Stojko opposes the ladies result

[key65man]

If the issue is just about who wins a competition, then it does not even need be discussed here.

Underneath of it all, there has been a philosophical difference in how you reward/encourage technical innovations and challenging more difficult elements. And, it has not been settled, which gives an excuse and a legitimacy for this crap about Plushenko which is just a symptom of it.

The philosophical difference is being brought -- again -- to the ISU after the World, like it or not, because they do not limit the issue to Plushenko. They understand the fundamental issue here and want to do something about it. The system is to evolve, which is what is happening.

I agree in general to philosophy behind the current one. But, it needs a better compromise for the sake of the long term stability of the system as I believe there will be more controversies on this issue in future. And, there is a good chance that the philosophy behind the system itself will be challenged unless a better compromise is achieved.

Just don't limit this to a symptom, namely Plushenko the loser (or the imaginary Mao crap).

[Figure88]

Where did the smilies go? I was going to say

Because any changes to the rules that are knee jerk reactions to one situation, to me, are never going to be particularly sound. (like COP being knee jerk reaction to SLC pairs ) I think the COP is getting right now. One element should not be the be all and end all - we saw it with Joubert/Buttle in 2008 (the correct result) and again in Vancouver IMO the correct result, Evgeni was slightly off - his jump went up all wonky, it's testament to the incredible skater he is that he landed those jumps on one foot. So what did the system do? Well there were two programmes that were pretty evenly matched technically, one did have a harder element in it which would tip the scales in that favour, but for the fact the overall quality of the other programme was better - so the sacles tipped back (only by a small margin) to give the win to the "cleaner" programme.

I can only speak for myself but that is what I have always wanted from the scoring system.

Ant

ITA.

Yes, Plushenko had the quad but whatever bonus points he gained from performing a difficult jump pass was mitigated because of the technically less difficulty of the rest of his program. Also, didn't he complain that he'd been overscored before the competition? And now, he's complaining that he's been underscored?

Secondly, it isn't as if there are no avenues for skaters to increase the point value of the difficult jumps on their own under the current system. They can do so through improving their GOE's (clean-up the pre-rotation/under-rotation or something). So why not try to improve the quality of jumps? They can get up to 3 points on top of their base value this way.

[FlattFan]

She could bring back her 3F + 3T. She would have to change the 2A +3T but she wil still raise her point value as well as the wow factor of her program.

But Yuna does not need a boost to beat the programs Mao showed in Vancouver. With a 20 point cushion Yuna is untouchable by Mao at the moment.
And of course this is a CoP thing. The OGM is won by scoring the most points and not by one element.
Are you still confused about that?

How will she raise her base points? Are you that confused? The base value will go down as she can only do 2 2A instead of 3 2A had she gone for the 3F-3T combo.
2 Z, 2 T, 1 F, 1 S. That's all she got to work with. How does it change the base value or scoring the most points?

[janetfan]

How will she raise her base points? Are you that confused? The base value will go down as she can only do 2 2A instead of 3 2A had she gone for the 3F-3T combo.
2 Z, 2 T, 1 F, 1 S. That's all she got to work with. How does it change the base value or scoring the most points?

In the second half of a program the 3F+3T would get bonus points and huge GOE. As you pointed out this is 2010 CoP and a second big trick would also undoubtably raise Yuna's pcs. Maybe not fair, but that is without question what we see.
Now in the case of Flatt or Mao, many of the jumps are just not spectacular and on par with Yuna.
That is why they don't get the huge GOE Yuna gets.

I don't think Yuna needed to do this but believe she could if she was actually worried about Mao's score.

[FlattFan]

In the second half of a program the 3F+3T would get bonus points and huge GOE. As you pointed out this is 2010 CoP and a second big trick would also undoubtably raise Yuna's pcs. Maybe not fair, but that is without question what we see.
Now in the case of Flatt or Mao, many of the jumps are just not spectacular and on par with Yuna.
That is why they don't get the huge GOE Yuna gets.

I don't think Yuna needed to do this but believe she could if she was actually worried about Mao's score.

Her 2A-3T got +2 GOE. If she did 3F+3T, it would be +2 GOE. But she wouldn't be able to add another 2A.
As for bonus in second half. she could easily put the 2A-3T and the 3F in the second half. her score would have been the same if not lower for not able to do 3 2A.
So 2 3x3 for Yuna doesn't do anything to her score.
Bonus for second half has absolutely nothing to do with the second 3x3.

[Mathman]

Underneath of it all, there has been a philosophical difference in how you reward/encourage technical innovations and challenging more difficult elements.

Just so.

