Score the systems...

So, I want to try to "score" the three systems--

Sounds silly and frivolous (oh but I am feeling silly and frivolous between classes), but using the 6.0 system, give a score for each of the three systems (yes, we had three)-- original 6.0, interim 6.0, and NJS.

One score for Technical Merit (how easy was it to understand the system; did it encompass all the technical moves and give them each the proper value)
One for Presentation (is it as close to the perfect system for this sport?)

I'll compile the ordinals by tomorrow night. I'll start:

NJS:
TM - 4.8
PR - 5.0

Interim:
TM - 4.7
PR - 4.4

Original:
TM - 5.2
PR - 5.0

Based on those, I ranked the old system first, the NJS second, and that horrid interim third.

IMO, the original 6.0 is the better choice. Simple to understand and simple to mark.
I'll give a 5.3 and a 5.4

I think that FS is a super subjective sport. COP was made to avoid the cheating of judges and to make FS objective. But we saw that judges are cheating anyway. But it is a patology of a subjective sport. If I were a judge I will certainly score better my favs and less the others. We are human. Nobody is objective. So, IMO COP didn't solve ANYTHING.
I'll give COP a 2.0 and a 2.5

original 6.0 = 5.4, 5.2
interim 6.0 = 4.0, 4.0
COP = 2.0, 2.5

IMO the interim and the NJS have to be disqaulified from the competition because of the secret judging side of things. Anything which uses judging to get a result should be open to scrutiny, transparent and hold the judges accountable for their actions.

While 6.0 was not the best, we coudl at least see which judges gave which marks, the other two and invalidated because of secret judging which are their fundamental flaws.

I'd be happy to try to accept COP with various changes if the secret judging was dropped.

Ant

There are two different issues here: How the scores and results are arrived at, and how the scores are reported to the public.

The secrecy (and random selection) aspects, including separating the first and second marks for presentation purposes only in the interim system, really have nothing to do with the actual judging or even much to do with the accounting process. They do tend to confuse the public, and they also, intentionally, obscure the accountability of which judge gave which scores. But they are not inherently part of either judging system and should be considered separately.

When the new judging system has been used in the JGP, and domestically in the US and some other countries, there is no anonymity, so you can dismiss that factor from evaluating the new judging system on its own merits.

So maybe list the choices as
-6.0 system with judges identified
-6.0 system with anonymity (Interim system)
-COP with judges identified
-COP with anonymity

As for the actual judging, there is a big difference between the process the judges go through in the 6.0 system and the process that the judges plus the technical panel go through in the new system. So consider how many and what kinds of aspects of the skating are marked, how consistently, and how transparently to the skaters and the public in terms of the WHAT, separately from the WHO (which judge) gave each mark.

You could also consider the accounting aspects, e.g., OBO vs. the majority system or factored placements vs. the old (up to 1980) system of adding each judge's marks for each skater across each phase of the competition to produce one ordinal for the whole event.

But those don't really change the judging process, just the way the numbers are crunched to account for difference of opinions between judges and differences in skaters' success from one competition phase to the next.

You might also want to consider what kind of element content and program construction are encouraged/discouraged by the rules under the new system, and the short program requirements and well-balanced long program rules in the last ~10 years of the old system, and the much looser (except in ice dance) long program rules before that in the old system. That's primarily a factor of the rules rather than the judging system, but the different process between the two systems does tend to encourage a more qualitative approach under 6.0 and a more quantitative one under COP.

First off. In view of the SLC scandal, I would prefer the secrecy of judges be eliminated. The public has a right to know which judge is holding up which skater and draw their own conclusions. For example, If an American judge is holding up an American skater then let that be known! The fan could then make his own decision on whether or not that 'vote' was the sole reason for the results. It won't affect the results of the competition but it will give strong warning to the judges that the media will make an issue out of it. Too bad. It keeps the sport on the up and up.

Since it is very often obvious who should win the competition in the 6.0 system, that is preferable unless there is good reason to believe that the decision is really too close to call. In which case the CoP could determine the results and would satisfy any misconception of the results. The judges may have to explain their GoEs. Too bad. It will keep the sport on the up and up.

Aside. In either competition, I can never quite grasp the difference between the skaters who were placed 15 and 17th. Here too, the CoP tends to make more sense. While the general public and the avid fans do not care about the placements after 'top ten', those skaters placing 11th and downward do, and I think sport should explain the difference.

Joe

Joesitz said:

Since it is very often obvious who should win the competition in the 6.0 system, that is preferable unless there is good reason to believe that the decision is really too close to call.

Click to expand...

What about all those 5-4 and 6-3 split decisions for first place that fans love to argue about decades after the fact? Or even unanimous or 8-1 or 7-2 decisions where many fans and media outlets vocally disagree with the judging panel? Seems to me as often as not it's not so obvious.

In which case the CoP could determine the results and would satisfy any misconception of the results.

