Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 204

Thread: Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Just as a comparative/historical point, under the old judging system, as of the latest revisions to the short program deduction guidelines, the deduction for "Less than required revolutions" on a short program jump was 0.4, same as for a fall.

    And the maximum deduction for an element that was attempted was 0.4. The largest deduction was 0.5 for a complete omission.

    So in the old system a fall on a triple or a beautiful clean double or fall on a double or a popped single whether landed cleanly badly or or with a fall resulted in the same deduction.

    Of course the judges could take into account what was actually executed when setting the base mark, but we had no way of knowing how much weight they gave to the number of revolutions.

    A top skater who was obviously capable of triples could completely miss one of the short program jumps and still end up with scores as high as 5.4/5.8 if the judge used the intended element to set the base mark. (See the Swiss judge's scores for Maria Butyrskaya in the 1998 Worlds SP, where her intended combination came out as only a half lutz.)

    The new system does allow more distinctions between most different combinations of errors.

    A few distinctions have fallen through the cracks, and I see that you're trying to close up those cracks.

    But if the purpose of the short program is to execute required elements on demand, and also to reward the overall quality of the program appropriately, then beyond a certain point failure on an element is failure on the element and further distinctions are unnecessary.

    A very messy double, as opposed to a good double, where a triple is required can also be penalized in Performance/Execution.

  2. #17
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I don't like point 2, though, specifically your limit of one level 4 element per program and requirement for one level 1 element. I think your intention is to see more simple elements done well and fewer complicated elements done poorly. I don't think that limiting the number of higher-level elements is the best way to achieve that goal, for several reasons:
    It's not a strict limit, though. Skaters can still choose to do multiple level 4 elements if they want (or no level 1 elements)...they simply won't receive any extra credit for it in terms of the base value (in the GOE values they would if the feature added to the element was performed well).

    I have never seen a program that benefited from every element being level 4, though. At least one of the features in an element always ends up being something that wastes time and/or actually makes the element less attractive.

    Before CoP existed, there was never a performance - EVER - that had more than one level 4 element in it.

    It's simply not needed. But, again, skaters CAN do it if they really want to. I didn't suggest any kind of a deduction for skaters who do extra. I am very much opposed to that in fact, RE: the cases of a skater accidentally doing too many jump combinations. You ignore the extra jump done in combination and leave it at that.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Less skilled skaters who don't perform their intended features consistently well enough to always get credit for what they attempt are still going to attempt four features in most of the elements. That's their best chance of getting one of them actually called as level 4.
    I don't think they would. Their GOE would suffer. It's not worth it.

    Reiterating what I said above - the "requirement" of one Level 4 element, and one Level 1 element, is just a guideline.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    It's already pretty easy for most senior ladies to achieve level 4 on their spiral sequences, in most cases without significant effects on quality. The main objection is that we're tired of everyone doing the same few features in every spiral sequence. The skaters who have beautiful positions are still going to have beautiful positions whether they design their sequences to earn level 1 or level 4. The skaters with mediocre positions ae still going to have mediocre positions or regardless of intended level.
    I disagree. In many cases the positions skaters get themselves in makes the Spiral look uglier. Especially the change-of-edge that literally everyone does in their Spirals now. It also forces the Spiral to use up more time in the program.

    I think that by limiting the base value skaters will receive for non-jump elements, there will be more incentive to perform moves that actually interpret the music.

    If a skater knows they can do a Level 1 Spiral and not lose any points for leaving out "difficult" (ugly) positions, they will do so. Especially since they probably don't want to be doing them anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Step sequences are the hardest elements to earn level 4 on, and even level 2 can be hard to achieve for many skaters. So I expect that most skaters would choose a step sequence as their designated level 1 element.
    And that would be GREAT! I yearn to see more step sequences which actually fly across the ice, without slowing down to incorporate a hundred turns.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    What about flying spin with change of foot but no change of position?