This is what I think the “philosophy” of the CoP should be. There is a certain base level of expectation for every skater competing at the senior championship level. Ladies at this level should all be able to present all the triples through the triple Lutz (correct edge), and men should show mastery of all six triple jumps. Besides that, all senior level skaters should be required to show competency in each of the three types of spins, with variations and combinations, as well as a full complement of steps, turns, and unscored moves in the field, including spirals for ladies.

As the IJS puts it, they should show a mastery of "the vocabulary of figure skating."

To fulfill this aim the CoP should be weighted and structured, in so far as possible, in such a way that skaters who cannot attain this minimum content will not be in podium contention.

Now we have to decide the medals. To win the contest, a skater must show more than the minimum. There are various avenues available for this. A man can do a quad, a lady can do a triple Axel or a difficult triple-triple. Alternatively, a skater can try to soar above his fellows in terms of quality – don’t just do a triple flip and a sitspin, do an exceptionally good flip and sitspin (hence GOEs).

Or a skater can try to stand out by putting greater effort into choreography and musical interpretation (hence the PCSs). However, in my opinion, the structure of the CoP should not encourage skaters to substitute these medal-winning extras for basic competency.

This does put a burden on the judges – is this guy’s quad worth more than that guy’s choreography or the other guy’ spins and moves in the field? But that is why we have judges.

(Just my opinion – Mr. Cinquanta’s may differ.)

[prettykeys]

Just so.

This is what I think the “philosophy” of the CoP should be. There is a certain base level of expectation for every skater competing at the senior championship level. Ladies at this level should all be able to present all the triples through the triple Lutz (correct edge), and men should show mastery of all six triple jumps. Besides that, all senior level skaters should be required to show competency in each of the three types of spins, with variations and combinations, as well as a full complement of steps, turns, and unscored moves in the field, including spirals for ladies.

As the IJS puts it, they should show a mastery of "the vocabulary of figure skating."

To fulfill this aim the CoP should be weighted and structured, in so far as possible, in such a way that skaters who cannot attain this minimum content will not be in podium contention.

Now we have to decide the medals. To win the contest, a skater must show more than the minimum. There are various avenues available for this. A man can do a quad, a lady can do a triple Axel or a difficult triple-triple. Alternatively, a skater can try to soar above his fellows in terms of quality – don’t just do a triple flip and a sitspin, do an exceptionally good flip and sitspin (hence GOEs).

Or a skater can try to stand out by putting greater effort into choreography and musical interpretation (hence the PCSs). However, in my opinion, the structure of the CoP should not encourage skaters to substitute these medal-winning extras for basic competency.

This does put a burden on the judges – is this guy’s quad worth more than that guy’s choreography or the other guy’ spins and moves in the field? But that is why we have judges.

(Just my opinion – Mr. Cinquanta’s may differ.)

Wow, Mathman. That is so well-articulated. I never really thought about the CoP and judging in terms of a philosophy, before.

[hurrah]

Just so.

This is what I think the “philosophy” of the CoP should be. There is a certain base level of expectation for every skater competing at the senior championship level. Ladies at this level should all be able to present all the triples through the triple Lutz (correct edge), and men should show mastery of all six triple jumps. Besides that, all senior level skaters should be required to show competency in each of the three types of spins, with variations and combinations, as well as a full complement of steps, turns, and unscored moves in the field, including spirals for ladies.

As the IJS puts it, they should show a mastery of "the vocabulary of figure skating."

To fulfill this aim the CoP should be weighted and structured, in so far as possible, in such a way that skaters who cannot attain this minimum content will not be in podium contention.

Now we have to decide the medals. To win the contest, a skater must show more than the minimum. There are various avenues available for this. A man can do a quad, a lady can do a triple Axel or a difficult triple-triple. Alternatively, a skater can try to soar above his fellows in terms of quality – don’t just do a triple flip and a sitspin, do an exceptionally good flip and sitspin (hence GOEs).

Or a skater can try to stand out by putting greater effort into choreography and musical interpretation (hence the PCSs). However, in my opinion, the structure of the CoP should not encourage skaters to substitute these medal-winning extras for basic competency.

This does put a burden on the judges – is this guy’s quad worth more than that guy’s choreography or the other guy’ spins and moves in the field? But that is why we have judges.

(Just my opinion – Mr. Cinquanta’s may differ.)

I basically agree with this philosophy. And because I agree, I think the CoP can be adjusted to fully reflect this philosophy.

For example, if a skater is putting in a 2-axel pass to avoid a triple jump that they dislike, and by so doing, is actually going to garner more points than he/she would otherwise have garnered had he/she done the triple jump, the system is allowing the skater to get easy points without demonstrating his/her mastery over the full vocabulary of figure skating.

