**Below is an excerpt
from: http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/Competitions/TechnicalArea/ScoringTables_CE_744.pdf**

** **

**Developments
in the Theory of Scoring Tables**

From 1920,
three concepts became prominent in the theory and development of

scoring
tables. These have, in varying degrees, influenced all subsequent tables.

1) The fact that each unit of
improvement in an athlete's performance gets

increasingly harder as the athlete approaches his
ultimate. This can be

expressed
statistically as follows: the probability of any athlete achieving or

exceeding a
given performance rapidly gets less as the performance rises

towards the
record. The score for a performance can be derived as the

inverse of
that probability. The resulting scoring table is progressive but,

applied
simply, this leads to an exceedingly progressive scoring table, and the

main challenge has been to control this excess.

2) The need to be able to compare the
performance of an athlete in one event

with that of another in a different event or,
indeed, in a different individual

sport.

3) The wish
to have a really "scientific" basis for any scoring system. With the

growing
research into human physiology and sports science, it seemed

possible that
a basis could be found in physiological parameters, such as

heart beat,
breathing rate, oxygen uptake or oxygen depletion and so on.

The interplay
of these and other interests in the development of the scoring tables

over the past
65 years is a fascinating study.

**1934 IAAF
Scoring Tables**

At the end of
the 1920's the Finnish Federation set to work on a new set of

national
scoring tables. An early decision was made to drop all fractional points,

the score in
each event to range from 0 to 1150 points. The aim of the new tables

was that a performance in any event should score
the same as an equally good

performance in any other event. To this end, seven
standard performances in

each event (labelled A-G) were selected by experienced
judgement. All the

performances
scoring 1000 points would only be reached rarely by combined

events
athletes. All the G performances would be reached occasionally by leading

boys. The
range of performances in each event between A and G was subdivided

into 20 equal
steps. The number of steps between the standard performance was

divided A, 1,
B, 3, C, 3, D, 3, E, 3, F, 7, G, and a progressive curve was employed

such that the
slope of A was twice that of G. The whole scheme clearly works

directly for
field events, but not track events using time as the performance figure.

However, if
the times are converted into average speeds for the race, these can

be used
equally as well as distances in developing a scoring table.

The new
scoring tables were calculated by J. Ohls from Finland in 1931. These

tables were
progressive and corresponded to the formula P = f (eM), where P

means the
points, e is the base of natural logarithms and M corresponds to the

performances.
The tables were calculated for sprint events up to the hundredths

and the
performance were evaluated only by full points. A zero point value was

allotted to
average performances of pupils and the 1000 point value was near the

then world
records. The tables were calculated up to 1150 points

The new scoring
table was such a success when introduced in 1932 in Finland

that it was
adopted by the IAAF at its next Congress in 1934. The main difference

consisted in
the progressive character of the Finnish evaluation as against the

linear
evaluation of decathlons at the Olympic Games in 1936 and at the

European Championships in 1938, 1946 and 1950