    What about flying combination spin with and without change of foot?
    (The official scale of values has sometimes left this out as well)
    Doing a flying entrance for these kinds of spins just counts as one of the features to gain levels.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I don't think we want a full-rink step sequence performed entirely on the the toepicks. That isn't really skating.
    Have you not seen the excellent step sequence Kurt Browning did that was performed entirely on toe-picks? It is difficult and can look great. Not many people would attempt it.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I like this approach in general. But can the "any two elements" added both be jump passes? I'm not sure we'd want the men to be doing 9 jump passes, 3 spins, and 1 step sequence. Really only needed if they can do quads but can't do 3-3 combos.
    They could both be jumping passes, yes.

    I don't think it's a bad thing. We have seen performances under 6.0 that had 9 jumping passes and only 1 footwork sequence, and were quite effective. Brian Orser's 1988 program comes to mind.

    It's all about what interprets the music best.

    2 of Michelle Kwan's programs (Salome and Lyra Angelica) had no footwork sequence and a high amount of jumping passes, but they received 6.0's.

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Heh. Reading this thread I'm discovering just how far away from BoP I am in terms of my figure skating enjoyment. Still, very insightful and interesting stuff, and I'm quite glad you posted this. I've been really wondering about what people think can be done to improve COP (to the point where I'm tempted to start a "fact finding mission" of sorts), and this is as good a place as any to start.

  4. #19
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    791
    On the deduction for falling


    It's funny the OP suggests reducing the penalty for falling to 0.5.. I've often thought the exact opposite, that the fall penalty should be increased at least to -2.
    Or, if it is to be argued not to increase this penalty when incurred on a jump, (or on an element in general), as other penalties are applicable there through GOE, there should at least be a separate and more severe penalty than -1 for the "random fall in the corner" type of fall. Because let's face it, a fall at any point for any reason is a pretty major error in this sport, showing a lack of mastery of the blade, and is the most recognizeable and disruptive error to the casual viewer. To lose a mere point for a fall on "nothing in particular" in the corner of the rink, on a long program scoring 80+ or 100+ or 140+, and when the skater in question might have a lead significantly larger than that on their closest rival after the SP, just does not seem weighty enough, by a longshot. Yes PCS is also supposed to take a hit, but who ever knows how much is really coming off there? There are too many overall factors going into that mark.

    another $.02...
    Last edited by amateur; 12-05-2009 at 01:32 AM.

  5. #20
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by amateur View Post
    About GOE's

    I think getting +2's on jumps should become more of a rare thing. There are so many of them scattered over 2 programs. If the jumps are consistently good, there are still many bonus points to be had. It is good to acknowledge quality with extra points, but not to the extent of giving someone with mostly excellent, wow-factor jumps (and who might be granted a little extra generostiy due to good reputation) enough of an advantage that they have a free pass to completely blow another element or 2, and come out still far ahead of another the skater who competently nails everything, if less spectacularly. If skater A is executing superior jumps with great flow, they are likely also being appropriately awarded in skating skills PCS, anyway, and they are probably already gaining a lot of points by doing a good job on more difficult jumps, which are the biggest point-getters. Huge GOEs on jumps to me is a bit of overkill.
    I believe it is something which should be taught to judges rather than specifically not allowed.

    I do think +3 GOE on a jump should be possible because there are rare cases where it is merited.

    +2 GOE on a jump means the skater basically executed it as well as the jump itself can possible be done.

    +3 GOE means there was additionally some kind of extra difficultly added to the jump, such as a Tano position with the arm.

    Midori Ito's 2Axel at 1988 Olympics would be one of those very rare cases where I would say a jump deserves +3 GOE. The height, distance, rotation, and flow-out were all of the best quality possible...but then in addition to that she also entered the jump from a very difficult turn and had a varied arm position on the landing. Phenomenal!

    Also, amazing jumps don't necessarily mean higher PCS. Or at least they shouldn't. The Chinese men often did Quads that deserved +2 GOE and were astounding, beautiful elements in and of themselves, but those skaters certainly never deserved (or received) a good presentation mark.

