Do subjective and compensatory scores matter? an empirical analysis of Ski jumping competitions

This paper examines the role of compensatory and subjective scoring elements in determining competition outcomes in ski jumping. Using detailed data from seven seasons of men’s World Cup events (2010/11–2016/17), we decompose final scores into their constituent components: jump distance, style points awarded by judges, wind compensation, and gate compensation. We then simulate alternative ranking systems that exclude one or more components to assess how much they matter for event- and season-level standings. Our results show that jump distance alone explains most of the variation in rankings, and that removing style, wind, or gate points individually leads to only modest statistical changes in aggregate correlations. However, even small positional shifts — often one or two places — can be decisive for professional athletes, affecting prize money, sponsorships, and career trajectories. The findings illustrate a central tension in the design of scoring systems: subjective and compensatory elements may appear marginal in statistical terms but can have substantial consequences for individuals and for perceptions of fairness. By situating ski jumping in the broader economics literature on contests, subjective evaluation, and institutional design, we highlight how this case sheds light on the trade-offs between transparency, fairness adjustments, and competitive incentives in performance evaluation systems.