Also, there are things that need to be changed that goes beyond the philosophy. When a jump element that is considered to be more difficult has less base points than an easier jump element, whatever the philosophy is, it needs to be changed.

[prettykeys]

I basically agree with this philosophy. And because I agree, I think the CoP can be adjusted to fully reflect this philosophy.

For example, if a skater is putting in a 2-axel pass to avoid a triple jump that they dislike, and by so doing, is actually going to garner more points than he/she would otherwise have garnered had he/she done the triple jump, the system is allowing the skater to get easy points without demonstrating his/her mastery over the full vocabulary of figure skating.

Also, there are things that need to be changed that goes beyond the philosophy. When a jump element that is considered to be more difficult has less base points than an easier jump element, whatever the philosophy is, it needs to be changed.

*yawn*

[key65man]

Just so.

This is what I think the “philosophy” of the CoP should be. There is a certain base level of expectation for every skater competing at the senior championship level. Ladies at this level should all be able to present all the triples through the triple Lutz (correct edge), and men should show mastery of all six triple jumps. Besides that, all senior level skaters should be required to show competency in each of the three types of spins, with variations and combinations, as well as a full complement of steps, turns, and unscored moves in the field, including spirals for ladies.

As the IJS puts it, they should show a mastery of "the vocabulary of figure skating."

To fulfill this aim the CoP should be weighted and structured, in so far as possible, in such a way that skaters who cannot attain this minimum content will not be in podium contention.

Now we have to decide the medals. To win the contest, a skater must show more than the minimum. There are various avenues available for this. A man can do a quad, a lady can do a triple Axel or a difficult triple-triple. Alternatively, a skater can try to soar above his fellows in terms of quality – don’t just do a triple flip and a sitspin, do an exceptionally good flip and sitspin (hence GOEs).

Or a skater can try to stand out by putting greater effort into choreography and musical interpretation (hence the PCSs). However, in my opinion, the structure of the CoP should not encourage skaters to substitute these medal-winning extras for basic competency.

This does put a burden on the judges – is this guy’s quad worth more than that guy’s choreography or the other guy’ spins and moves in the field? But that is why we have judges.

(Just my opinion – Mr. Cinquanta’s may differ.)

It actually is a good "philosophy." And, I think it is similar to that of the current system or the COP if you will. The difference is more or less about working/operational definition (e.g., "present," "mastery," etc.) and implementation of it, which is manifest in some specific rules.

Also, they need to take into consideration how it affects the skaters who, under the old regime, did alright with incorrect/unsatisfactory techniques. Commercial viability of the new figure skating scenery is important, as well. Hence, we have gotten the COP that was and still is a compromise of them in transition. That is how I see it.

And, it is evolving. The pace of it will pick up as the new generation of skaters are taking over the main stage.

The direction of it, as you suggest, is toward the idea of "sufficient" technical competence and artistry. Then again, the level of sufficiency is another question to be examined and answered because you do not want to marginalize or punish too heavily "artists" who may be insufficient, for instance, in triple toe loop -- it is not just for the sake of artistry but also for commercial viability. That is, you may not want to set the minimum competence too high.

So, I do not believe that there is a perfect solution. They just need to find gradually a solution which most find most agreeable.

I am not criticizing you. In fact, I most definitely agree with you in philosophy. I, though, may prefer a different way of implementation through scoring, GoE, say minimum requirement of 4 different triples for ladies with the mandatory inclusion of either Lutz or Flip (bonus points when the 4 are executed correctly), etc. What I like about the current system or implementation is its flexibility.

[Sk8n Mama]

This is what I think the “philosophy” of the CoP should be. There is a certain base level of expectation for every skater competing at the senior championship level. Ladies at this level should all be able to present all the triples through the triple Lutz (correct edge), and men should show mastery of all six triple jumps. Besides that, all senior level skaters should be required to show competency in each of the three types of spins, with variations and combinations, as well as a full complement of steps, turns, and unscored moves in the field, including spirals for ladies.

As the IJS puts it, they should show a mastery of "the vocabulary of figure skating."

To fulfill this aim the CoP should be weighted and structured, in so far as possible, in such a way that skaters who cannot attain this minimum content will not be in podium contention.

Now we have to decide the medals. To win the contest, a skater must show more than the minimum. There are various avenues available for this. A man can do a quad, a lady can do a triple Axel or a difficult triple-triple. Alternatively, a skater can try to soar above his fellows in terms of quality – don’t just do a triple flip and a sitspin, do an exceptionally good flip and sitspin (hence GOEs).

Or a skater can try to stand out by putting greater effort into choreography and musical interpretation (hence the PCSs). However, in my opinion, the structure of the CoP should not encourage skaters to substitute these medal-winning extras for basic competency.

