Hi everyone. Seems the debate about score approval has kicked off again. Have a few thoughts about improving the system for the World's Top few, and wondered if others have any particular views or opinions they'd like to share to help make the score-approval process at the top level a bit more stringent and effective.
Let me first just explain why I approved Paul's recent 15.5k;
1) He did several scores in the 15.3k to 15.5k range, and though I gather they all looked to be about 15.4k on the analyser, surely it's just as likely the 15.5k was genuine as the 15.3k was a low counter-error and the analyser was reading them all a bit low?
2) He scored 19k on the Raptor, and it's highly unlikely you can do this if you're not scoring well over 15k on the Plastic.
That was enough proof for me, especially as his 15.5k sounded just about exactly the same to me as a 15.5k from Duane Cash.
But maybe we should have a sort of panel of judges whenever someone submits a World Top 10 score or something like that? We all know that counter-errors happen, and we all know that the Powerballalyser on one machine can give a vastly different reading to itself running on another machine.
A useful method would be for people to submit several scores to back up a record-breaking submission. If three or four people are analysing three or four separate scores from someone, it's far more likely we'll be able to determine which scores are probably genuine and which scores are not. And all the scores submitted needn't be near the record score...in fact it might be better if they're not. For example, someone submitting a 15.5k score could then also submit a 15k and a 14.5k, done at the same time and in the same conditions, to act as controls to help in the analysis.
Thoughts? I know this isn't really going to work for the occasional top scorers who come out of the woodwork with a single spin and don't come to these forums, but at least it might help with the regulars here who are making their way towards the top.