What Is So Hard About The New Scoring System?

I just read another article about how complicated the new scoring system is and I don't get it. For the casual viewer, the points awarded can be easily understood in relation to the highest points ever awarded, personal best scores, best score this season, etc. People who are more interested can get more information from the breakdown of "technical" (what the judges saw) vs "style" (what the judges think) components. There's a panel of judges that minimizes bias and there are some very capable commentators who help explain the finer points.

And I really can't believe any skater found the 6.0 system more helpful than this. There is clear feedback on strengths and weaknesses and what a person needs to do to improve. The same goes for me as a fan. There's tons of information in those scores. Am I the only person in the world who prefers the new system?

I know it can be gamed, any judged sport can be. I know a lot of skaters are only focused on stuffing as many points into their programs as they can. I know the quality of the judging isn't always consistent. All these things existed under the old system too. And all the skate, jump, skate, jump, skate, jump people are gone. Doesn't that count for something?

I certainly don't get people who claim the 6.0 system is easier to understand. Even putting aside the debates over why each skater gets each mark in either system, at least in CoP, once all the points are assigned it's *really* easy to see exactly what's been done with them! In 6.0, it's hard enough, with the scores so damn scrunched up, to keep track of which judge placed which skaters in front of which other skaters, but even when place votes are displayed most of the time I get confused as to how the skaters are put in place by certain amounts of votes. I get that whoever gets the most 1st place votes win, but beyond that it's a complete and utter puzzle to me. Nor do I get how different segments of the competition are factored in for the most part. Again, I understand that the top three control their own destiny and anyone below needs help to win, but meanwhile, I see one competition(1998 Olympics) where a team gets 4th place in two CDs and the OD, 3rd in the FD, and winds up in fourth overall, and then another one(2002 Worlds) where a team gets the exact same placement in the individual segments and gets 3rd overall, and at that point I give up!

IMO the CoP is loads of fun for those who have enough interest in the sport to learn something about it.

That leaves the other 99.99 per cent of prospective viewers and casual fans.

Compare it to a sport like diving. The casual channel switcher sees someone jumnp into the water and a 73.49 comes up on the screen. This has no meaning whatever to most viewers, whose knowledge of diving is, "don't make a big splash when you hit the water."

On the other hand, if one footblal team scores two touchdowns and the other team only scores a field goal, then the victorious team wins, 14 to 3. Everyone gets that.

Under ordinal judging, fans knew that 5.7 was pretty good and 5.9 was really, really good. We also knew that if our favorite skater got a 5.7 while the other guy fell down and still got a 5.8, then our guy wuzrobbed. That was the fun of being a figure skating fan.

Well said, Mathman!!

Gotta say, also, I love your posts!! Lots of fun to read and oftimes a voice of reason in this mad, mad, mad, mad world of figure skating we love so much!

Thanks!

I always find it really hard to believe that the 6.0 system was easier to follow than the current one - I mean, when there were high marks for two skaters, I always had to wait for the ordinals to see who actually won, and it wasn't always who i though it would be --- just like now, I have to wait for the caluculator to sum it all up. When it was close or involved someone 4th in the sp needing someone in the top three to place in a particular order, I needed the announcer to explain that too me over and over with the 6.0. Now, all I REALLY need is the sum of the scores.

Now, learning the two sets of marks, how they are marked, and how deductions are made and etc etc...that's a lot to learn. I doubt the causual fan would - but still I don't think it impossible for a semi-casual fan to say: hey, jumps count and have different points - that's the big ticket item, I'll learn them.

I think in terms of 'ease' on viewers, the commentators and/or networks haven't really found a clever way to give the audience scores from two segments of the competition - say at the bottom of the screen, but i think that it could be done. I really don't think it matters if you know 80 is a good sp score or not (I mean 5.8 out of what, 6, 7, 8 10..why 6??? for the causual viewer); I think you could devise a way of showing the scale and when 80 pops up, you know it's high. OR you could constantly show the scores of the competitors from highest to lowest so people know how they are doing relative to one another at this point in the comp (sounds like the 6 system, no?). Finally, the sharing of PB or SB is helpful, but we could have a little more of that - so and so had is PB here and is in 1st but wouldn't stand a chance with other men in the field or whatever (or despite a PB he's still only in 10th here...).

Anyway, I guess I also just disagree with the football analogy here - sure it's about touch downs, and it is also about first and second and third downs and a lot more, and frankly, I don't get most of it so I just ask: who's winning, who has more points? (so how's that different from who's ahead Mao or Yu-Na?) AND, I know I don't get the intricacies to boot but still can get excited about the whose winning part. I think the generic non expert fan who just likes the thrill of the win could get excited about the overall points if they were presented often enough to generate the expectation that they matter, or that it's close, or an actual competition!! Again, to just know who's winning now can grab people. Last example, the ladies sp was so close at the GPF final in terms of points, yet the commentators hardly used that to generate any kind of excitement or anticipation - too bad, imo.