This does put a burden on the judges – is this guy’s quad worth more than that guy’s choreography or the other guy’ spins and moves in the field? But that is why we have judges.

Extrememly well-put, Mathman, and bang-on the money. And, for me, that's what I want.

[Bennett]

Just so.

This is what I think the “philosophy” of the CoP should be. There is a certain base level of expectation for every skater competing at the senior championship level. Ladies at this level should all be able to present all the triples through the triple Lutz (correct edge), and men should show mastery of all six triple jumps. Besides that, all senior level skaters should be required to show competency in each of the three types of spins, with variations and combinations, as well as a full complement of steps, turns, and unscored moves in the field, including spirals for ladies.

As the IJS puts it, they should show a mastery of "the vocabulary of figure skating."

To fulfill this aim the CoP should be weighted and structured, in so far as possible, in such a way that skaters who cannot attain this minimum content will not be in podium contention.

Now we have to decide the medals. To win the contest, a skater must show more than the minimum. There are various avenues available for this. A man can do a quad, a lady can do a triple Axel or a difficult triple-triple. Alternatively, a skater can try to soar above his fellows in terms of quality – don’t just do a triple flip and a sitspin, do an exceptionally good flip and sitspin (hence GOEs).

Or a skater can try to stand out by putting greater effort into choreography and musical interpretation (hence the PCSs). However, in my opinion, the structure of the CoP should not encourage skaters to substitute these medal-winning extras for basic competency.

This does put a burden on the judges – is this guy’s quad worth more than that guy’s choreography or the other guy’ spins and moves in the field? But that is why we have judges.

(Just my opinion – Mr. Cinquanta’s may differ.)

Good post.

I like the way the COP rewards the five components in PCS. I just hope that they apply them accordingly (Koz shouldn't have gotten among the lowest scores on SS in the top 8 men, for example).

I also think that factoring of the GOE should be more fine-tuned so that it will reflect the relative difficulty of the element. Currently, they do so for spins and spirals. But not necessarily with jumps. Then the plus GOE relative to the base value is greater for easier jumps than for more difficult jumps. I think it reasonable that a well-executed easier jump scores higher than a poorly executed more difficult jump. But I think that a well-executed easier jump should not score higher than a decently executed more difficult jump. But the way in which GOE is currently factored (i.e., not factored) allows this situation to happen.
I quitted FS when I realized that perhaps I wouldn't be able to master more difficult jumps or spins. I could have continued to polish the quality of the easier jumps and spins. But I just lost interest in doing the same jumps and spins over and again and yet, mastering newer jumps and spins were simply too difficult for me. Someone said that there is a difference in getting perfect scores in high school and getting 80 points in univ. But the lack of GOE factoring does not accommodate such a difference very well.

[Willywu]

I think another way of balancing the system is by adding another section into PCS. Currently there are five, and they should be reduced from a 2.0 factor to a 1.8 factor. They could then add in another part called Technical Difficulty and it is how hard the jumps derived from the base value. As jumps are still a component of the program this IMO would fit in very nicely. This value can judge how difficult a skater's program is jumping-wise and award a few extra marks for trying a harder jumping layout even if they fall. I think reducing the factor of the other five sections of PCS as we would not want to see PCS being 10 or so points higher than TES (on average).

[bibi24]

I think another way of balancing the system is by adding another section into PCS. Currently there are five, and they should be reduced from a 2.0 factor to a 1.8 factor. They could then add in another part called Technical Difficulty and it is how hard the jumps derived from the base value. As jumps are still a component of the program this IMO would fit in very nicely. This value can judge how difficult a skater's program is jumping-wise and award a few extra marks for trying a harder jumping layout even if they fall. I think reducing the factor of the other five sections of PCS as we would not want to see PCS being 10 or so points higher than TES (on average).

Definitely interesting, I like it!! Some people want jump combinations to be rewarded for their difficulty, while some also suggest a quad (or 3A) should be worth more than a 3-3. But this is a nice and simple way of doing it.

[youngart]

OMG! Elvis, can't you get it, Yuna's protocol? 3Lutz-3Toe easy? Who did Yuna's 3-3 in competition? She is the only one who did it in ladies...She did clean programs. Every transitions are difficult but natural.
Do you think it is easy 2A-3Toe after Eagle? or 2A-2T-2Loop after InaBauer? Who did it? Who can?
3A? Have you seen Oser, Kulik or Midori Ito? They did full rotation and might get full credit, GOE 2~3. It's wonderful. But nowadays most of the players did pre or under rotation.
Mao? I know she is an excellant skater. But I can get lots of flaws in her long program. She isn't even near to clean.
The points is high in every players in Vancuver. Many got their PB. But differnce is O.K.