  6. #21
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by amateur View Post
    On the deduction for falling

    It's funny the OP suggests reducing the penalty for falling to 0.5.. I've often thought the exact opposite, that the fall penalty should be increased at least to -2.
    Or, if it is to be argued not to increase this penalty when incurred on a jump, (or on an element in general), as other penalties are applicable there through GOE, there should at least be a separate and more severe penalty than -1 for the "random fall in the corner" type of fall. Because let's face it, a fall at any point for any reason is a pretty major error in this sport, showing a lack of mastery of the blade, and is the most recognizeable and disruptive error to the casual viewer.
    I believe the penalty for a fall should be decreased because I increased the -GOE value for jumps.

    If a skater two-foots a jump, falls out of the landing awkwardly, and puts both of their hands down on the ice...that really isn't much better than falling. -3 GOE on a jump should be a massive penalty.

    Quote Originally Posted by amateur View Post
    To lose a mere point for a fall on "nothing in particular" in the corner of the rink, on a long program scoring 80+ or 100+ or 140+, and when the skater in question might have a lead significantly larger than that on their closest rival after the SP, just does not seem weighty enough, by a longshot. Yes PCS is also supposed to take a hit, but who ever knows how much is really coming off there? There are too many overall factors going into that mark.
    We have to at least trust the judges to do something right. If a skater falls while just stroking, there should definitely be a drop in the PCS in addition to the formal .5 deduction.

    Although, LOL, sometimes an unexpected fall can actually improve the choreography.

    Look at the end of Valentina's program:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qlDr-bv-Ko

    Incredibly funny. I think it actually added to the program. It went right with the music and the over-the-top presentation style she was selling!


  7. #22
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    791
    Other little pet peeve:

    Elements being judged invalid and receiving zero points, particularly in the LP, which was once the "free program"... I think it is absolutely absurd to give any element completed zero points, for any reason, with the possible exception of blatant Zayak rule violations and the like. If too many combinations are attempted (and since this is generally done purely accidentally), why not just not count the extra jump, as the OP suggests? (presuming Zayak rule is still respected in the first jump)? Or else at most take a point penalty, but not to discount the element entriely and say that if one had done something less difficult or something else completely crappy and ugly instead, you would have gotten more credit. Absurd! We sometimes see spins not counted also... if there is a technical glitch in an othewise finely executed spin, which inadvertantly puts it into the wrong category... why not just take a deduction or 1 or 2 points, like you would do for say an extended lift in ice dance. It is still a move performed which (presumably) added some value to the program, and deserves some grade according to its quality.

    my last $.02 for the evening!

  8. #23
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Thanks a bunch for your input!

    I forgot to list a clause about spins being entirely discounted because of some absurd reason. I definitely hate how skaters have been a victim of this when it comes to their jumps (usually from performing too many combinations), but we've seen a couple cases this season where spins have been given no credit as well.

  9. #24
    ~ Figure Skating Is My Passion ~ Ladskater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    4,686
    Wow! Blades of Passion, you must really have a lot of time on your hands. I am afraid the new judging system leaves me cold. I can't even begin to understand it let alone dissect it as you have here. It took me years as a figure skater to understand the old 6.0 system, so I still think in those terms. So, far be it from me to question the new scoring system - I will leave that to the judges and thank Tracy Wilson for her great coverage on the CBC so I can understand what's happening on the ice as I watch....


  10. #25
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    791
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I believe the penalty for a fall should be decreased because I increased the -GOE value for jumps.

    If a skater two-foots a jump, falls out of the landing awkwardly, and puts both of their hands down on the ice...that really isn't much better than falling. -3 GOE on a jump should be a massive penalty.



    We have to at least trust the judges to do something right. If a skater falls while just stroking, there should definitely be a drop in the PCS in addition to the formal .5 deduction.

    Although, LOL, sometimes an unexpected fall can actually improve the choreography.

