Cohen and Weiss like the CoP | Golden Skate

Cohen and Weiss like the CoP

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Here's a nice article from the USFSA web site about Sasha's take on the Code of points so far.

http://usfsa.org/news/2003-04/cohen-weiss-lalique.htm

“This is going to help me excel faster in skating,” Cohen said in favor of the new system. “It gives skaters a chance to compare [against] themselves. They don't have to compare themselves with other skaters. They can just go home and work hard, no matter what place they are. They can be pleased with the points they are striving for that reflects their personal skating.”

Mathman
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
well sure they like it... they're winning! LOL ;)


*runs and hides after being ornery*
 

PrincessLeppard

~ Evgeni's Sex Bomb ~
Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I'm going to be snarky and agree with Toni...if Sasha was getting dinged for the flutz and the spiral on the flat and not getting +3 GOEs on spins she falls out of (see SA), then I don't think she'd like it so much. :D

Mikey likes it because it allowed to place higher (trying not to spoil) than some other competitors who, sadly, threw in an illegal jump at the end and lost out on placing higher. This other skater is probably NOT too fond of CoP.

Laura :)
 

Kasey

Medalist
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
I'm glad they both are enjoying it so far, although I agree that certain things on certain skaters still don't seem to be taken as deductions. But hey, I like Mike, I'm glad he's doing well under it! And I do think it's cool that points can be compared from one competition to another.

Kasey
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Oh I am totally agreeing with the fact that Mike is doing well... and like he said at Skate America... he's lucky to have a coach that was part of the comittee in creating it so he's got a huge advantage to most of the competitors...
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Here are a couple of quotes that I found interesting.

About Mike: "Ironically he scored more points for the failed quad [he fell] which was judged as a quad (8.0-3.0=5.0), than he did for his faulty quad which was called his third triple toe at Skate America (0 points)."

It seems like any skater who can manage three and a half revolutions before falling down should pack his program with "quads."

Sasha: "I think the only negative is that it’s new, and people aren't sure of what to assign to what things yet," she said. "They aren't sure of what some things are worth, like my spiral sequence, for example. [I was told] it would be a level three, and at Skate America and Skate Canada I got level two."

Hmm. If Sasha's spiral is only judged as a "level two" I wonder what in the world you have to do to get a "level three?"

Mathman
 

PrincessLeppard

~ Evgeni's Sex Bomb ~
Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Mathman said:

Hmm. If Sasha's spiral is only judged as a "level two" I wonder what in the world you have to do to get a "level three?"

Mathman

Maybe be on an edge for more than the first part? :p

Sorry, feeling mean after one of my fave skaters faltered yesterday....(had the skaters name, didn't want to spoil)

Laura :)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
PrincessLeppard, haven't you been listening to Peggy Fleming?:laugh:

MM
 
Last edited:

NorthernLite

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
So, let's review: In response to instances where a few judges tried to fix events, they've instituted a system where *one* person, the caller, has the power to decide if something was performed as planned. That's an improvement?

Wait until an Olympic Games when someone has a huge lead after the short, falls apart in the long, and still beats someone who skated better. It'll be amusing to see all the people who've been sucking up to Speedy suddenly try to distance themselves in the PR disaster that follows. :p
 

lavender

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Mathman said:
Here are a couple of quotes that I found interesting.

About Mike: "Ironically he scored more points for the failed quad [he fell] which was judged as a quad (8.0-3.0=5.0), than he did for his faulty quad which was called his third triple toe at Skate America (0 points)."

It seems like any skater who can manage three and a half revolutions before falling down should pack his program with "quads."

Sasha: "I think the only negative is that it’s new, and people aren't sure of what to assign to what things yet," she said. "They aren't sure of what some things are worth, like my spiral sequence, for example. [I was told] it would be a level three, and at Skate America and Skate Canada I got level two."

Hmm. If Sasha's spiral is only judged as a "level two" I wonder what in the world you have to do to get a "level three?"

Mathman


Sasha was probably told by Dick, Peggy and TT that her spiral is the best but I think her spiral is a level two. When she improves her edges with her extension then maybe a level 3.:laugh:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
NorthernLite said:
So, let's review: In response to instances where a few judges tried to fix events, they've instituted a system where *one* person, the caller, has the power to decide if something was performed as planned. That's an improvement?

