What If We Do Have A Reputation Mark?

[museksk8r]

I've been thinking what if we do have a reputation mark going into a major competition such as the Worlds or the Olympics? We would have avoided the tragic results like Tara Lipinski won over Michelle Kwan, or Sarah Hughes won over Irina Slutskaya.

I think when a skater gets to the point where he/she routinely beats a skater who is considered more favorable by the judging panel, then he/she does begin to build positive reputation with the judging panel. We saw this during the 1996-1997 season with Tara Lipinski when she started routinely coming out on top over Michelle Kwan and winning the 1997/1998 Champion Series Final in Kwan's absence due to injury heading into the Olympics, we saw it during the 2000-2001 season when Sarah Hughes started routinely coming out on top over Maria Butyrskaya and when she outplaced both Irina Slutskaya and Michelle Kwan at the 2001 Skate Canada, thus building her reputation with the judges heading into the Olympics. We've also seen it more recently between Joannie Rochette and Mao Asada and now they are pretty much considered equals by an international judging panel in terms of their scoring. Showing a strong level of consistency and besting a favored competitor certainly helps a skater's marks and reputation with the judges.

[mishieru07]

I totally disagree. Isn't "reputation judging" what FS (particularly dance under 6.0) has been trying to rid itself of for years? (Well at least on paper that is). :sheesh:

It's sport. It's just that cruel; if you screw up, too bad. Life is like that in many aspects; take for example the A level examinations. I have seniors who gained entry into Oxford on condition of 3As. In the end, they "screwed" up by getting 2 As and 2 Bs. They've been absolutely brilliant all along, straight As in school prelims. Does Oxford care? No. It's do-or-die.

I'm never a fan of reputation judging in any sport. It's as bad as match-fixing to me. Sports has always been a question of who does the best in SAID competition. I want to see skaters rewarded for what they present on the ice, not what they are capable of presenting. You could be the No 1 in the world or a lower-ranked skater but if you splat, you splat = docking on appropriate aspects of PCS, like PE. Reputation judging has already robbed many of medals and not just in FS. You could probably argue that Bessonova wuzrobbed of Ribbon gold in the 2009 RG WC. Now, I love both Kanaeva and Bessonova but the judging is just . Anna was screwed on reputation imo.

FS is finally shedding its image as a pre-determined sport where the judges might as well mail out the medals ahead of the competition. It simply does not make sense to allow for reputation judging imo. Not when sports is about who's the best in the competition. It is not a case of who is the most consistent competitor. Reputation judging is also disadvantageous for younger skaters, which I vehemently oppose. My take has always been if the young'uns have it, for God's sake, reward them for it (I like COP for this reason). Imagine, depending on how much "reputation judging" counts, we could well have B/A and D/S x 2 over V/M and D/W at the Vancouver Games! How would that come across to casual viewers, when two clearly superior teams lose out?

But anyway, has there been a sport that "legalizes" reputation judging? Like those who have a track record have a definite advantage going in? (Eg point cushion, time advantage). Also, I'm somewhat curious about your "reputation judging" system; is it a purely mathematical thing based on say the ISU rankings? And by how much should it constitute the final score under COP and 6.0? W.r.t to returning/ injured skaters, how is it possible to accurately "predict" where they'd be in the current pack for someone who is inconsistent, like S/S's fluke performance at TEB?

[katha]

I completely agree that slotting skaters into some pre-arranged boxes before they even skate is not and should never be the way to go. And sadly sometimes it has happened in the past and does still happen. But I would say that sometimes things that people outside of FS have perceived as "reputation judging" was/is just skaters being marked appropriately for their level of skating. For example, a Yu-Na with 1,2 mistakes is still better than a skater in the middle of the pack who stays clean. There's always griping about the never-changing ice dance standings, but there are less mistakes there so the judges more or less know beforehand how they view each team if they skate clean. The comparatively little movement in that discipline always made sense to me, at least to some degree.

All the same, dance is where "reputation judging" is still most visible IMO. And I don't mean that necessarily in an evil way. More like at the Oscars where actors who are "due" sometimes get awarded even though there may have been a better performance that year. I would say that, for example, D/W's good showing at Worlds 2009 translated into the judges giving them really high marks during the GP series without hesitation. So they missed out on a Worlds medal but earned the goodwill of the judges. At least that's how I saw it. And then they kept that goodwill by constantly delivering great performances. Should it work that way? Perhaps not, but I don't see how you can totally prevent it as long as you have humans deciding the outcome.