Now whether one is better, more accurate or not, facilitates better skating...all that, I don't know - but do enjoy reading the debate.

Mathman got it right, IMO.

Also, the things punished under the old system were very obvious errors, whereas many of the things punished under the new system are not always easy to see -- so, to someone who isn't a fan, the new marks make no sense.(IMO)

What I missed about 6.0 was the transparency. You know which judge gives what points.

For the casual fan, it is the same. He/she remembers those skaters last year and think they improved, they look the same, or they were not as good as last year. Since how they reached at the final scores is not so important, the casual fans will opine how well the judges agreed with their personal decision depending on how they compared with the fan's opinion.

The fans who follow the scoring closely, usually agree with the judges' final score for any element. However, when favorites are involved, or shaudenfreud gets involved, it doesn't matter what system is the better. That's an entirely different topic.

I think those skating fans who find the CoP scoring difficult and wish to learn more about it there are many resources for that provided you know most of the technical terms. For example, once you know what a change edge spiral is, you can judge it on your own for how well the edges were defined before and after the change, and if there were any bobbles. The rest of the decision is overall posture and how pretty the free leg is. So try learning more about individual elements. It's a bit of work but it can be done.

btw, Emma's opening paragraph above is an excellent description of the two types of scoring systems for those seeking the winner beyond themselves.

Joe

attyfan said:

Also, the things punished under the old system were very obvious errors, whereas many of the things punished under the new system are not always easy to see -- so, to someone who isn't a fan, the new marks make no sense.(IMO)

Click to expand...

Well, there were many things that were punished (or rewarded) under the old system that were not especially obvious either, to people who weren't fans or to fans who weren't skaters and/or who weren't familiar with all the detailed rules especially short program deductions.

So often you got results that seemed "wrong" and fans complained about skaters being robbed when actually the results made perfect sense considering all the rules and all the errors, not just the obvious ones. Off the top of my head, Plushenko with a fall placing ahead of Abt and Stojko, for example, in the 2002 Olympic short program. Or Kwan ahead of Nikodinov in the 2000 US Nationals SP. If there had been some way to list all the not-so-obvious 6.0 SP deductions for the audience to see, those result would have made more sense.

Or, heck, some way to break down the values of all the elements and the in between skating along with any quality bonuses or deductions. . . . Oh, wait, that would look a lot like the code of points.

TV broadcasts are pressed for time, so at best they can only summarize how the points were arrived at, under whichever system. And for broadcasts where the commentary is done live, the commentators can only guess what the judges (or technical specialists, as the case may be) were thinking. Although sometimes they can add some more detail after examining the protocols.

And with either factored placements or total points, they could do a better job of clarifying when a skater who apparently skated best in the freeskate but didn't win actually won the free but was too far behind after the short and when (and if possible why) they lost the freeskate as well.

fumie_fumie said:

What I missed about 6.0 was the transparency. You know which judge gives what points.

Click to expand...

Well, in junior international events and in domestic events in the US and other countries the judges are not anonymous -- you do know which judge gives what points.

And in the ISU's "interim system" used in 2003 and in the 2004 championships the judges scored by the 6.0 system, but the scores were given in random order and the judges were anonymous.

So code of points and anonymity are two completely separate issue.

The most transparent system would be to publish breakdowns of how the scores are arrived at and to show which judges gave which scores. Which is exactly the situation that exists now outside of senior international events.

gkelly said:

TV broadcasts are pressed for time, so at best they can only summarize how the points were arrived at, under whichever system. And for broadcasts where the commentary is done live, the commentators can only guess what the judges (or technical specialists, as the case may be) were thinking. Although sometimes they can add some more detail after examining the protocols.

Click to expand...

I think US TV commentators do a terrible job in general with the little time they have. (Little time, because they only show a minimum number of programs.) All of the commentators have the proposed programs and the base score. Since they manage to talk non-stop throughout a four minute program, you'd think they'd be able to:

1. Tell the audience how hard the person's routine is. "He's only three points behind the leader after the short program, but his planned LP isn't as difficult as any of the top three, and as a result, he needs to skate perfectly, while Leader B can afford several small errors."

2. Show how many points the skater would need to take the lead, and what is realistic for a win. "He needs 120 points to take the lead, but he may need as much as 140 to make the podium against this field."

There's enough time to get this in while the skater takes his/her/their position on the ice.

3. Point out at least one aspect of each program to teach the audience something about the scoring system or what the judges are looking for. (Susie Wynn has been best at this, at least until the last year or two.) "That looked fairly complicated, but they did the same type of turn multiple times, which makes it less difficult and a lower level than what Team B did."