Wait until an Olympic Games when someone has a huge lead after the short, falls apart in the long, and still beats someone who skated better. It'll be amusing to see all the people who've been sucking up to Speedy suddenly try to distance themselves in the PR disaster that follows. :p
At least the decisions of the caller and his/her two assistants aren't shrouded in secrecy like the judges'. I would go along with the CoP if they would just get away from the secret judging thing.

But at least Speedy is consistent. If his thesis is that the problem is judges who are beholding to their federations and so are subject to inappropriate pressure, then secret judges with a "public" caller who works directly for the ISU makes sense. (A little bit. I guess.)

About someone winning the whole shebang by while losing the long program, this can happen under the old 6.0 system, too. Like in 1988 when Elizabeth Manley brought the house down, clearly beating a mediocre performance by Katarina Witt, yet Kat was the overall winner because of her placement in the short.

What I liked about Sasha's comment was the attitude that "people" (i.e., the caller), because of lack of experience with the system, didn't yet fully appreciate the qualities of her spiral.

Mathman
 

Jimmy Hoffa

On the Ice
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Mathman[/i] [B]Hmm. If Sasha's spiral is only judged as a "level two" I wonder what in the world you have to do to get a "level three?"[/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PrincessLeppard said:
Maybe be on an edge for more than the first part? :p
And don't do a bunch of crossovers between each spiral.
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Tonichelle said:
he's lucky to have a coach that was part of the comittee in creating it so he's got a huge advantage to most of the competitors...
Do you think that Don Laws influenced the criteria and point values to play to Weiss' strengths? Because if he didn't, given the number of seminars the ISU has given, that there are judges from most countries that have been trained in CoP and certified, and the fact that coaches and judges talk to each other all the time, I don't see why Weiss has any more than a marginal advantage due to Laws' involvement. If anything, Weiss and all other native English speakers have the advantage because they and their coaches are reading the publications in their native language. Because it's all there, in the documentation.
 
N

nthuz

Guest
I can't seem to figure out how to put the quote in properly.

NorthernLite said, "So, let's review: In response to instances where a few judges tried to fix events, they've instituted a system where *one* person, the caller, has the power to decide if something was performed as planned. That's an improvement?"

I thought that the caller decides what the element that was performed is to be judges AS, not what it was intended to be.

Am I wrong?
 

NorthernLite

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2003
nthuz, that's what I'm saying - the callers are doing it wrong. They're giving credits for combos that aren't combos. They're not calling what did happen, but what was supposed to happen.

There is also discrepancy between events, where one time a skater gets credit for Level 2 something (spin, spiral) and at the next event a different caller says that a virtually identical performance is Level 1.

And then, as noted above, there are the lack of penalties where there should be some. And who the heck thought it was a good idea to give decent credit for *falls* but hammer someone for trying tricky combos and slightly underrotating. Penalize *both* things, but not only one.

Add to that, the judges are not using TCS to break down aspects of choreo and execution as they should. It's being used like the same old same old presentaion mark to hold certain people up.

There are certainly aspect to CoP that could be an improvement. But I think the idea and execution has bugs beyond the secrecy/randomness.

And mathman, I don't think your analogy is a good one, since figures were still a factor in 88. Name me a time post-figures where the first-place winner had an insurmountable lead after the short. :D

Another thing to remember, is that CoP has also erased the distinction between the technical program and the freekskate. Now you have programs judged with identical criteria, yet set up so that one skater can amass an enormous lead in the first, shorter portion. At least in recent 6.0, any of the top three "controlled their own destiny" in the free. And that made it more exciting.

(Even that other recent ISU idiocy, the QR at Worlds, only reduced those who control their own destiny down to *two* skaters.)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
To nthus. (I wrote this before I saw NorthernLite's response).

I think that's right. I think that NorthernLite was saying the same thing, that the caller decides whether the intended triple Lutz was really a triple Lutz, or was it a triple flip or a double Lutz?

To do a quote, just click on the "quote" button just below the person's post that you want to quote. Then if you don't want to quote the whole message, you can delete the part you don't want.

Alternatively, on the page where you type your reply, click on "Enhanced mode" on the left under vB Code. This activates the buttons at the top, B, I, U, size, color, quote, etc. Use "close tag" or "close all tags" at the end.

Last resort. Type [quote*] at the beginning and [/quote*] at the end (leave out the *).

Tip: The VBoard software automatically double-spaces after a quote. So start typing right after the end-quote instruction without any space or carriage return.

Mathman
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
NorthernLite, I don't think that we can blame the caller for the "phantom combo." This is built into the rules. