Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 27 of 27

Thread: PCS & TES hand-in-hand?

  1. #16
    MY TVC 1 5 SeaniBu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Watching the Wheels
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Erica Lee View Post
    As someone who ............... it happens, I'm not naive and it's unfortunate that these few give such a bad wrap for so many others that simply love giving back to the sport.
    What a great post, and thank you so much for this contribution. to you!

  2. #17
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    28
    :o You're welcome!

  3. #18
    ~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~ Ladskater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    I agree with MM. We are still in the 6.0 system where a clean routine would be considered very important. But falls, in the 6.0 system were a serious mark down. Weiss' quad attempt would earn him some points now, but then it was a complete faux pas.

    Also the very top tier skaters got the benefit of any doubt. Michael was a top podium contender but not a very top tier skater.

    So failure in Technical seemed to mean lower PCS and Wow moves would mean higher PCS. - Not unlike the 6.0 system.

    Maybe they should have forced age retirement of judges so that the new breed of judges coming up will be free of the 6.0 thinking.

    Joe
    Joe:

    Under the 6.0 system a fall was not a complete faux pas. If a skater made an attempt to land a difficult jump - say the quad - they were still given marks for the effort. If they planned to do a jump and then left it out completely or opened up in the jump and didn't rotate at all - now that was and still is a complete faux pas - even under the new marking system.

  4. #19
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Ladskater View Post
    Joe:

    Under the 6.0 system a fall was not a complete faux pas. If a skater made an attempt to land a difficult jump - say the quad - they were still given marks for the effort. If they planned to do a jump and then left it out completely or opened up in the jump and didn't rotate at all - now that was and still is a complete faux pas - even under the new marking system.
    I don't think we knew for sure how the 6.0 judges were considering falls, incomplete jumps, skids into spins, etc. I think we just assumed certain things in the final scores.

    With CoP there is a run out of individual scores for elements in the TES. So it is not too difficult to understand the mentality of the judges for faux pas.

    Joe

  5. #20
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    28
    Judging under 6.0 was all about who was better than who. What constituted 'better', at an elite-level well skated event, often rode on who skated cleanly. A mandatory .2 deduction for a fall is huge when you're fighting for the top. What attempting a quad and falling could do is give skaters a higher 'base'... so you're right in that it wasn't necessarily a faux pax. Whether or not it 'counted' for anything in the minds of judges depends on how good the attempt was. For example, 'this is a jump I can land all the time, but in this instance I didn't make it' it's far better than 'I'm throwing this in and praying that just maybe it'll work this time'. But ultimately, and I think this is the same think Joe was getting at, in 6.0 it doesn't matter what 'math' the judges did because it was all about the ordinals.

    But certainly CoP has changed the way skaters view attemping jumps/falling on jumps... the risk factor is not as high anymore since they have so many other opportunities to 'make up points'.

  6. #21
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,004
    Erica, I have heard judges comment that what they like about the new judging system is that the burden is lessened in coming up with an overall assesment of the competition.

    That is, under ordinal judging each judge must juggle in his/her mind whether skater A's fast well-centered spin is more meritorious than skater B's beautifully extended spirial. Under CoP judging, you can just give out a number for each element and let the totals fall where they may.

    From your experience, what do you think about that?

  7. #22
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Erica - I just want to wish you all the best as an up and coming judge.

    As to the two separate panels for judging COP TES and PCS, I was all for that on day one of the intro to COP. I can not believe a single mind can concentrate on all the explicit factors that go into judging.

    Joe

  8. #23
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    28
    Mathman - I can imagine that I'll have a more informed opinion once I have judged under both systems, but going from the practice judging I've done and just my own gut feeling.... I like CoP a whole lot better. The reason you named is definitely a big one, and I've heard that same comment from many experienced judges. With 6.0 you essentially have to remember, and hold in memory, your impressions of all skaters in that event. With CoP you're relieved of that pressure, because you don't have to compare skater A with skater X, Y and Z - you just need to compare skater A against a set standard and award GOE and PCS accordingly. Where before the judge had to do the math and keeping track of who was where and why and how... the computer now takes care of it for you. You are still under stress in that you still want to be fair and still want to have the right outcome, but it does make things easier in one sense.

    However, what I am less sure of is whether I agree with that ideology at all - do we really get better results by losing sight of direct comparaison? There are certainly valid merits and complaints as far as CoP goes. For one, some people complain now that flawed performances end up taking medals where "better performances" (in their opinions) lose. And that will probably the eternal debate. I don't think there's a right answer. We are human, the system is created by human, it's still a subjective sport - as much as we try to quantify it, it's still highly qualitative.... no system will produce 100% accurate results 100% of the time.

  9. #24
    Rooting for the divas with Kwanford Spun Silver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    4,880
    Erica, "knowing" you via these boards will make it a lot harder to grouse about judging results. Best of luck to you, and thanks for all your dedication.

  10. #25
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,004
    Quote Originally Posted by Spun Silver View Post
    Erica, "knowing" you via these boards will make it a lot harder to grouse about judging results.
    I was thinking the same thing! What's the fun of being an armchair expert if you can't lambaste the judges?
    Quote Originally Posted by Erica Lee
    However, what I am less sure of is whether I agree with that ideology at all - do we really get better results by losing sight of direct comparaison?
    Yes, that's the very point that causes me misgivings about the whole CoP approach. Figure skating is a judged sport. Ordinal judging acknowledges that fact of life in a straightforward way. CoP kind of dances around it, neither fish nor fowl.

  11. #26
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Posters who figure skate in competitions past or present understand the scoring of contestants. There should not be any arguments but plenty of discussions. Joe Inman popped in here a few times and it was a pleasure to read what he considered "the character of the music".

    Joe

  12. #27
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    28
    Thanks everyone... but hey, I've complained about my fair share of results and judging panels too (especially when I was competitive, and certainly as a fan), so don't let me get in your way

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •