Kiss and Cry drama is dead (article)

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/kiss and cry.htm

This article was written by someone I know. Comments?

Well, I read it, but I can't say I agree with much of it. I never understood the 6.0 system. To me the COP system makes sense, and I do understand it. So - I just don't agree with the basic premise of the article.

I think much of the audience understands the scoring system, too, at least in Canada. You can tell that by the reaction to the marks. They already know what a good score is and what a poor score is.

I agree with the article basically. And the point of the article is really completely different from whether or not CoP makes sense, it has to do with the ancilliary drama of the kind any successful sport needs.

For all its flaws, the presentation of marks was superbly dramatic under real 6.0, especially in international competitions when the judging wasn't considered something shameful that required anonymity and judges nationality was shown.

A partial fix:

Break down the TE scores into jumps, spins and footwork (three is better than nothing) and then present the PC scores one by one.

Or, alternately, show the TE and PC scores by judge ....

The biggest problem is that the numbers still don't mean anything to most viewers (I still can't say for sure what good SP and LP scores are). One way around this might be to give the scores against theortetically perfect marks.

Figure out what the absolute highest TE score possible is and flash that next to the score the skater gets.

But I even remember during the interim judging period between SLC and CoP also sucked real bad. Seeing a bunch of marks and knowing that some of them (which?) wouldn't be used was just stoopid.

Mafke said:

I agree with the article basically. And the point of the article is really completely different from whether or not CoP makes sense, it has to do with the ancilliary drama of the kind any successful sport needs.

For all its flaws, the presentation of marks was superbly dramatic under real 6.0, especially in international competitions when the judging wasn't considered something shameful that required anonymity and judges nationality was shown.

A partial fix:

Break down the TE scores into jumps, spins and footwork (three is better than nothing) and then present the PC scores one by one.

Or, alternately, show the TE and PC scores by judge ....

The biggest problem is that the numbers still don't mean anything to most viewers (I still can't say for sure what good SP and LP scores are). One way around this might be to give the scores against theortetically perfect marks.

Figure out what the absolute highest TE score possible is and flash that next to the score the skater gets.

But I even remember during the interim judging period between SLC and CoP also sucked real bad. Seeing a bunch of marks and knowing that some of them (which?) wouldn't be used was just stoopid.

Click to expand...

As a Canadian adult skater competitor and as a fan of the elite skaters, I think the COP isn't anti dramatic. What fans need to do is to take the time to find out what the scores mean. Fans don't really need to know each detail because they didn't know anything more than what the tec score and the presentation score was when 6.0 reigned and fans were fine with it until Salt Lake City.

To announce every score for each jump window, spin, footwork and spiral sequence (singles), lifts, throws and pair spins (pairs + some of the elements that the single skaters do) and twizzle sequences, footwork sequence, dance spin and dance lifts (dance) and then break down the 5 marks of the PC scores, would slow down the competition so much that instead of taking 2 and half hours for 18 skaters/couples to compete, it would take 5 hours to do one segment of an event. How would you like to sit there in a freezing rink that long? Wouldn't you be bored waiting for the next skater to skate? This is why only the total TES, total PCS, segment total and if the second half and/or third part of the event the previous total segment score and if the end the complete score is shown. If you really want the play by play, bring a wireless laptop computer, pay for the local wireless service and go to the competition page page to look up the details. And besides, skating fans are suppose to be smart educated fans. Most don't even need a commentator to tell them who did what and how it was done. It's only the fan who is new to watching figure skating that need help to understand what is going on. Those who understand it, should help those who don't understand what is going down. Maybe in competition organizers should include a scale of points for each jump, spin, footwork sequence, spiral sequence, twizzle sequence, lift, thrown and pair move, a short explanation on how the GOE works and what the 5 marks of the PCS scores are a short explanation of what a judge think is not so great, OK and poor for each of the 5 areas of the PCS in the competition program booklet.

As for the skaters who have at least competed with CPC, IJS (US) and/or COP once, they understand how they are marked for the most part unless they were living under a rock. We quite like the new system. For once we know why we were marked the way we were and what we did good and what needs to be fixed to gain more marks.

I wasn't suggesting that the score for each and every jump and spin be announced but that the TE scores be broken down into jumps spins and footwork (since those seem to be the only scoring elements)

for example (pulling numbers out of my butt since I have no idea what realistic numbers would be)

Jumps 23.46 Spins 21.97 Footwork 19.86 = 65.29

Then the PC scores also given separately (which I have seen done).

Alternately the scores could be given against the maximum possible scores

jumps 23.46 - 38.00
spins 21.97 - 32.00
footwork - 19.86 - 24.00

This would do a lot to let audiences know how programs crop up.

But, I find that the two lump sum scores as announced on most broadcasts to be .... unenlightening and boring. Looking at protocals can be interesting but that's a separate issue.

Again the point of the article (as I understand it) isn't to weigh the pros and cons of CoP but to compare the drama of how scores were announced previously (which made for good tv drama) with the lack of drama of how they're announced now (which doesn't make for good tv).

I'm confused. Since actual 6.0s were not that common, is the argument here that for viewers it's easier to figure out who's ahead under the ordinal system? Well, I disagree. It's not very hard math to calculate what score a skater needs to pass the person in the lead, or the skater currently with a podium spot, etc. Whereas with 6.0 you needed to figure out where people were placed by the judges, and until the placements went up after the actual marks, there was no way of figuring it out. The skaters can also compare their scores to their competitors and see what their marks are like in relation to previous performances.

I don't see how drama is dead. There were some specific Youtube clips I wanted to use to back this up but IN has gotten most everything removed. But here's Miki Ando, who managed to understand that she'd won 2007 Worlds, and KvdP getting his bronze medal marks at 2007 Euros (obviously near the end of each video ). The people in both audiences seem happy, too.

I'll allow that there are things about how the marks are displayed that need to change (judges' anonymity for one). And I guess if people want a list of marks read, maybe it's possible to break down the 5 PCS components and read those.

I quite agree with the article and with what Mafke said. Even if some fans are familiar with pooled TE and PC score, some are not, and therefore it should be possible to break TE and PC scores to something more 'colorful' and exciting.

Also, as I mentioned in another thread, there was something magic about 6.0 and 5.9 marks popping up throughout the whole judges panel. It is never going to happen with CoP. We will never see the perfect mark. And trying to replace it with Personal Best, is not even close to be as fun as the perfect scores across the board.
Another thing, whether you like it or not, many casual fans had fun trying to judge the performance together with judges. They were giving 5.6 or whatever and could easily compare it with the panel score, even without the accurate knowledge. Now it becomes too dfficult. And many of those fans are lost.

Therefore, something should be made to make CoP scores more friendly (I am not saying that we should go back to 6.0 system).

And just a general comment - I am just surprised, that ISU is so reluctant to admit, that some aspects of NJS did not work properly and make changes. I mean, it is not like they would admit that the whole system sucks. It does not. It just needs changes and it is normal that with experience gained through the years it would be reasonable to change, for example, the presentation of the points to the fans. I just dont get how it is possible to be so deaf to a critique or suggestions (from experts, fans, journalists, coaches, etc). This is something that annoys me.

singerskates said:

What fans need to do is to take the time to find out what the scores mean.

Click to expand...

To me, that right there is the problem. A sport should not be in the business of telling the fans "what they need to do." That's backwards.

Someone's looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses. Whenever I think of the clarity of all those 5.whatevers, I think of watching footage from the 1980 Ladies competition in Lake Placid, when Annette Poetzch's reaction was less what this author claims it would have been and more how the skaters are described as reacting now(which certainly is not the case-I could name a zillion examples), because *noone* had realized she'd won until the TV commentators looked at their computers a little way into Lisa Marie Allen's program(and then they disrespectfully babbled about it over her performance; did noone care that she was skating here?). Of course that was back when figures ruled the roost, but watching even 90s competitions, I *never* understand the marks unless there's a 6.0, and let's face it, how many of those were there?
What this author should be complaining about, and this is something that someone does need to be slapped for, is that they're no longer announcing the technical and presentation marks separately. That, at least, should be done, and you did get skaters reacting to the two marks; I remember very clearly Johnny's reaction last year when his technical mark came up for the free program at Cup of China.

Mathman said:

To me, that right there is the problem. A sport should not be in the business of telling the fans "what they need to do." That's backwards.

Click to expand...

BINGO! It should be intuitive to fans what a good score is and what the skater needs to move onto the podium. As it is, the casual fan has no clue what is good and what is not and so is turned off --> lowered ratings overall --> less skating on TV --> lowered ratings, etc

mskater93 said:

BINGO! It should be intuitive to fans what a good score is and what the skater needs to move onto the podium. As it is, the casual fan has no clue what is good and what is not and so is turned off --> lowered ratings overall --> less skating on TV --> lowered ratings, etc

Click to expand...

Quite a few TV networks already have the score to beat displayed when skaters are in the kiss and cry (doesn't that feature in US broadcasts?). Really, if people are watching an event and some unknown skater gets an 88 in her LP, Caroline Zhang gets a 104, Carolina Kostner gets a 118 and then Mao Asada gets 125, it's not exactly rocket science who did well and what's going on. If Jeremy Abbott's PB is displayed as 220 and then he gets 238, then it should be obvious that he did well. If Brian Joubert's SB is 86 for an SP and he can only manage a 74-75 (GPF), that's not great. This is not difficult math (note: I randomly chose names; this does not reflect my views on these skaters' talent or on the fairness of CoP judging).

What should be made more comprehensible to casual viewers is what's needed for a good score and what drops the score for a skater (e.g. Kimmie Meissner at CoR). But that has nothing to do with figuring out where skaters are placed relative to their past performances and relative to their competitors, which is easier to understand with absolute numbers than with ordinals and factored placements and so on.

Mafke said:

A partial fix:

Break down the TE scores into jumps, spins and footwork (three is better than nothing) and then present the PC scores one by one.

Click to expand...

They used to present the PCS one by one, the first year or two of the new system, but they stopped because it seemed to be taking too long. The technical panel reviews also took a really long time at that point, and the next skater was already getting tired stroking around the ice waiting, and the audience getting tired waiting for the next skater to skate.

Maybe now that the reviews have gotten a bit more efficient, it would make sense to go back to breaking down the PCS. Or at least giving the TES and PCS separately again before the total score.

One thing that I think is absolutely necessary and rarely done in long programs is to give the long program standings before giving the overall standings. This was a problem in the old system too. All too often a if skater A had a lead from the short program skated poorly in the long she would still be in first place overall, and the audience would be outraged because they didn't realize that the performance they just saw had in fact been marked lower than skater B's earlier good performance.
(Of course in the old system sometimes changing factored placements or even changing ordinals would cause A's and B's overall rankings to flip after skater C's skate -- which could also be confusing for people who noticed the flip but didn't understand the math. That won't happen with IJS.)

Breaking down the TES? For singles it makes some sense to break it down as jumps, spins, and sequences (considering step sequences and spiral sequences together). For pairs and for dance the different kinds of elements don't break down that easily. Maybe side-by-side moves vs. pair moves for pairs (where do step sequences fit?), or lifts, jumps (side by side and throw), and other; and step sequences, lifts, and other for dance.

Or, alternately, show the TE and PC scores by judge ....

Click to expand...

That would just add time in the kiss-and-cry without clarifying what's going on with how the programs are scored now. I'm all in favor of naming the judges on the protocols for those who want to pore over them later.

Figure out what the absolute highest TE score possible is and flash that next to the score the skater gets.

Click to expand...

See, the absolute highest TE score will be whatever the highest possible legal jump content would meet the required elements for that discipline, and all nonjump elements to be level 4.
It's only going to change when they change the Scale of Values or change the required elements (e.g., next likely senior changes, probably still a decade away, would be to allow two quads in the senior men's SP or the solo axel to be triple in the ladies').
Since TES are reported after the GOEs have been figured in, the highest possible would be if the skater earned +3 for every element.

No one is coming close to those kinds of scores, even among world medalists. Some men are coming close to maxing out the allowed jump content, but no ladies are (would require 3A+3Lo combo and 3Lz solo or 3Lz+3Lo combo and 3A out of steps . . . don't hold your breath!). Level 4 spins and spiral sequences are fairly common, but level 4 steps are still quite rare.

In long programs the maximum would involve filling all the jump passes with all the different quads, even though most kinds of quads have never been done successfully by anyone in competition.

So the maximum possible TES would be an unreasonable goal that no one is going to come close to, and it's not very meaningful to compare how far they fell short.

It would make more sense to announce the skater's planned technical base mark and then the actual TES they achieved. Because of positive GOEs, it's not unusual for good performances to earn higher than the base mark.

Then, of course, it would also be useful to announce how many deductions each skater received and for what. Falls are obvious (except borderline cases like falling out of a jump and putting both hands down), but often the skaters need to be told that they were deducted for going over the time limit or for a planned legal element turning into an illegal one as executed, or dancers for holding a lift too long.


My suggestion would be something like the following:

Skater's personal best for a short/long program is XX.XX.
(For long programs: She needs XX.XX points to take the lead.)

Her planned technical base mark was XX.XX. The actual Technical Element Score for this performance is . . . XX.XX.

Her Program Component score is XX.XX.

She received one fall deduction and one timing deduction.

This gives her a total of XX.XX and places her currently Yth (or Yth in the long program and Zth overall).

If that doesn't seem to take up too much time and IF a separate computer program could take the data and break the TES down by jumps, spins, and sequences for singles skaters, that breakdown could also be useful. And break down the PCS by component.

At events with jumbotrons, maybe the breakdown of all the skater's scores could be shown there while the most important ones are read out loud. If the technology allows getting and displaying that information efficiently enough.

And an announcement at the beginning of the event that detailed protocol printouts will be available for a fee after they've been officially approved, and will be available online, would also alert audiences to where to find the details at a time when they'll be able to pay attention to those details.

For TV broadcasts, they could direct viewers where to find the protocols online after the event.

But I even remember during the interim judging period between SLC and CoP also sucked real bad. Seeing a bunch of marks and knowing that some of them (which?) wouldn't be used was just stoopid.

Click to expand...

Agreed. That system was the worst of both worlds.

I believe a casual fan can use common sense to figure out what a good score is after at least watching three events. Nobody knows what going on by just watching one competition. I personally didn't know who won during the 6.0 era most of the time until the commentators told me. I personally believe their is more drama now since the skaters have to wait ten minutes to hear they score. I give some viewers the chance to hear them talk to the coaches and how they felt about the performance as the tension builds up for the score. And there is always some kind of entertaining reaction. I have watch countless skating videos just for the kiss and cry and skip the skating. I wonder if the writer of the article completely missed last years worlds and gp events...I scasual fan of gymnastics I don't watch because I enjoy the scores. It the actual competition.that I like. The scoring proceedure is the least of our wories. What figure skating need is positive esposure other than"Blades of Glory".

IMHO, no matter how sternly we lecture the paying fans about why they should enjoy figure skating competitions under CoP judging, they don't.

Maybe, they should just get rid of the Kiss and Cry, and merely announce the scores? Under the 6.0 system, the reaction would be more immediate and visceral than under the CoP, simply because there were no protocols that could be looked at to determine if the score made any sense -- but looking at the protocols is not done in the K & C (but is done outside of camera range). So, there will not be the on-screen drama under the CoP, but that doesn't mean you need to change the judging system. Instead, just before skater Y takes the ice, the score for the preceding skater could be announced (with reference to the protocols) as others have already suggested.

I believe the K&C was instituted way back when, so that it was a gimmick to enhance the Sport. I just never saw it more than insulting to the 'losers' and just a 'glimmer' of hope for the commentator to say that he/she is currently in 1st place. Big deal! There's a whole group of skaters still waiting to go on.

I don't think skaters of any kind deserve to be humiliated in front of the audience and fans watching on TV. While some fans eat this K&C up, I can do without it.

It should be sufficient to have the scores appear without the skater being present and looking on. There is a TV in the Waiting Room. Contrary to many fans who adore watching a non-favorite look and feel terrible in the K&C, it's making the non-fan who can not do a an edge on skates, gloat So much for that. Skaters are human and do have feelings.

I think also the Podium is sufficent to show off the Medalists.

Mathman said:

IMHO, no matter how sternly we lecture the paying fans about why they should enjoy figure skating competitions under CoP judging, they don't.

Click to expand...

I was going to write several pages that boil down to just that. Well put indeed.

technical merit:
artistic impression:

Sorry I thought the issue was about K&C ^^^

CoP is fine for fans who adore the sport of figure skating, and if they do not understand the workings of how it is judged, I would suggest they take their time and learn it. There is no rush. Many of us avid fans are still learning it. I happen to like CoP but it does need some revamping even for the avid fan.

IMHO, CoP, created out of a scandal, has made the sport an intimate affair. I no longer believe that it will attract the masses that developed under the easy to understand 6.0 system. I believe live competitions will do best in the smaller cities provided there is a Hockey arena. and shortening the days as we have seen in the GPs will be quite common in future major competitions. Rents are high. (I suspect, NBC is paying for those extra days of competition in LA.) If the ratings do not soar in Vancouver, the Amercians will have even less than now after the Olys.

However, as an intimate Sport, like Curling, Skiing, Lacrosse, etc, it will have the diehard fans but on a much smaller scale. But intensive.

Mathman said:

IMHO, no matter how sternly we lecture the paying fans about why they should enjoy figure skating competitions under CoP judging, they don't.

Click to expand...

I totally agree. In fact no matter how much I try to lecture myself about the merits of COP to enjoy figure skating competitions under COP - I don't. And I've really tried and feel I understand what their doing pretty well for a lay person, and I've been a huge fan, and relatively speaking very informed fan for 20 years. I don't like COP programs, I can't understand the results given in the K&C (have to go over scores later then usually still don't agree), I can no longer can sit through an entire competition - just watch a few of my favorites on youtube, miss the comentary and drama the Dick and Peggy brought to the competition - and my enjoyment in their antics (today's commentators are about as interesting as dry toast - no drama there either and nothing to enjoy or roll eyes at), miss the "fluff" on the skaters. Cannot stand it when someone "rotates" a triple or quad and falls a bunch wins over a simpler "perfectly executed" program. I cannot shake my simple minded reasoning and my intuitive reaction that if you can't land the darn thing it doesn't count and I'd much rather watch a skater shift to a perfectly executed double than splat on a triple. (I really think we've been brain washed on this one.) I Can not get into COP no matter how hard I try.

Mathman said:

To me, that right there is the problem. A sport should not be in the business of telling the fans "what they need to do." That's backwards.

Click to expand...

Playing devil's advocate, because I do actually agree with you, but....

In any sport - if you want to follow it you have to have a grasp of the basic rules/scoring otherwise you will be left scratching your head and possibly not interested. Football (soccer to you!) has it's famously conufsed "off-side" rule, cricket...let's not even go there!

But I guess my point is - is figure skating so much more complicated than other sports. Cricket is a good example actually because just by hearing numbers of runs and wickets etc leaves me not knowing who won unless they say.

Ant