anecdote: my co-coach years ago moved from Texas to norcal to coach compulsory with me, said she'd coached many kids that scored perfect 10's at her Texas gym and that it's not uncommon -simply follow the code. 5 years of coaching compulsory with her in Norcal - no 10's to be seen despite her saying the level of gymnastics is about the same. "That would've been a 10 in Texas!" was heard many times.

-shrug-

 

[Anonymous (c46c)]

Definitely interesting to see some data from last year, since it's something I've wondered about. Just in our region there are some pretty significant differences from scoring state to state, which is apparent at Regionals, so I can see it varying within Regions, but it appears that isn't the case.

 

[Anonymous (0c18)]

Yea I think there are certainly discrepancies in judging from state to state, especially with only two judges. And probably from region to region for a normal meet. It’s actually reassuring to me that it’s so similar at regionals and nationals.

 

[Anonymous (6aa1)]

I don't think there's as much scoring differences once you reach level 9 and 10 per region.... But compulsories and low level optionals definitely have inflated regions. Region 8 (florida) and Region 3 (texas) have some very inflated scoring early on. It's not even subjective when you look at instagram routines and how many high 9s and 10s they give out like candy to lower levels compared to other regions. We saw a level 7 squad go to a meet in Region 3 this year and their entire team scored a full point better than they were able to muster the entire rest of the season when they returned to Region 1 to compete.

But I will say Region 1 does inflate their State Team session at regionals as sort of a gift to the best gymnasts end of season. If you look at the Top 100 meet scores, Region 1 barely cracks the list until State Team competes at Regionals. Then everyone on the state teams for Region 1 score a full point higher than their season average as a sort of reward for making the State Team. If you averaged a 37 during the season you get a 38 .. if you average a 38 you are cracking a 39 during the State Team session. I'd be really curious a judges opinion on this phenomenon, because it's rather objective that the scores are inflated if you compare routines on social media.

 

[Anonymous (dbe9)]

I think a better comparison would be to look at state meet scores and compare them across states. Whereas some states are handing out 10.0s like Candy (FL for example), other states you can't buy a 10.0. Compare the states to each other, and then maybe you could use that data to analyze and compare regional scoring.

 

[FlippinLilysMom]

I think a better comparison would be to look at state meet scores and compare them across states. Whereas some states are handing out 10.0s like Candy (FL for example), other states you can't buy a 10.0. Compare the states to each other, and then maybe you could use that data to analyze and compare regional scoring.

Yep! Minnesota had given out exactly one perfect 10 at level 10. And this is the state that produced Maggie, Olivia, Suni, Mya, Grace just to name a few.

 

[Anonymous (de91)]

I think a better comparison would be to look at state meet scores and compare them across states. Whereas some states are handing out 10.0s like Candy (FL for example), other states you can't buy a 10.0. Compare the states to each other, and then maybe you could use that data to analyze and compare regional scoring.

Even state meets would be difficult. We saw slightly “inflated” scores at our state meet this year compared to in-season. Our girls loved it! My theory was they wanted more to qualify for regional meet. More participants more $.

Scores in our state typically top out at 9.6 MAYBE 9.7. Our 10’s score higher at regionals and nationals.