4. Call the jumps correctly, and don't say that jumps have a good landing when the landing was tight or created a "V" instead of a curve.

Olympic commentators for snowboarding and aerial skiing, for example, are able to put different routines in the context of the competition point-wise. I don't see droves of young audience members giving up because the scoring is too complicated.

In the Russian TV coverage during Grand Prix, the main male commentator (Soloviev?) said practically nothing during the actual performance. It was during the slo-mo recap that he, and often Tarasova, commented about the skating. The slo-mo was easier to analyze anyway. Somehow, they manage to say more than US commentators without yapping non-stop.

I would love to hear the first CoP-trained former skater do the commentary for skating. But wait -- they all become technical specialists

Good suggestions, hockeyfan228!

hockeyfan228 said:

I would love to hear the first CoP-trained former skater do the commentary for skating. But wait -- they all become technical specialists

Click to expand...

The two don't seem to be mutually exclusive. Isn't Tracy Wilson a technical specialist?

(Although she's doing more of the broadcast anchor role than the skating expert role for ESPN.)

Also Debbi Wilkes, who comments in Canada, but I haven't heard her lately.

Imo

Forget about us, we aren't important. There are too few of us. It's the general viewing public who pay the bills en masse. So if they don't understand the scoring AND THEY DON"T, it's over because they cannot participate in a meaningful way. They want to be able to basically "get it" (the scoring system), which they did with the 6.0 system. Yes, there were times when they didn't get the finer distinctions i.e why a more complex flawed program might beat a less complex clean program, but for the most part they understood it. They can't with the new system because it is too complex. Joe, the general public isn't going to google how to score figure skating. They are just going to walk away-and they are doing it in droves. As for clean programs, we can forget those as long as this system is in place. Programs are no longer things of beauty but a struggle to stand up on the ice and do the hardest "tricks."

I don't think the question is "What is so hard about the new scoring system?" But what is so frustrating about the new scoring system?

For me it is now more like watching a gymnastics competition being judged than a figure skating competition. Under the 6.0 system the skaters had a benchmark score - a perfect 6.0 mark was rewarded for a perfect performance. It was always exciting when a skater achieved such an honour. I still to this day want to jump up and hold up a 6.0 mark when I see perfection. Under the new scoring system something like that gets lost in the final score. I am not sure if favortism or "backroom deals" (as Toller called them) still don't happen under the new scoring system. Maybe they do and it easier to hide them now. Anyway, I miss the the old 6.0 system. I am sure some of the skaters do as well.

kyla2 said:

Forget about us, we aren't important. There are too few of us. It's the general viewing public who pay the bills en masse. So if they don't understand the scoring AND THEY DON"T, it's over because they cannot participate in a meaningful way. They want to be able to basically "get it" (the scoring system), which they did with the 6.0 system. Yes, there were times when they didn't get the finer distinctions i.e why a more complex flawed program might beat a less complex clean program, but for the most part they understood it. They can't with the new system because it is too complex. Joe, the general public isn't going to google how to score figure skating. They are just going to walk away-and they are doing it in droves. As for clean programs, we can forget those as long as this system is in place. Programs are no longer things of beauty but a struggle to stand up on the ice and do the hardest "tricks."

Click to expand...

Perfectly stated! One of the things with this system that both amuses and insults me is this idea of the "personal best". That's all part of the scam to try and make the public believe that this new system is completely objective. But, with different techical callers, who obviously don't all call things the same, and with different judging panels who are free to hand out GOE and PCS scores any way they see fit, these numbers are irrelevant from one event to another. With this new system, a skater can make many mistakes in a program and still achieve a "personal best". The general public will never buy into that. I'm a knowledeable and avid fan, and I don't buy it. This system is most appealing to analytical types who believe that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Maybe skating needs to start going after the baseball fans. They absolutely love keeping complicated stats and crunching numbers.

Ladskater said:

I don't think the question is "What is so hard about the new scoring system?" But what is so frustrating about the new scoring system?
For me it is now more like watching a gymnastics competition being judged than a figure skating competition. Under the 6.0 system the skaters had a benchmark score - a perfect 6.0 mark was rewarded for a perfect performance. It was always exciting when a skater achieved such an honour. I still to this day want to jump up and hold up a 6.0 mark when I see perfection. Under the new scoring system something like that gets lost in the final score. I am not sure if favortism or "backroom deals" (as Toller called them) still don't happen under the new scoring system. Maybe they do and it easier to hide them now. Anyway, I miss the the old 6.0 system. I am sure some of the skaters do as well.

Click to expand...

ITA with you!!
And it is true that the skaters themselves don't like COP. Some of them expressed their frustration about COP in interviews.
Skaters who publicly admitted they don't like COP are: Plushenko, Lambiel, Weir, Lysacek, Kwan, Cohen.
But there are others as well which I don't remember right now.

If the majority of skaters don't like COP, it means that this judging system is a failure. Let's give more voice to skaters.

What I don't like about the new scoring system is that the skaters don't get rewarded when they do simple beautiful layback spins, spirals, or other spins.
The reasons why some people did catch foot spirals or catch foot camels or whatever was to compensate the lack of good positions and beauty to begin with..
For instance, if Angela Nikodinev did her trademark layback spin under the new scoring system, she probably would get only level 1 difficulty. My question is how often do you see a beautifl layback spin like that? It must be very hard to achive the beautiful positions like Angela's, Sasha, Mirai's, Caroline and Sarah Hughes'. Why can't that position be level 4? If it's so easy to get that beautiful positions, why can't we see more often?

ks777 said:

What I don't like about the new scoring system is that the skaters don't get rewarded when they do simple beautiful layback spins, spirals, or other spins.
The reasons why some people did catch foot spirals or catch foot camels or whatever was to compensate the lack of good positions and beauty to begin with..
For instance, if Angela Nikodinev did her trademark layback spin under the new scoring system, she probably would get only level 1 difficulty. My question is how often do you see a beautifl layback spin like that? It must be very hard to achive the beautiful positions like Angela's, Sasha, Mirai's, Caroline and Sarah Hughes'. Why can't that position be level 4? If it's so easy to get that beautiful positions, why can't we see more often?

Click to expand...

I have to agree, it limits the diversity, and to some extend the artistry. For example is a split jump, in my opinion something very beautiful and a highlight of step sequences à la Cohen or Weir, not included as an element. But that is not the worst - a split jump would not increase the difficulty of the step sequence, it would be just there and not rewarded. Because the ISU says concerning step sequences

1) Variety (complexity for Level 4) of turns and steps throughout (compulsory)
2) Rotations (turns, steps) in either direction (left and right) with full body rotation covering at
least 1/3 of the pattern in total for each rotational direction)
3) Modest (full for Level 4) use of upper body movement
4) Quick changes of rotational direction executed by rockers and/or counters, twizzles and/or
quick rotational toe steps immediately following each other

Click to expand...

So the split jump in a step sequence is neither modest upper body movement not quick changes etc. And nobody is doing them anymore (not sure about Shawn Sawyer though). Isn't that weird that an element that was always part of skating was somehow "outlawed"?

The ISU practically decided what is difficult to do, what is original and what is "rewarded". For the step sequences they took a look at Plushenko and Yagudin (no offense to them, love them both) and said to themselves, well, that looks good, why not make it a rule... But Yagudin had the music for that kind of step sequences, it was his style, his "trademark". The problem is, these step sequences do not fit in every program, not every music and not every skater. An example for another step sequence is Johnny Weir's during Otonal, the circular and the straight line at the end - they are absolutely beautiful, so musical - and I think the best he ever got for the straight line under CoP was Level 2.

This is what I do not understand. I understand the principle of CoP, even the need for more objectivity - but I do not understand the "scientification".

Off Topic Being a med student I cannot avoid to compare CoP to medical classifications. In the last decade they tried to categorise everything you do/say as a doctor/nurse and everything that happens to the patient. There is also reason behind this need - but I always have to think of this old general practitioner , that once spent over 30 minutes explaining to a daughter that the old mother would die in the next days. The younger colleague wanted him to write down the reason for that time and assign it to one of the standardised procedures of the catalogue. The old GP was so furious about that, he yelled that there is not a number for that, there is no number for human kindness. This sounds like a harsh example, but I think essentially it is the same problem.

We cannot categorise everything, especially not emotions or compassion or human kindness.

Figure skating is emotional, artistic and beautiful - and ultimately you cannot categorise beauty or emotions. CoP limits the skater extremely concerning their artistry, their creativity and their originality; because these three are connected to the skaters emotions and personality - and you cannot measure that.

CoP is as if they had told every painter and artist after Michelangelo, Raffael and da Vinci - that this is the way to go. And that everything else is not rewarded.

^ Thank you for that beautiful post.

Painters aren't competing with each other. They don't submit their work to panels of judges to be assessed. Figure skaters want to WIN. So they submit to the tyrany of being judged. I've learned a lot from reading all your posts and I think a lot of the criticism is valid, but let's not forget why the new CoP was implemented. The old system was being abused. And it looks like they are trying really hard to do the same to this one too.

Here's what I learned, the new CoP is imperfect, the 6.0 system was imperfect. The people who do the judging are imperfect (by the way, to the guy who said "every time I saw perfection", nobody's perfect - and that's another reason why I prefer the new system), even I have my faults.

I think our sport is missing "star power" these days and that's why no one's watching. I'll bet in a few more years when all the skaters have grown up under this system and TV has figured out how to illustrate the scoring better (those were great ideas, btw) we'll all be a lot happier. Thanks.

Great post Medusa