The Fair Decathlon Model (FDM) examines whether the current decathlon scoring tables are properly balanced. Using data from 21 seasons between 1985 and 2025, the model proposes revised scoring coefficients based on elite decathlete performances.
Part 8 takes the Fair Decathlon Model into its deepest territory yet, examining B — the parameter that determines where scoring reaches zero. Using 10, 720 complete performances with totals below 7000 points, this analysis tests whether the
Rafał Snoch examines the five Day Two events through 100-point FDM-40N cohorts, revealing how technical failures, specialist strengths, exceptional performances and contrasting athlete populations shape the residuals behind the scoring model.
Rafał Snoch examines the five Day One events through 100-point FDM-40N cohorts, revealing how individual specialists, weak-event survivors and population patterns shape the residuals behind the scoring model.
This article asks whether the decathlon’s own performance data can provide enough information to calibrate a fair scoring system without relying primarily on elite athletes. Using 27, 741 complete decathlons—and a separate dataset excluding all
After completing the zero ‐point audit in Part 8, the Fair Decathlon Model now turns to a deeper question: what should a decathlon scoring table actually measure? Part 9 explores why performances cannot be separated from the two ‐day
A decathlon is not ten separate events. It is one competition, unfolding over two days, with one clock running from the first start to the final finish. Part 10 of the Fair Decathlon Model asks what happens when we look at the decathlon this way
The publication of the first article in the Fair Decathlon Model (FDM) series has already sparked an interesting discussion within the combined events community.
As a supplement to the Fair Decathlon Model (FDM) series, we are publishing the complete event scoring table covering the full range from 100 to 1200 points.