Breaking Down Miss Lebanon 2017: A Mathematical Approach
Blame the engineer in me, but while the rest of Lebanon tuned in zealously to Miss Lebanon last Sunday on LBCI – or equally, on Twitter
– I waited a few days to catch it on YouTube. Armed with control over the play,
pause, and replay buttons, and wielding a pen and notepad, I thus watched one of the country’s most highly anticipated entertainment stunts of the
year.
Ordinarily, we don’t apply a scientific lens to beauty pageants. Sure, there are some numbers involved, notably the height and weight of each
participant. But I was interested in a completely different set of numerical
figures, and that was the judges’ scores.
What I discovered would intrigue the most discerning of
audiences.
Miss Lebanon 2017 contestants in elegant wear (photo source: APF) |
Let’s start with the basics: name, height and weight (in
both metric and English units), and order of appearance in the pageant lineup, which as a variable is more
instrumental than first meets the eye.
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Height (cm)
|
Height (in)
|
Weight (kg)
|
Weight (lbs)
|
1
|
Gedeon
|
Amani
|
172
|
67.7
|
58
|
127.6
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
171
|
67.3
|
53
|
116.6
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
183
|
72.0
|
64.5
|
141.9
|
4
|
Boustany
|
Elsa
|
170
|
66.9
|
55
|
121.0
|
5
|
Mouawad
|
Eva
|
169
|
66.5
|
47
|
103.4
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
177
|
69.7
|
57
|
125.4
|
7
|
Munayer
|
Lucie
|
167
|
65.7
|
53
|
116.6
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
178
|
70.1
|
62
|
136.4
|
9
|
Nicolas
|
Marita
|
165
|
65.0
|
52.5
|
115.5
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
176
|
69.3
|
56
|
123.2
|
11
|
Matar
|
Niveen
|
172
|
67.7
|
57
|
125.4
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
175
|
68.9
|
58
|
127.6
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
166
|
65.4
|
50.5
|
111.1
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
178
|
70.1
|
62
|
136.4
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
175
|
68.9
|
57
|
125.4
|
The preliminary round of competition comprised a swimsuit catwalk.
All girls were decked out in identical yellow one-pieces and rated on a scale of 10.
Minimum score: 9.675. Maximum score: 9.875. Average score: 9.765.
Here’s the
roster in order of appearance:
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Swimsuit score
|
1
|
Gedeon
|
Amani
|
9.675
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
9.731
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
9.769
|
4
|
Boustany
|
Elsa
|
9.700
|
5
|
Mouawad
|
Eva
|
9.688
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
9.888
|
7
|
Munayer
|
Lucie
|
9.700
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
9.744
|
9
|
Nicolas
|
Marita
|
9.700
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
9.819
|
11
|
Matar
|
Niveen
|
9.725
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
9.850
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
9.769
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
9.875
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
9.838
|
It may not be immediately perceptible, but of the top six
ranking ladies in this category, five emerged from spots 10-15. In other words,
five of the last six girls to strut their stuff ended up scoring the highest
marks. This table, organized by descending score magnitude, clarifies my point:
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Swimsuit score
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
9.888
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
9.875
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
9.850
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
9.838
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
9.819
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
9.769
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
9.769
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
9.744
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
9.731
|
11
|
Matar
|
Niveen
|
9.725
|
4
|
Boustany
|
Elsa
|
9.700
|
7
|
Munayer
|
Lucie
|
9.700
|
9
|
Nicolas
|
Marita
|
9.700
|
5
|
Mouawad
|
Eva
|
9.688
|
1
|
Gedeon
|
Amani
|
9.675
|
So is it sheer coincidence? Well, let’s move on to the elegant
wear contest and see if a pattern materializes.
In round two, participants were dressed with world-renowned fashion designer Georges
Hobeika’s breathtaking couture. Here’s how they fared:
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Elegant wear score
|
1
|
Gedeon
|
Amani
|
9.744
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
9.769
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
9.781
|
4
|
Boustany
|
Elsa
|
9.763
|
5
|
Mouawad
|
Eva
|
9.750
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
9.888
|
7
|
Munayer
|
Lucie
|
9.763
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
9.794
|
9
|
Nicolas
|
Marita
|
9.763
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
9.806
|
11
|
Matar
|
Niveen
|
9.750
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
9.906
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
9.856
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
9.906
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
9.894
|
Minimum score: 9.744. Maximum score: 9.906. Average: 9.809.
Indubitable is the realization that the same top-scoring
ladies from the swimsuit competition nabbed the highest marks in the elegant
wear category. Similarly, the six lowest-scoring participants in the swimsuit competition were the very same ladies who fleshed out the six lowest ranks in elegant wear.
And uncannily enough, five of the six ladies who appeared last in the presentation lineup ranked in the top six. Here's confirmation:
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Elegant score
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
9.906
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
9.906
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
9.894
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
9.888
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
9.856
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
9.806
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
9.794
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
9.781
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
9.769
|
4
|
Boustany
|
Elsa
|
9.763
|
7
|
Munayer
|
Lucie
|
9.763
|
9
|
Nicolas
|
Marita
|
9.763
|
11
|
Matar
|
Niveen
|
9.750
|
5
|
Mouawad
|
Eva
|
9.750
|
1
|
Gedeon
|
Amani
|
9.744
|
So I pose the question again: is it a coincidence that a contestant's spot
in the lineup was directly proportional to the score she earned? In other words, if she appeared later rather than earlier in the queue, was she more likely to merit a higher score?
I can think of two possible explanations. Either judges
started out prohibitively critical in their ratings, loosening up progressively with each passing
participant as they adjusted expectations.
Or the show producer assigned each participant a spot in the lineup relative to his own impression of how
she’d be received by judges. Why? In the interest of amplifying viewers' suspense. In his eyes, the ladies toward the end of the queue scintillated more so than their counterparts at the front of the queue. Classic plot build-up.
Which do you think it might have been?
The scores from the swimsuit and elegant wear contests were
then tallied to determine the top nine ladies who proceeded to the next stage of
competition, the interview.
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Score sum
|
1
|
Gedeon
|
Amani
|
19.419
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
19.500
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
19.550
|
4
|
Boustany
|
Elsa
|
19.463
|
5
|
Mouawad
|
Eva
|
19.438
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
19.776
|
7
|
Munayer
|
Lucie
|
19.463
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
19.538
|
9
|
Nicolas
|
Marita
|
19.463
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
19.625
|
11
|
Matar
|
Niveen
|
19.475
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
19.756
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
19.625
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
19.781
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
19.732
|
In descending order of performance, the table looks like
this:
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Score sum
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
19.781
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
19.776
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
19.756
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
19.732
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
19.625
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
19.625
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
19.550
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
19.538
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
19.500
|
11
|
Matar
|
Niveen
|
19.475
|
4
|
Boustany
|
Elsa
|
19.463
|
7
|
Munayer
|
Lucie
|
19.463
|
9
|
Nicolas
|
Marita
|
19.463
|
5
|
Mouawad
|
Eva
|
19.438
|
1
|
Gedeon
|
Amani
|
19.419
|
Again, you’ll notice that ladies 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15
occupied five of the top six ranks. Heading the list were Sabine Najem and Jana
Sader in the top two seats.
Each lady was required to answer a question articulated by a
different judge, so no two questions bore any resemblance to one another.
The judges scored the ladies as such, with a minimum score of 9.738 and a
maximum score of 9.931.
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Score sum
|
Interview
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
19.776
|
9.931
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
19.756
|
9.900
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
19.781
|
9.894
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
19.625
|
9.856
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
19.55
|
9.844
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
19.538
|
9.831
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
19.625
|
9.769
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
19.500
|
9.763
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
19.732
|
9.738
|
The formula used to select the top five ladies graduating to
the final phase of the contest was described by presenter Dima Sadek as follows:
75% of the combined total of swimsuit and elegant wear, complemented by 25% of
the interview total. A perfect score can be computed as 0.75*(10.000 + 10.000)
+ 0.25*(10.000) = 15.000 + 2.500 = 17.500.
Crunching the numbers, here’s the yield in descending order
of total performance:
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Score sum
|
Interview
|
Aggregate total
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
19.776
|
9.931
|
17.315
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
19.781
|
9.894
|
17.309
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
19.756
|
9.900
|
17.292
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
19.732
|
9.738
|
17.234
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
19.625
|
9.856
|
17.183
|
10
|
Barrak
|
Mireille
|
19.625
|
9.769
|
17.161
|
3
|
El Jurdi
|
Daria
|
19.550
|
9.844
|
17.124
|
8
|
Hayek
|
Mariam
|
19.538
|
9.831
|
17.111
|
2
|
Kahwagi
|
Carole
|
19.500
|
9.763
|
17.066
|
To reinforce the salient observation from the get-go, five of the top six scorers were ladies whose spots appeared toward
the end of the original lineup (i.e., spots 10, 12, 13, 14 and 15).
Furthermore, it's worth mention that entering the final
round, Jana Sader and Sabine Najem clung fiercely to the top two ranks.
In that final round, the top five ladies wrestled with an
identical question pertaining to the effectiveness of political demonstrations, and their responses were privately scored by the judges. Those results were never revealed
to viewers, and we’re not even sure how they were weighed relative to the
foregoing outcomes aggregated from the swimsuit, elegant wear, and interview
stages.
What we do know is the final ranking:
Spot
|
Surname
|
First name
|
Rank
|
12
|
Helou
|
Perla
|
Winner
|
6
|
Sader
|
Jana
|
1st runner up
|
14
|
Najem
|
Sabine
|
2nd runner up
|
13
|
Khoury
|
Reem
|
3rd runner up
|
15
|
Mohsen
|
Yousra
|
4th runner up
|
There you have it again: ladies #12, #13, #14 and #15 stole
the top five seats of Miss Lebanon 2017. Perla Helou emerged from her
longstanding cumulative rank of 3rd to clinch gold, ousting
both Jana Sader and Sabine Najem.
Perla Helou was crowned Miss Lebanon 2017 (photo source: Instagram) |
It’d be telling to compare this year’s patterns to those from previous years, or to see if they project to forthcoming
pageants. Only then can we statistically test the null hypothesis that those participants
whose spot in line falls toward the end in fact fare better than those
whose spot falls toward the front.
But I’ve already exceeded my pageant viewing quota for one year,
wouldn’t you say? My assessment will just have to wait till next year, and even
then, I can’t guarantee an equal sentiment of curiosity will prevail!
Comments
Post a Comment