CoP opinions: The short program

Mathman · Feb 25, 2008

One of the big differences between ordinal judging and the CoP is that now the points for the SP and the LP are simply added together to produce a winner. Like the first period versus the second and third periods of a hockey game -- most goals overall wins.

The old method was more like a tournament. The short program was the semifinals, and the winners moved on to the finals.

Well, not quite. But if you landed in the top three (third was as good as first), then you "controlled your own destiny" in the long. On the other hand, if you didn't make the top six in the short, you were pretty much out of contention for the title.

In the new system, Mirai Nagasu can score so many points in the SP at U.S. Nationals that she can coast to an anticlimatic victory with a fourth place effort in the LP.

On the other hand, a few contests have been won by a skater zooming up from sixth place to take the gold.

On the whole, taking the good with the bad, I like the old way better. I think it makes better theater, especially for spectators who see only the long program. The first round produces three contenders (but anything can happen if the leaders falter, as in 2002 Olympics). Now they will skate against each other in the championship round. Yay!

Penny · Feb 25, 2008

I much prefer CoP on this particular issue. In the old days, one mistake in the short could end your chance of medaling. Let's remember the original purpose of the short--to help good free skaters who weren't good at figures. Figures were eliminated, but the short lived on, ironically often eliminating top skaters from contention. So, what do others think?

pohatta · Feb 25, 2008

i too prefer CoP for various reasons. During 6.0 there were some superior freeskaters (like Midori Ito in her prime) who didn't benefit from their superiority as it made no difference if you won narrowly or by a mile.

That "top three control their destiny" thinking was also quite misleading. In 2002 Olympics people thought it didn't matter if Michelle Kwan or Irina Slutskaya was placed 1st in the short, but in the end it mattered a lot for Slutskaya.

luckyguy · Feb 25, 2008

Mathman said:
On the other hand, a few contests have been won by a skater zooming up from sixth place to take the gold.

For example Stephen Carriere at the World Junior Championships 2007.

blue dog · Feb 25, 2008

I prefer a mix of the old with the new. They could make the short worth more than it is, like 45%, instead of the old 40%. I think by adding the two points, in some cases, the LP had become a sort of formality, rather than being worth more because it was the "longer" stage of the competition.

I feel that the new system devalues the long program, and contributes to the dilemma of having short programs that aren't skated to the music, but skated to garner the most points (ie--fast, sloppy footwork during slow sections).

Mafke · Feb 25, 2008

There will always be competitions where whatever method you use seems sub-optimal. In Albertville 92 Ito was almost for sure locked out of the gold and Harding for the podium after the SP which made for a very forgetable night of LPs.

On the other hand, the men's LP in Torino was a big snoozefest because Plushenko could have done nothing but bunnyhops after the 1.00 mark and he still would have won.

Ordinals only made sense when one part of the competition (figures) was judged very differently than the others. After figures were discarded there really wasn't any logic to keeping ordinals either (besides the most powerful force in the universe - institutional inertia).

If the competition is just SP+LP then by all means total point count is the way to go.

Mafke · Feb 25, 2008

blue dog said:
I prefer a mix of the old with the new. They could make the short worth more than it is, like 45%, instead of the old 40%. I think by adding the two points, in some cases, the LP had become a sort of formality, rather than being worth more because it was the "longer" stage of the competition.

I feel that the new system devalues the long program, and contributes to the dilemma of having short programs that aren't skated to the music, but skated to garner the most points (ie--fast, sloppy footwork during slow sections).

The short program has never been worth 40 %.

from 1973-88 = 20 %
89 - 90 = 30 %
91 ~ present = 33.333 % (except when the QR counted in which case it was back to 30 %)

Kwanford Wife · Feb 25, 2008

I'm not sure because its hard for this uber to think about it objectively... for example - in '02, Sarah would've been further down the line after the short because of other elements and Michelle's slip might not've been so contention ending... under 6.0, you knew when she put that hand down that it was over... at that contest, the CoP would've made a bad olympics even worse for the sport...

In contrast at the '05 Worlds... Michelle tanked in the qualifying round so bad that under 6.0 in 6th place (i think...) she might as well gone shopping. But with the new system, she still had a shot - right until that darn salchow... But did we want a medalist who didn't "deserve it" would it have been "fair" for her to throw some double whatever to squeek out another point when Carolina "earned" her bronze?

I personally don't like to see a podium full of skaters who totally blew the big one in one phase or skated wonderfully in the short but tanked in the long... which is why I've always had an issue with Sasha's silver (and Irina's bronze, if I'm being honest...) when there are skaters who had clean, technically sound skates like Fumie...

It has less to do with the system and more with the skating... CoP skating, regardless of the portion, doesn't promote clean skates and that always makes the final podium look bad... Mirai (who I love...) shouldn't have won Nationals with a fall in the long when other skaters (Ashley, Rachael - neither of whom I truly get... ) put out excellent technical skates that were clean... both of these two skaters deserved to "control their own destiny"

Another example is last year's Worlds... I knew skating had changed when fans were going on about how Miki, who skated two squeeky clean programs, didn't "deserve" her world title because Mao, who's sloppy short was a hot mess, skated a great long... huh? Is skating about perfection or is it about who jumps the most? What message does that send?

Tinymavy15 · Feb 25, 2008

I like the fact that with CoP you are not dead if you mess up in the short. I like the fact that skaters can come back from behind.
Last year I believe that we had a similar discussion and somebody made a great point that under CoP the SP is really no different from the freeskate.
I think that in the SP the judges should really reward correct takeoffs, clean edges and Classic skating. Good positions rather than hard ones. Nice spins held. Only here should the skaters get busted for flutzing.

In the freeskate, lutzing should be downgraded only slightly...there should be no required elements... a freeskate. I do feel that the limit of jumping passes in the freeskate should be kept... or else jumpers like Mao would never give anybody a chance.

Mathman · Feb 25, 2008

Mafke said:
Ordinals only made sense when one part of the competition (figures) was judged very differently than the others. After figures were discarded there really wasn't any logic to keeping ordinals either.

I am not so sure about that. The reason for ordinals is that some things are qualitative rather than quantitative.

Sonia Bianchetti, on the other thread, makes the interesting point that human judges are better at making relative qualitative comparisons -- A is better than B and B is better than C -- than they are at matching a performance against an arbitrary numerical standard.

Try it. Take three pencils, a long one, a medium one, and a short one. It is very easy to put them in order, even if the difference in length is only a centimeter.

Now try to guess how long each is, in centimeters.

This is why, under the old system, there might be quite a lot of variation among the judges as to whether a performance deserved a 5.6 or a 5.8, even in cases where the judges were unanimous with respect to placements.

There is plenty of precedent in sports for not carrying point totals over from one phase of the competition to the next. In the World Series (baseball), if your team beats the other 30 to 2 in the first game, and loses 0 to 1 in the second, the series is all tied up going into game three -- it's still the best out of seven, not who scores the most runs overall. There would be scant reason to play the other five games, if the winning team got to carry over their 30 runs.

Well, what's good for baseball may not be good for figure skating. In golf they do it both ways, stroke play and match play.

Joesitz (RIP) · Feb 25, 2008

I've always had a problem with the demise of school figures which is how what we do in America got its name. Europeans changed it to Artistic skating which makes better sense.

When figures were being torn away from figure skating and the institute of the Short Program came into replace them. The concept was to ensure that the Technical elements would play a role as and important part of the score. However, we all know, that a ballet-like performance would win over the Technical prowess if such a skater had adequate technical skills in the SP.

The technical elements were few and they were judged basically by unfortunate errors and not by whether the skater was capable of executing them correctly as a skater. The performance scores were not held back and often went beyond the scores for the technical elements so the concept of the SP, imo, was never met.

Nothing will change with regard to really checking out skating elements. It will be continued to be judged as a mini LP in the same mode as an LP.

If the original concept is still important, they can judge those elements with a factor giving an edge over the performance scores., but I do not think the original concept is still considered in the SP. (Fans love those spirals)

Joe

indicatoto101 · Feb 25, 2008

Mathman said:
Sonia Bianchetti, on the other thread, makes the interesting point that human judges are better at making relative qualitative comparisons -- A is better than B and B is better than C -- than they are at matching a performance against an arbitrary numerical standard.

Try it. Take three pencils, a long one, a medium one, and a short one. It is very easty to put them in order, even if the difference in length is only a centimeter.

Now try to guess how long each is, in centimeters.

Comparing the pencils to each other might be easier, but it's under the assumption that one is longer or shorter than the others. What happens when they look about the same length? You might have to pull out your ruler.

Mafke · Feb 25, 2008

Mathman said:
I am not so sure about that. The reason for ordinals is that some things are qualitative rather than quantitative.

Yeah, I'm not entirely sure about it, but generally ordinals make less sense when there's only free skating than when very different skills are all subsumed into a single contest.

Ideally I'd like both options open and the one which gives more skaters a chance at the gold chosen for any given competition. If one skater zooms to a gigantic lead then ordinals it is. If there's a logjam of good SP's then point totals ahoy.

(Yes, I realize that's totally unrealistic, but it's what I'd like)

mizu_iro · Feb 25, 2008

I think the short in its current form is pretty useless. The fact that Mao messed up the combo and completely skipped the solo triple at GPF but still managed a score ridiculously close to the rest of the ladies, and that Yu-Na messed up the combo but still landed well in first, sort of defeats the purpose of the short (or "technical") program - they failed to execute the required technical skills but didn't get dinged. Maybe harsher deductions for missed elements would help?

And I don't like ordinals...I think it's a step back. Watch the 1999 Worlds ladies' shorts and try to convince yourself that Anna Rechnio deserved to be in sixth- she obviously deserved much higher.

gkelly · Feb 25, 2008

Mafke said:
Ideally I'd like both options open and the one which gives more skaters a chance at the gold chosen for any given competition. If one skater zooms to a gigantic lead then ordinals it is. If there's a logjam of good SP's then point totals ahoy.

I think you're talking about factored placements rather than ordinals.

Up until 1980, judges gave marks out of for each phase of the competition, and then all the judges' points for each skater were added together (with some factoring of the marks according to the relative weight each phase was supposed to have?), to produce one set of ordinals for the whole competition.
(I think I have that right.) That's what allowed skaters who built up a big lead in school figures to come out ahead overall even when they were soundly defeated in freeskating by a skater who had been reasonably high in the figures standings.

After 1980, the standings for each phase of the competition were computed separately, and the only numbers that carried over from one phase to the next were the placements for each phase, multiplied by that phase's factor. So margin of victory in any phase, early or later, became irrelevant, whereas the number of other skaters who placed in between any two skaters who switched places between phases was more significant than how much better each one was than the other in the phase that s/he won.

With the absolute point system that we have now, it would be possible to compute rankings for each phase using the absolute points and then use only factored placements to determined final results.

And as you point out, in some competitions it will seem fairer (or more exciting) to use a system that takes into account margin of victory in each phase and in other competitions it will seem better to flatten out the differences. Whatever scoring rules are in place can only choose one system or the other, so whichever approach is chosen there will inevitably be occasions when it worked the other way.

JonnyCoop · Feb 25, 2008

gkelly said:
With the absolute point system that we have now, it would be possible to compute rankings for each phase using the absolute points and then use only factored placements to determined final results.

I've been in favor of doing it that way ever since CoP came along. I'm not fond of a system in which potentially someone can skate THE long program of the night and then end up losing by like 0.02 points or something just because the overall winner had their leg up 2 degrees higher in their spiral sequence in the short program or something.

I'm not even sure that the way things are right now, it even makes any difference. I think the judges have pretty much figured out by now how to manipulate CoP to crown the winner they want, regardless of what is actually done on the ice. Maybe it's just me, but it seems that this season, there have been several completely overscored programs, as well as several completely underscored ones, whereas in the first few seasons of CoP the scoring seemed more or less accurate. Lysacek over Weir in the Nationals LP was the most BLATANT example, but there have been others -- such as at Bompard, when Elena Glebova had a higher TES than Sarah Meier when several of Glebova's elements were half-done, sloppy, and juniorish, PLUS she fell twice. Meier didn't have the greatest night there, either, but her TES, in theory, was CLEARLY better than Glebova's, only it didn't add up that way. So if the judging is going to be that off anyway, whatever system is in place seems rather irrelevant.

Ptichka · Feb 25, 2008

indicatoto101 said:
Comparing the pencils to each other might be easier, but it's under the assumption that one is longer or shorter than the others. What happens when they look about the same length? You might have to pull out your ruler.

Absolutely! What's more, to me comparing skaters is like comparing the following:
*******
***********
Which one is "more"? Well, it clearly depends on what we're asking! The first line takes up more space, yet the second one has more stars in it. If we go with the former definition, than ordinals are better; if we go with the latter, then it's CoP all the way!

Joesitz (RIP) · Feb 25, 2008

Interesting view Ptichka -

I see the Ordinal System as comparing skaters on that night of nights.

I see the CoP as comparing elements to their definitions. add them up and voila.

These elements have a wide interpretation, so how much different are they from the comparison system?

btw, I'm not arguing this. Just pointing it out

Joe

Ptichka · Feb 25, 2008

Joesitz said:
Interesting view Ptichka

Well, I've just been reading a lot lately on how little children learn mathematical principles. In the example above, even children who can count the stars in each of the lines will invariably say that the first line has more stars - that is, until they reach a certain level of understanding of abstract principles. So I guess examples like this are very much on my mind

Tonichelle · Feb 26, 2008

in the 6.0 system if you got put into the first flight in the SP you were basically out of the running no matter how you skated (Michael Weiss in 02 in STL good example. He was held back because he was second guy out, and it was one of his best SPs ever!)

now with the points adding up it seems a little more fair.... in theory. As long as you have untrusworthy people judging, though, it will never be perfect no matter what system you use.

CoP opinions: The short program

Mathman

Penny

pohatta

luckyguy

Match Penalty

blue dog

Trixie Schuba's biggest fan!

Mafke

Mafke

Kwanford Wife

Tinymavy15

Sinnerman for the win

Mathman

Joesitz (RIP)

indicatoto101

Mafke

mizu_iro

gkelly

JonnyCoop

Ptichka

Forum translator

Joesitz (RIP)

Ptichka

Forum translator

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll

Similar threads

Connect with us