Click to expand...

Are you advocating mixing both systems somehow?

gkelly said:

What about all those 5-4 and 6-3 split decisions for first place that fans love to argue about decades after the fact? Or even unanimous or 8-1 or 7-2 decisions where many fans and media outlets vocally disagree with the judging panel? Seems to me as often as not it's not so obvious.

Click to expand...

I'm really talking about casual fans which fill the arenas at any given major competition. Your are correct about the 'ardent' fans of figure skating for debating for years after a competition. One can't help, especially me, that those particular fans are also a gran patriot of their country or their ancestral background, and if the skater is from that country, that I believe will be the hidden reason for argument, but only in a close call. JMO.

Are you advocating mixing both systems somehow?

Click to expand...

No. I would not be able to figure that out. It's not feasible. I was just pointing out that there are obvious results and close results in figure skating. 6.0 can deal with obvious results, but I would go for CoP to deal with both obvious and close calls. However, I would like to see explanations for the GoEs and who the judges are. That is my major point.

Joe

Joesitz so you want the judges known and the judges notes released. I think that could be a good idea. Especially if the rules made sure that each judges started out with only a section for each skater. Nothing prewrote down. That's not really a part of the system themselves. Both could be a part of any of the systems.

I like COP better because it's more about the individual skater not how she/he/they compare to their competitors. On paper any way.

6.0 was not really a scoring system but a comparative place holder. It was about order of placement based on judges impressions of the field which could offen be preset based on practice and previous achievement more so then what each skater did in the judge competition. This really affected the 1st part of a given competition which usually was the short. So many skaters to place. The other skaters around the evaluated skater can really affect a judges impressions on a skater. Especially in a system that was all about impressions. Which is what I deep the 6.0.

Impressions affect COP as well but because the skaters finish with a set techicnal basemark there is a lot less importance on impression at least on the tes side of the judging. Not true with the pcs side. Releasing the judges notes will really hope understand why a skater was given what she was in skating skills, transitions and the other ones.

Now if only a skater would try and perform a "easy" level spin or spiral sequence perfectly and get the +3 goe it deserves then the in practice COP would be as good as the on paper COP. Of course I don't think any skater tries to do easier stuff since what happened with Michelle Kwan at 05 worlds-they all are trying for harder stuff and it gets downgraded. Sloppy should be punished and near perfection should be rewarded.

And of course combos and sequences difficulty should be credited appropriately-meaning some kind of extra points for combos and equal points for sequences.

tarotx, I agree with most of your post, but I'm confused about what you mean by this:

tarotx said:

Now if only a skater would try and perform a "easy" level spin or spiral sequence perfectly and get the +3 goe it deserves then the in practice COP would be as good as the on paper COP.

Click to expand...

What constitutes performing a spin or spiral sequence (easy or otherwise) "perfectly"? Lack of errors? That'll get you 0 or +1. Excellence in all aspects would be necessary for +3, and close to it for +2. And excellence in all aspects, not just meeting the requirements, is pretty darn rare.

[I typed up a bunch of examples and explanations and then cut them because the post got too rambling]

For the most part, the skaters who are capable of earning high GOEs on simple spins or spiral sequences are also the same skaters who are capable of consistently achieving the higher levels.

How the COP could be revised to better reward simple things done well would be to rewrite the scale of values and/or the level descriptions in some of the following ways:

-Make it a feature toward a higher level to hold the same spin position without variations for a minimum number of revolutions, with any additional position variants or edge changes to occur before or afterward.
-Add additional feature options for spiral sequences including at least one that somehow rewards good extension and near but not total split without hand assist
-Make a level between the current levels 1 and 2 so there's a reward to do just one feature esp. on the one-position spins (it used to be that they only needed one feature for level 2 before this year)
-Make the increments in point value for each successive + GOE larger than the increments in level, and don't make the GOE increment so much larger for level 4 elements than for lower levels

What would anyone think of awarding an element its full value if the element is done perfectly well and deducting only for the flaws in that element.

I think the plus scores are so whimsical. They are so 6.0. and the CoP was planned to do away with subjective judging.

I don't see the value in judging height in a jump without comparing it to another jumper in the contest, and that is the 6.0 system. And the bottom line is that genetics plays a big role on high jumping which I did while on the Track Team in High School. Nothing to do with blade touching ice.

The rules are clear for a jump: take off from connecting steps or from something like MIF with good flow using the correct edge; get the number of air rotations correctly; and the landing should have a smooth outflow and on to another jump or other moves. If all this is done properly there is no reason to give plus GoEs. So what if a skater hands are on his hips and or have one in a Tano position. That can be covered in the PCS.

If however, their are flaws in the above sequence then the GoEs come into play. There should be at least 75% of the judges in agreement. The other 25% hopefully were just inattentive for specific reasons.

I believe the above would carry further the object of eliminating subjectivity in the Technical aspect of the sport.

Joe