    Look at the end of Valentina's program:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qlDr-bv-Ko

    Incredibly funny. I think it actually added to the program. It went right with the music and the over-the-top presentation style she was selling!

    If a fall goes with the music, they should take the mandatory deduction, but not drop PCS

    I wouldn't be too adamant on increasing the fall penalty incurred on jumps, as you suggest, since there is already a large loss of points there... but 0.5 off an entire program for the non-element types of falls seems extremely little for such a disruptive thing. Yes it should come off in PCS also, but how much? how to prove how much actually came off? what if it happened early in the program, but then the skater in question went on to deliver a nice piece of choreography that gets the crowd going, or had some reputation brownie-points already with the judges going in because they do generally have good skills. Might their fluke fall be more overlooked than that of someone not as much of a crowd or judge favourite and who did it closer to the end of the program? I'm not sure if PCS should be near-exclusively relied upon for this sort of thing (as it would be with such a miniscule mandatory deduction), and I really don't think the system should be afraid of dishing out a very high penalty for falls, even if it's a double-whammy of mandaory deduction and PCS hit. As things are, we see some rather high scores at times of performances for programs with multiple falls (probably best not to name names in this thread, keeping it fan-neutral...).

    anyway, PCS marking, as everyone knows, is another thread unto itself, and a much more dificult one to tackle.
    Last edited by amateur; 12-05-2009 at 02:46 AM.

  11. #26
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Before CoP existed, there was never a performance - EVER - that had more than one level 4 element in it.
    It might depend on which year's level rules were in use and how picky the caller was, but I think both layback and the combination spin here could be called as level 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtKaKS0A_lg

    It's simply not needed. But, again, skaters CAN do it if they really want to. I didn't suggest any kind of a deduction for skaters who do extra.
    Reiterating what I said above - the "requirement" of one Level 4 element, and one Level 1 element, is just a guideline.
    I think there are better ways to achieve the goals of more variety and quality and relation to the music and still reward skaters who can do all that with more difficulty.

    I disagree. In many cases the positions skaters get themselves in makes the Spiral look uglier. Especially the change-of-edge that literally everyone does in their Spirals now.
    In your opinion.
    In general, I think the average quality of spiral positions and edges is better now than before IJS.

    Compare, say 10 spiral sequences from 1999-2000 season and 10 from 2009-2010 season. I bet you can find 3 or 4 beautiful ones from each of those years. But for the rest, are the sequences from 10 years ago really more attractive than the others you choose from this year? Or are they just more varied in the ways that they're mediocre?

    I am tired of everyone doing the same few features, which is why I'd like to give them more choices of features to do in the short program (and alternatives to doing spiral sequences at all in the LP).

    But I don't get mad and consider it ugly every time I see a skater grab her foot or change her edge just adequately. If you do, that's your issue. And if the same skater chose not to do those features,

    It also forces the Spiral to use up more time in the program.
    That's because of the technical requirement to hold the positions long enough to count. We used to see a lot of up-and-down leg positions that weren't held at all once they reached the peak position, especially from skaters. That meant that viewers didn't have to dwell on mediocre positions. But it also meant that the skaters weren't displaying the technical skill to sustain positions.

    I think that by limiting the base value skaters will receive for non-jump elements, there will be more incentive to perform moves that actually interpret the music.
    If a skater knows they can do a Level 1 Spiral and not lose any points for leaving out "difficult" (ugly) positions, they will do so. Especially since they probably don't want to be doing them anyway.
    If they're allowed one level 4 element, I think a majority of skaters who can grab their blades at all would choose to use the spiral sequence for their level 4 because it's the element where they have the best chance of getting it called. So you'd still see those positions that you consider ugly from those skaters.

    Why not make it even easier for them to get levels by giving them the option to do one-foot turn and choctaw features, and two transitions, so that it would be possible to earn level 3 or 4 without positions they have to strain for.

    Reducing the length of time each position needs to be held to 2 seconds, as you suggested, would also cut down on the time the total sequences take and give more flexibility in how the sequences fit to the music.

    And that would be GREAT! I yearn to see more step sequences which actually fly across the ice, without slowing down to incorporate a hundred turns.
    1) Flying across the ice in step sequences (and/or relating to the music) can be accomplished by raising the value of positive GOEs and encouraging the judges to award them regardless of level, which they don't know anyway.

    2) If we split apart the steps and turns to two separate features, and add features for one-foot skating, toe steps, small jumps, etc., then it should be very possible for a skater to do a level 2 sequence that flies across the ice.

    Right now, if a skater wants to wow by flying across the ice in a step sequence, he needs to concede the possibility of earning any level and just hope for good GOEs, which aren't worth very much, on a level 1 sequence. It isn't worth his while to try.

    Change the rules so that a skater can earn level 2 or 3 without the "variety of turns" feature, award features for skills that aren't currently rewarded, and raise the value of the +GOEs, and you'll start seeing more quick fast sequences and more variety of sequences in general without requiring a level 1 element. But you'll still be able to reward skaters who do some difficulty better than those who do none.

    Consider:

    Skater A can do a series of mohawks and cross steps, all in his good direction, very quickly from one end of the ice to the other. The steps themselves are very simple -- a beginner could do them -- so it makes sense to set the base mark as level 1. The way A performs them, however, is flashy and exciting, showing great speed, quickness, control, and energy, the sequence is timed to a quick section of the music, and it only takes 10 seconds to get from one end of the ice to the other. It's a feat of speed, quickness, and energy that really gets the crowd going. Judges can give +3.

    Skater B can do a quick straight-line step sequence that takes 15 seconds to get from one end to the other that uses a lot of different kinds of steps including toe steps, a few different kinds of turns but not enough to meet the variety feature, many quick changes of direction and changes between toes and edges, and some difficult half jumps. He performs it almost as quickly as Skater A's sequence, and with a lot more detail to the musical interpretation. So +2 or +3 GOEs are likely. But the actual technical content of the sequence is much more difficult than Skater A's. Shouldn't he be rewarded with a higher level as well as comparable GOEs?

    Skater C can do a whole straight-line or possibly a circular step sequence all on one foot. It includes 5 of the 6 different kinds of one-foot turns, several of them in both directions, as well as edge changes and hops to regain speed, and also an inside axel or walley and a pirouette on the toepicks. Beautiful edge quality and relation to the music, but because of the complexity of the sequence it takes 25-30 seconds. Again, much much more difficult than skater A's sequence, and certainly worthy of +2s. Shouldn't he get more points?

    Under today's rules B's and C's sequence would also be level 1 just because it didn't have enough variety of turns (B) or steps (C). So there's currently no incentive to do those kinds of sequences at all. But if you allow them to be called as 3 and make the +GOEs worth more than getting to level 4, then we'd start seeing them. Or if you allow a simpler version of B whose only features are quick changes between toes and edges and quick reversals direction, or a simpler version of C whose only features are reversals of direction and all on one foot to be called as level 2, then you'd see sequences more difficult than A's that can also fly across the ice in 10 seconds.

    Doing a flying entrance for these kinds of spins just counts as one of the features to gain levels.
    Then why not make that the case for spins in one position as well? Combo spins already have more opportunities to earn more features.

    And that would mean that even a simple flying camel for 8+ revs would already be level 2, so there's no need to require a level 1 element if you want to see those simple spins done well.

  12. #27
    Wicked Yankee Girl dorispulaski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Staring at the ocean and smiling.
    Posts
    15,314
    There's a lot of reading to be done there.

    Actually, though, I think the pairs COP is in need of as much or more work than the singles.

    The final indignity was when quad throws and triple axel throws were given higher deductions if they were done poorly, but unlike singles, the base value was not increased. Talk about discouraging those skaters who can do these tricks!

