Can We Compare Total Points between Venues?

Several comments have been made about the equality of scores between different competitions. Here is something I wrote in the GP section of the forum.

I believe the sole purpose of the points is to arrive at a winner in the said competition only. If the points were of such importance to select world records, why shouldn't Joannie be in the Finals to even higher her total? After the last GP Joannie earned a total of 328.09 points and those points were ahead of Sarah Meier and Miki Ando in 7th and 8th places. She also beat out Caroline Zhang (309.9), Caroline Kostner (308.55) and Kimmie Meissner (321.97) all of whom are in the Finals!

I just don't see how one can justify equality of scoring points between different competitions. It's obvious to me, it can not.

Can you?

Joe

No. The THEORY perhaps is that scores should be comparable across competitions, at least maybe the technical scores, but the PCS are too subjective. And, even w/o PCS, too much subjectivity from judge to judge anyway.

I'm very glad that things like qualifying for the GP Final are NOT chosen by accumulated points across comps, or anything like that.

IN THEORY, I guess, if the points WERE believed to be comparable, why have a competition called Worlds at all? You could determine the World Champions simply by waiting til the end of the season, and giving out the medals based on the highest score each skater has posted at any comp, or highest accumulated points (adjusted for number of competitions), etc. HORRORS!!! That we don't do it this way to me indicates that we have a basic assumption that the playing field must be the same, with the same judges and officials, to have the best hope of fairly comparing skater to skater. :yes:

I think the only really fair way selection into the Grand Prix Final can be done so that ALL the skaters are judged under the same technical panel and judges and so that there is equal playing field in the competition is to have only 2 events in the Grand Prix Series where ALL the skaters compete together, sort of like a real early season preview of the World Championships. Have 1 of the competitions take place somewhere in North America and the other competition take place somewhere in Europe or Asia (this way ALL the skaters get in their required 2 events to qualify for the GPF), and then have the top 6 from each discipline qualify into the Grand Prix Final by combining their point totals from the 2 events. The skaters with the highest combined point totals make the Finals. This is the only fair way in my mind. The first Grand Prix event can be scheduled for the 1st week in November and the second one can be scheduled for the 1st week in December with the Final occurring in mid-December as usual.

museksk8r said:

Have 1 of the competitions take place somewhere in North America and the other competition take place somewhere in Europe or Asia

Click to expand...

Yeah, sounds like that's "the only fair way" for those living/training in NA.

Have 1 of the competitions take place somewhere in North America and the other competition take place somewhere in Europe or Asia (this way ALL the skaters get in their required 2 events to qualify for the GPF), and then have the top 6 from each discipline qualify into the Grand Prix Final by combining their point totals from the 2 events. The skaters with the highest combined point totals make the Finals. This is the only fair way in


i think they have this somewhat in Four Continents and Europeans.

I believe we can compare scores from different competitions. The scoring standard may have been inconsistent throughout, but it still doesn't change the fact Joannie clearly out skated Kimmie, Caroline,and Carolina. I couldn't argue the same if Joannie total score was higher by less than five points, but when the difference is significant enough, I think we can actually compare. That being said, luck plays a big part in every sports tournament. So, I believe all six ladies deserved to be in the final.

I don't think it does any good or make any sense to compare scores between GP events. There are inconsistencies and they only frustrate you to try to understand them. For example, Lysacek's score at Skate America would have won Skate Canada and his Cup of China score would have won Skate America. How dumb is that? There is no way of getting around it. Each competition stands alone and each skater has to take what they get.

What we have to remember is that the GP series is more of a preview of the season. It is an opportunity for the skaters to try out their programs, iron out the kinks, and give younger skaters an opportunity to gain experience on the international level. The GPF gets more serious because by then the more talented skaters have been gleaned. But it still isn't a competition that holds that much prestige, not like the US Nationals, Europeans, 4CC, or Worlds.

I think the true question is are the scores more comparable than the placements are. Does anyone believe that Yu-na gold performance at CoR was equal to Kostners' gold performance at NHK? I don't think so. Yet they both recieve 15pt for the gold.

OldSkaterMom said:

I don't think it does any good or make any sense to compare scores between GP events. There are inconsistencies and they only frustrate you to try to understand them. For example, Lysacek's score at Skate America would have won Skate Canada and his Cup of China score would have won Skate America. How dumb is that? There is no way of getting around it. Each competition stands alone and each skater has to take what they get.

What we have to remember is that the GP series is more of a preview of the season. It is an opportunity for the skaters to try out their programs, iron out the kinks, and give younger skaters an opportunity to gain experience on the international level. The GPF gets more serious because by then the more talented skaters have been gleaned. But it still isn't a competition that holds that much prestige, not like the US Nationals, Europeans, 4CC, or Worlds.

Click to expand...

I am confuse. What does the inconsistancy of skaters has to do with if scores are caparable from different events. What is dumb about. Your statement is actually an arguement against using placements. Personally I think the GPF has more prestige than US Nationals and 4CC. So we shouldn't care about the fairness of the GP because it haven't been around a long time and it is early in the season. This is why figure skating is lame. Competitions are reduce to previews and place holders.

enlight78 said:

This is why figure skating is lame. Competitions are reduce to previews and place holders.

Click to expand...

I love that expression previews and place holders!!

Joe

4CC doesn't have that much prestige yet, but it is meant to be similar to Europeans. US Nationals is a prestige event. National Champion is a coveted title, much more than Grand Prix Final.

The Grand Prix is a preview event. You are not going to see there what you are going to see in March at World's, so the two cannot even be compared. Plus, skaters who are not in the final will be at Worlds', such as Tomas Verner, Buttle, Rochette, etc. And some not old enough will not be at Worlds, such as Caroline Zhang and the pair from the US.

What I meant by inconsistencies, is that is doesn't matter how a skater skates between events or the number of points they receive by the judges. It is based solely on placement and that is the way it is set up. 15 points in one competition may be earned by one skater, where in another competition that same skate would not have won a gold and earned that skater 15 points. That is what I meant. Regarding Evan, what I meant was, that his SA score would have won SC, giving him 15 points instead of 13. He skated much better at SA than Joubert did at SC. That is what I am talking about.