Coaches proposals 1-3: Judging, qualifying rounds, and general comments
- Thread starter merrybari
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2008
Secret judging was the worst decision ever. The CoP was supposed to eliminate corrupted and biased judging, but to be honest it's just got worst as the judges don't have to justify themselves.
Maybe we should also get judges, after every competition, to comment on the grades they gave to the skaters and make the repport available to all. Moreover this would help skaters really understand what they need to improve.
I couldn't have put it better! that way top skaters aren't worn out and the actual competitions don't last God knows how long.
It just goes to show their honesty. If they do they job honestly, they shouldn't have any problems facing people's reactions.
All scores should be taken into account. eliminating the extremes is sanctioning judges for having an opinion and daring to give a skater a score he or her deserves because he or her is under/overrated
Maybe we should also get judges, after every competition, to comment on the grades they gave to the skaters and make the repport available to all. Moreover this would help skaters really understand what they need to improve.
I couldn't have put it better! that way top skaters aren't worn out and the actual competitions don't last God knows how long.
It just goes to show their honesty. If they do they job honestly, they shouldn't have any problems facing people's reactions.
All scores should be taken into account. eliminating the extremes is sanctioning judges for having an opinion and daring to give a skater a score he or her deserves because he or her is under/overrated
Last edited by a moderator:
:thumbsup: These coaches proposals look more interesting than those put forward for the ISU Congress agenda.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
What the skaters did not like, if that is a valid contention, is having to do their LP routines for the Quali Rd. It was time consuming, and some began at the wee hours of the morning. One has to believe the judges were getting bored. I vaguely remember when the CoP came in judges were shuffled around.
I suggest again, to have a Quali Rd but the scores should not carry over to the SP or LP. The point being this is an elimination round and not a championshiip round.
Then have each skater wing a 3minute routine with judges watching mainly for basics and precision elements. No combos or convoluted nonsense.
That should get 30 of the best skaters to be seeded into the SP.
Joe
I suggest again, to have a Quali Rd but the scores should not carry over to the SP or LP. The point being this is an elimination round and not a championshiip round.
Then have each skater wing a 3minute routine with judges watching mainly for basics and precision elements. No combos or convoluted nonsense.
That should get 30 of the best skaters to be seeded into the SP.
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2007
Why not have Europeans and 4CCs serve as qualifying competitions for Worlds? Take the top 15 or whatever from each competition and they automatically qualify for the SP at Worlds.
P.S. If judges weren't using the PCS like its the old 6.0 presentation score to rank and position the skaters, judging 50 skaters wouldn't be so difficult.
P.S. If judges weren't using the PCS like its the old 6.0 presentation score to rank and position the skaters, judging 50 skaters wouldn't be so difficult.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2007
Can't agree more with Mafke's proposals!
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
We discussed that before, but the best 15 skaters at 4CC are not as good as the best 15 skaters at Europeans. For example: the completed and landed jumps of No.16 at Europeans were: 1A - 3L - 3F2T - 3S - 3F - 3T-3T< - 2A, he also fell on a Triple Axel attempt --> overall points 160.37. The No.16 of 4CC landed the following: 3S2T1R - 2A - 2T - 2R - 3T1T - (2A - nearly -3GOE) - (3S - fall) - 2A --> overall he got 111.16 points. It just doesn't seem like a fair solution.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
If you bring that up to top 10 at Four C's and top 10 at Europeans in both singles disciplines, not just Men's, there's more equity:
Euros Ladies ranged from 171.28 (Kostner) to 142.4 (Vahamaa). Vahamaa didn't qualify for Worlds. Four C's Ladies ranged from 185.56 (Asada) to 145.06 (Suguri), and of them, Hacker (153.86), Pfaneuf (152.67), and Suguri didn't qualify for Worlds 2008.
Of these, the skaters who didn't already qualify to bypass q-rounds would have been (with placement at 2008 Worlds in parentheses): Gedevanishvilli (20), McCorkell (FNR), Doronina (17), NY Kim (19), Wagner (16), Leung (14), and Gimazetdinova (21). Another flight removed, with one flight reduced by one, another hour and ten minutes saved.
Euro Men ranged from 232.67 (Verner) to 178.63 (Preaubert). Lutai (180.46) did not qualify for Worlds. Four C's Men ranged from 264.41 (Takahashi) to 182.94 (Wu). Chipeur (196.57), Sawyer (187.18), and Wu didn't qualify for Worlds 2008.
Of these, the skaters who didn't already qualify to bypass q-rounds would have been: Schultheiss (13), van der Perren (6), Carriere (10), Abbott (11), Kozuka (8), and Li (23). Again, another flight saved.
The Four C's top 10 extras were just as strong as the Euros top 10 extras at World 2008.
I certainly would agree with ending secret judging and random selection. If the judges want their identities shielded, then why are they introduced by name at the beginning of each competition segment? If they are judging honestly, then they have no reason to fear retribution. If anyone thinks the federations don't find out who voted for/against each skater/team, they are quite naive.
I am against continuing the qualification rounds. I don't see any point in making skaters repeat a program twice.
I am against continuing the qualification rounds. I don't see any point in making skaters repeat a program twice.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
Now that some interesting discussions have begun on the various coach-suggestions, it's time for the meta-discussion.
The first rule of negotiating/bargaining/haggling is to always ask for more than you want (because you might luck out and get it).
The second rule is to initially ask for things that you don't especially want so that you can offer to discard them.
Which (if any) of these proposals do you think the coaches are most serious about?
Which (if any) of these proposals do you think are included just so they can be discarded?
Which (if any) of these proposals do you think have a chance of getting accepted (if not now then sometime in the future).
The first rule of negotiating/bargaining/haggling is to always ask for more than you want (because you might luck out and get it).
The second rule is to initially ask for things that you don't especially want so that you can offer to discard them.
Which (if any) of these proposals do you think the coaches are most serious about?
Which (if any) of these proposals do you think are included just so they can be discarded?
Which (if any) of these proposals do you think have a chance of getting accepted (if not now then sometime in the future).
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
If they stop the random selection, then the judges scores should be posted by name. No problem. Why then it is so important not to have this simple change?
I would go along with continuing the quali rounds if the top 12 skaters at the previous Worlds are given byes to the round. Otherwise, the quali rounds need a complete rethink from what they were doing before. They should not use the LP for the elimination and all segments should start before noon.
(Of course, that means America's triple threat will have to do qualis.)
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ Great post!
I am not sure, however, exactly in what sense this list of proposals represents "negotiating/bargaining/haggling." Who are the parties to the negotiation? What does each side have that the other wants? If the coaches' group says, we'll drop proposal 14 if you give us proposal 15, why won't the ISU say, no, you drop proposals 1-21 and we'll go on our merry way?
In my opinion, proposals 1 and 2 (no secret judging and no random draw) stand apart from the others. I think the ISU will drop these secrecy provisions pretty soon in any case. Secrecy in judging is not to the advantage of the ISU in any way, and just makes the whole sport look foolish.
The rest, some of them are tweaking the existing judging system -- a few more points for this, a few less for that. On some of these matters the ISU is already in the same frame of mind as the coaches (for instance, the ISU just raised the value of the quad for 2008-09 and adjusted the GOEs appropriately, all on its own.) The coaches' proposals taken as a whole do have a nice numerical logic and consistency which is not always apparent in the CoP.
The proposals that I think are most radical -- in the sense of representing a qualitative change in the way competitions are evaluated -- are:
#6 Discontinue the listing of "features" in evaluating the levels of spins, spirals and footwork;
#10 Eliminating punishment of underrotation by downgrading;
#11 Merging the Lutz and the flip into a single jump; and
#12 No points for a fall.
I don't think any of these will be seriously considered by the ISU.
I am not sure, however, exactly in what sense this list of proposals represents "negotiating/bargaining/haggling." Who are the parties to the negotiation? What does each side have that the other wants? If the coaches' group says, we'll drop proposal 14 if you give us proposal 15, why won't the ISU say, no, you drop proposals 1-21 and we'll go on our merry way?
In my opinion, proposals 1 and 2 (no secret judging and no random draw) stand apart from the others. I think the ISU will drop these secrecy provisions pretty soon in any case. Secrecy in judging is not to the advantage of the ISU in any way, and just makes the whole sport look foolish.
The rest, some of them are tweaking the existing judging system -- a few more points for this, a few less for that. On some of these matters the ISU is already in the same frame of mind as the coaches (for instance, the ISU just raised the value of the quad for 2008-09 and adjusted the GOEs appropriately, all on its own.) The coaches' proposals taken as a whole do have a nice numerical logic and consistency which is not always apparent in the CoP.
The proposals that I think are most radical -- in the sense of representing a qualitative change in the way competitions are evaluated -- are:
#6 Discontinue the listing of "features" in evaluating the levels of spins, spirals and footwork;
#10 Eliminating punishment of underrotation by downgrading;
#11 Merging the Lutz and the flip into a single jump; and
#12 No points for a fall.
I don't think any of these will be seriously considered by the ISU.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
"Who are the parties to the negotiation? What does each side have that the other wants?"
Very quickly I can think of two possible scenarios.
1. The coaches are really hoping that the ISU won't ask themselves the same question.
2. The coaches have a kind of legitimacy that the ISU doesn't have (and they have the ears of skaters in a way that ISU will never have). If they get some of their proposals through they endorse CoP and it gets a kind of legitimacy it hasn't enjoyed so far (I really doubt if skaters and officials in most nat feds really like it better than most dedicated fans).
Very quickly I can think of two possible scenarios.
1. The coaches are really hoping that the ISU won't ask themselves the same question.
2. The coaches have a kind of legitimacy that the ISU doesn't have (and they have the ears of skaters in a way that ISU will never have). If they get some of their proposals through they endorse CoP and it gets a kind of legitimacy it hasn't enjoyed so far (I really doubt if skaters and officials in most nat feds really like it better than most dedicated fans).
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That's the part that still isn't clear to me. Do the 10 individuals who signed this document represent the general sentiment of the whole figure skating coaching fraternity?Mafke said:
I would be surprised if a majority of all international figure skating coaches think that the distinction between a Lutz and a flip should be abolished, or that the base value of a quad toe should be raised to 15.0 (from the current 9.8.)
Indeed, I would be surprised if most figure skating coaches even knew that this project was going on.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
How the scoring proposals all fit together is key, and there could be some nasty (for the proposers) unexpected results if only some were implemented, but not others.
More were involved than signed the cover letter. Enough signed to show that these proposals weren't the brainstorm of a couple of people. Maybe a total of two dozen were involved? Not quite sure of the total number, but at least double the number that signed the cover letter.
Whether they represent the general sentiment of the coaching community, time will tell. Now they are out there for discussion it will be interesting to see how the coaching community at large reacts.
As for the process at the ISU, coaches do not have an official mechanism to submit proposals within the ISU. Each technical committee has a coach representative. So these proposals were sent to the coach rep. on the singles and pairs committee (Oleg Vassiliev). The TC can choose to take them up, or not. The proposals may influence the actions on agenda items at the congress, or not. They may be taken up by the TC for study after the congress, or not. At this point the ball is entirely in the TC's court. The TC has the discression to say, "thank you very much" and then s***can them.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I think all the proposals are somewhat radical and the above stand out because they play mind games with the arena audience and the fans at home.
If the one proposal about the Jumbothon would be consdered and acted favorably by the ISU, then it would show that the ISU is interested in having the fans-of-figure-skating understand what is goin on. The Instant Replay in other Sports works for the fans as well as for the Sport. Once the Jumbothon messges are approved, many of the other proposals would follow. They would realize that there is no rationale for secrecy.
Hopefully someone of importance will read these proposals.
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Maybe this is just idle curiosity on my part, but I think it would be a service to figure skating fans if the participants in this project would make themselves known publicly. If names like Tarasova or Mishin or Moskvina, for instance, are on the list, that would lend gravitas to the endeavor.
Good point. In fact, the strongest selling point of these proposals is that the artithmetic all adds up. All the points-tweaking comprises a consistent vision of the whole shebang.Hockeyfan said:
It makes me think that a math guy must have been involved on the ground level. I might almost say that I see the tracings of a "fine Italian hand."
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
And if there are no Russian luminares but just old Carroll, Gregory, and Priscilla Hill, what then?
Joe
I think the proposals should stand or fall on their own merit. Either they are good ideas or they are not. Just like the skaters, they should not be judged based on the reputation of the coach(s) invovled.
Similar threads
