A New Perspective on Decathlon Scoring: Richard Crawford's 2018 Research (0)

One of the first people to join the conversation was Richard Crawford (USA), who pointed out that he had conducted a similar study back in 2018. After getting in touch, Richard kindly shared his research paper, "Are the Decathlon Tables Fair?", and gave permission for it to be published on Decathlon 2000. He also mentioned that he intends to update and expand the study with more recent data and some methodological improvements. His original paper is attached below this article and is available for everyone interested in the subject.

Although the two studies use different methodologies, they explore a remarkably similar question: do the current decathlon scoring tables reward equivalent performances equally across all ten events?

Similar goal, different approach

Richard Crawford's research is based on more than 63,000 validated decathlon results collected between 1988 and 2018. Instead of proposing new scoring tables, his objective was to examine whether the existing tables satisfy one of the original principles behind the 1984 scoring system: that performances of comparable quality should receive comparable point rewards, regardless of the event.

The Fair Decathlon Model (FDM), developed by Rafał Snoch (Poland), approaches the same question from a different direction. Using data from 21 seasons (1985–2025), it evaluates whether the current tables are properly balanced and explores how alternative scoring values might better reflect modern decathlon performances.

An interesting comparison

Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that the two studies do not arrive at identical conclusions.

Crawford's analysis suggests that the 1500 metres and pole vault tend to be over-rewarded, while the 400 metres and 110 m hurdles appear under-rewarded at higher performance levels. He also concludes that, contrary to common belief, the discus and javelin appear to be among the fairest events within the current scoring system.

The Fair Decathlon Model, on the other hand, generally finds that throwing events deserve relatively more weight, while jumping events receive relatively less weight, leading to different recommendations.

These differences do not necessarily mean that one study is right and the other is wrong. More likely, they reflect different definitions of fairness and different analytical methods. That is exactly what makes this discussion so valuable.

Science progresses through discussion

One sentence from Richard Crawford's email perfectly captures the challenge:

"An 'advantage' is often in the eye of the beholder."

Before deciding whether one event has an advantage over another, we first need to agree on what advantage or fairness actually means.

This is precisely why independent research is so important. When different researchers investigate the same problem using different methods, comparing their conclusions often leads to a deeper understanding than either study could provide on its own.

Rather than viewing these studies as competing with one another, they should be seen as complementary contributions to an ongoing discussion about one of the most fundamental questions in combined events.

Read the original paper and join the discussion

Richard Crawford's original 2018 research paper, "Are the Decathlon Tables Fair?", is attached below this article and is available for everyone to read.

We encourage all combined events enthusiasts to read both Crawford's paper and the Fair Decathlon Model series, compare the different approaches, and decide for themselves which arguments they find most convincing.

As always, thoughtful comments and constructive discussion are welcome. Progress is made not by avoiding different opinions, but by examining them carefully.