  13. #28
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    It might depend on which year's level rules were in use and how picky the caller was, but I think both layback and the combination spin here could be called as level 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtKaKS0A_lg
    The layback is level 3, I think. But, again, multiple level 4 elements is fine. The added difficulty will just have to be reflected in the +GOE. If the added move improved the quality of the spin, it should show in the scores.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I think there are better ways to achieve the goals of more variety and quality and relation to the music and still reward skaters who can do all that with more difficulty.
    How? Skaters who can do it all with more difficulty would still be rewarded under this system. There just wouldn't be a necessity to try and complicate every single element.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    In general, I think the average quality of spiral positions and edges is better now than before IJS.

    Compare, say 10 spiral sequences from 1999-2000 season and 10 from 2009-2010 season. I bet you can find 3 or 4 beautiful ones from each of those years. But for the rest, are the sequences from 10 years ago really more attractive than the others you choose from this year? Or are they just more varied in the ways that they're mediocre?
    People are focusing more on their Spirals now because the Spirals are worth more. I don't think sequences are necessarily better now, though? They are more difficult but not more visually pleasing. If a skater can't do a good Spiral, I'd rather see them do simple positions and get through it quickly, rather than spending a ton of time holding out positions that don't help with the music.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    If they're allowed one level 4 element, I think a majority of skaters who can grab their blades at all would choose to use the spiral sequence for their level 4 because it's the element where they have the best chance of getting it called. So you'd still see those positions that you consider ugly from those skaters.
    At least we would be spared from a contorted spin or labored footwork sequence, since they would pick one of those to be Level 1.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    1) Flying across the ice in step sequences (and/or relating to the music) can be accomplished by raising the value of positive GOEs and encouraging the judges to award them regardless of level, which they don't know anyway.
    Yes, that's why I proposed GOE increase for all elements.

    Still, there should be a balance. We don't want skaters to think they need to add as much complexity as possible to every single element, but at the same time we don't want to remove the incentive for it either.

    By slightly controlling the points skaters receive in terms of the levels they execute, it should provide the best balance.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    And that would mean that even a simple flying camel for 8+ revs would already be level 2, so there's no need to require a level 1 element if you want to see those simple spins done well.
    It would still be level 1, unless they include a more difficult entrance. Most people do so, you're right, it would generally be level 2.

    I think it is a good thing to highlight level 1 elements, though. It's good for programs to have contrast. Classic Layback spins and Spirals shouldn't be lost from the sport. Nor should level 1 footwork sequences that blaze across the ice and look excellent.

  14. #29
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,968
    Also, thanks for the sticky post! Although now I wonder if people will even see it. Maybe I shouldn't have suggested it be made stick right away, LOL.
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 12-06-2009 at 01:55 AM.

  15. #30
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    I don't understand the necessity to decrease the jump values.

    If we accept the proviso that the Axel and the Lutz are the king and queen of skating's jumps and the loop; toeloop. and the salchow, flip are their subordinates, then a scientific study would show the amout of difficulty there is between all them. Once the various difficulties are arrived at, a better plan of assigning base values would be in order. As it stands now, is the Axel only .5 of a point more difficult than the lutz? Should it be more or less?

    and so on down the list. And how many points between number of air rotations should be assigned would also be of paramount importance.

    The minus GoEs and Penalties are useful tools for evaluating individual elements, but the penalties vary and are questionable.

    The plus GoEs are more the old 6.0 system in that they are opinions of the judges regardless of the guidlnes provided. Assigned Levels, too, are opinions. I would take these out of the Tech scores because they are not quantifiable and I think the Tech scores should be totally free of opinions. I believe Guidelines can be followed or not - a judge's choice.

    I don't want to go into the PC scores. Their Guidelines leave so much to be desired, and the bottom line is that they tend towards choosing which guidelines
    will justify their opinion before scoring. We just have to accept this.
    ____e __________________
    Thank you Blades of Passion, for initiating this topic. I think we are all in favor of the CoP, and many of us believe it needs a Review.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •