Bold Considerations for an Aberrant System

Nigel said:

EIther the technique is correct, or it is not. Is a -3 harsh for improper technique...probably. But, that is why there needs to be less fear from the judges to utlize the entire spectrum of the GOE scale and it is stipulated within the GOE guidelines what the penalty is for poor technique IMHO....ie wrong edge, pre-rotation, a leg wrap, mule kick, etc.

Click to expand...

What is the stipulated penalty for leg wrap or mule kick? I've never seen those listed in the ISU documentation.

The penalties for wrong edge or prerotation vary from -1 to -3 depending on severity. Severe instances will be punished more than those you need video replay to tell whether they even occurred or not. Also, judges need to be able to leave room to penalize a jump that has one of these errors and also has other errors more severely than jumps that have only one of these errors.

If I see any fear from judges in using the whole GOE scale, it's more on the +2 and +3 end than on the negative side.

I always find it interesting the way topics morph into being about something completely different from where the topic began. Here we had an article commenting on the broad fundamental premises of IJS, perceived problems with program components, the impact IJS has artistry and whether one can even judge art, and we end up with what is the right GoE to give some element or another for some error or another!

IMO one fundamental problem with IJS and attempts to improve IJS is that people can't see the forest for the trees. Everybody is busy focusing on what is going on with this tree or that in isolation, and few are thinking about what is wrong with the forest as a whole and how to save it.

gsrossano said:

IMO one fundamental problem with IJS and attempts to improve IJS is that people can't see the forest for the trees.

Click to expand...

I think there is a reason for that. There is only one forest but there are many trees. Once we have said (as this article does) that the CoP is crap, there is not much more to add.

But we can go on nitpicking the trees forever.

My 2 cents worth is that what ails figure skating has little to do with judging. I think it is this. Traditionally figure skating was half athletic contest, half beauty pageant ("artistry.") Cultural tastes evolve. People are not that much into beauty pageants any more.

Just my opinion.

My main problem with the CoP on the PC scores, is that presentation has been minimalized which may be the proper way to go. It cannot be quantified so just leave it out. What remains are Errors in the LP and they should be covered in the Technical and I believe they are with the GoEs + and -. (the Skating Abilities have already been judged and penalized - no reason to give the program a generalization of what was already scored. Performance and Execution are really explanations of what the Technical is judging in the GoEs; Choreography/Composition is the work of an outsider - not the skater, except how well he handles it Very controversal on comparing skaters without the means to hire a top choreographer, and who exactly is being judged?
Choreographer for creativity? or Skater for Performance/Execution?
Transitions/Linking Isn't this really a Tech matter? Certainly Footwork has been elevated to an element. Connecting steps should be leading into an element - not in the GoEs? Interpretation is the full fledged marker for presentation lumped in with all the above with an attempt to quantify it. Actually, the bullets are valid, maybe just an addition of Flow and Effortless Glide should be part of this description, but one can put anything into Skating Skills.

My suggestion would be to eliminate the PC and make Figure Skating a real Sport without subjectivity, or if we must retain the "artsy" aspect of the Sport, then give it a generalized impression of how a judge liked or disliked the presentation on an established scale.

Example: 140 TES
...................25 Performance Impression (0-50 is the scale hypothetically)
Total..........165

gsrossano said:

The analogy I use is that if you had a baking contest under IJS, you would judge the flour, the sugar, butter, the other ingredients, the recipe, the cook's kitchen utensils, the cook's technique, and you decide which is the best cake -- but you never TASTE the cake. The cake is more than the sum of it's parts, and if you want to know which is really the best cake you have to taste the cakes.

Click to expand...

I like this analogy, and it really makes clear to me how the system is flawed!

You have to taste the various cakes (programs) and compare one from the other and then decide whose cake tasted the best (technical aspect) and how the cake was presented (artistic aspect). That was the 6.0 system.

Under COP cakes are not tasted and compared. The sum of the parts are judged. So we have the ingredients (jumps, spins, spirals, step), the cook's technique are the skating skills, choreography is the recipe, performance execution is how the cake was prepared and interpretation is how the cake look, how it is presented etc. giving points to every aspect.
Who has more points win.

Humans are better at relative judging (6.0 system and tasting the cakes) rather than at absolute judging (COP and summing the points of every single aspect of the cake).
Absolute judging is very difficult, because there are way too many aspects a person has to pay attention to.

I understood it perfectly. This is the same stuff I've been saying for years. More proof that I'm not alone in my sentiments. He dissects CoP piece by piece and exposes all the flaws. And he does hint at possible solutions:

the necessary alternative would be: either to conceive and elaborate the structure of another judging system, or to restructure the present system keeping only rational criteria for evaluation of technical and artistic levels adapted to each specific discipline.

Click to expand...

Translation: New system completely, or hybrid system.

Maybe he doesn't go into specifics of said systems, so what. The first part is convincing everyone why change is necessary.

gio said:

Humans are better at relative judging (6.0 system and tasting the cakes) rather than at absolute judging (COP and summing the points of every single aspect of the cake).
Absolute judging is very difficult, because there are way too many aspects a person has to pay attention to.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. If you judge 2 or 3 skaters, you may make good relative judging. But, with 20-30 skaters, how can you judge relatively? Your memory is limited. How can you make a hierachy from the best skater to the worst skater? How can you give the last skater's standing in comparison to all the other skaters?

That is scientifically proven! I'm not inventing anything. Humans are better at relative judging. There were experiments that proved that margin of error is smaller in relative judging.

If you see 20 lines - that differ in lenght of some cm - separately you are not able to make a ranking from the longest to the shortest. It's better if you see them all together and compare them. You will always have a margin of error, but less when you are judging in absolute terms.

That is just an exemple. If you want to compare inflation, birth rate, death rate, unemployment ... of various country you will calculate it in relative terms.

And so one and so forth.

Maybe is better if you read that article. It explains better what I'm trying to say.

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/archive/rules/statistics1.htm

He begs the question of all of us: Can a judge actually take in all those bullets in 20-30 competitors? No, I don't think anyone can but I think they may well serve a coach.

Here is a simplified outline for the judges to review the PC scores:

1. Does the skater have musicality? If a judge knows what that means, there is no reason to elaborate, imo.

2. Does the skater have the essence of the music?

3. Does the skater have flow and ice coverage?

4. Does the Skater bring more to the Program than the Choreographer?

5. Is the entire program adequate and does the audience appreciate it?

The above is reaslistically easier to judge without the nitpicking.