Olympic judging changes ( 5 judge results)

[Mathman]

(a) There is a correct mark, independent of our efforts to measure it.

That is the design intent of the system.

In this, I believe the ISU to be grievously in error. In my response to gkelly's post above I said that the impossibility of achieving such a notion of the "correct mark" was the one thing we could all agree on.

I see I was wrong about that. No wonder we are not able to fit the square peg of figure skating judging into the round hole of statistical analysis.

Some GOE bullets. Jumps "Superior flow in and out of jump elements."

Step sequences: "Highlight the character of the program."

Spiral sequences: "Creativity and originality."

And not only the individual bullets, but "it is up to the judge to decide on the number of bullets for any upgrade..."

In my opinion, to say that these considerations require measurement rather than judgment is to distort the words measurement and judgment out of all usefulness.

To me, "measuring" something means assigning a real number to it...

Don't know what you mean by a "real" number.

By a real number I meant an element of the real number system. Like pi is a real number, or the square root of 2 is a real number.

"Third place" is not a real number. I don't mean that third place is unreal. Just that you cannot point to a place on the number line and say, this is thrid place, right here between 16.39847 and 16.39848.