Is World Aquatics doing a disservice to Gretchen Walsh? The numbers suggest a startling oversight. With the World Cup's first stop in Carmel now behind us, a closer look at the rankings reveals a surprising disparity. Gretchen Walsh currently leads Kate Douglass in ranking points, but by a razor-thin margin of 59.1 to 58.9. This minuscule difference left me scratching my head, prompting a deeper dive into the scoring system. And this is where things get intriguing.
Points are awarded in two ways: by placement and by performance. Placement is straightforward: 10 points for first, 8 for second, and so on down to 1 point for eighth place. Performance, however, is calculated using a formula that converts each time into World Aquatics points: (R / T) cubed, where T is the swimmer's time and R is the previous year's world record. This value is then floored by 10 and divided by 10. For instance, a second-place finish in the 100m fly with a time of 55.49 would earn 17.2 points—8 for placement and 9.2 for performance.
Here’s where it gets controversial: Only a swimmer's best three events contribute to their total at each stop. Both Walsh and Douglass won three events, earning 30 points each for placement. But when it comes to performance points, Walsh earned 29.1 compared to Douglass’s 28.9. Does this truly reflect their performances? Let’s examine the details.
Consider their actual swims (including Douglass’s 100 IM, even though she didn’t win it):
| Swimmer | Event | Time | Aqua Points |
|------------------|----------|---------|------------------|
| Gretchen Walsh | 50 Fly | 23.72 | 1028 |
| Kate Douglass | 100 Breast | 1:02.90 | 974 |
| Kate Douglass | 200 Breast | 2:13.97 | 967 |
| Kate Douglass | 100 Free | 50.83 | 966 |
| Gretchen Walsh | 100 IM | 55.91 | 957 |
| Gretchen Walsh | 100 Fly | 53.69 | 946 |
| Kate Douglass | 100 IM | 56.34 | 935 |
The ranking seems counterintuitive. While World Aquatics points are easy to calculate and normalize times across eras, they have glaring flaws. For example, Douglass’s 1:02.90 in the 100 breast ranks her 6th all-time, yet her 2:13.97 in the 200 breast is the 3rd fastest ever—a performance I’d argue is objectively superior. Meanwhile, Walsh’s 100 fly, the 3rd fastest ever, earns only 946 points because her own world record is so extraordinary. Is this swim truly inferior to Douglass’s 50.83 in the 100 free, which ranks 13th all-time? Absolutely not.
The current system penalizes record-breaking performances and favors more competitive events. But what if we used a different approach? Enter the z-score—a method that normalizes performances by comparing them to the mean and standard deviation of the top 100 times in each event. Applying this to Walsh and Douglass’s swims yields a far more logical ranking:
| Swimmer | Event | Time | Aqua Points | Z-Score |
|------------------|----------|---------|------------------|---------|
| Gretchen Walsh | 50 Fly | 23.72 | 1028 | 4.16 |
| Gretchen Walsh | 100 Fly | 53.69 | 946 | 3.53 |
| Gretchen Walsh | 100 IM | 55.91 | 957 | 3.52 |
| Kate Douglass | 200 Breast | 2:13.97 | 967 | 3.18 |
| Kate Douglass | 100 IM | 56.34 | 935 | 3.04 |
| Kate Douglass | 100 Breast | 1:02.90 | 974 | 2.46 |
| Kate Douglass | 100 Free | 50.83 | 966 | 2.41 |
This ranking makes far more sense. Walsh’s swims and Douglass’s 200 breast are historically dominant, while Douglass’s 100 IM was the fastest by anyone not named Gretchen Walsh. But here's the burning question: Should World Aquatics adopt a z-score-based system? It would require scaling adjustments, but it would more accurately reflect athletes’ performances. What do you think? Is the current system fair, or is it time for a change? Let’s debate in the comments!
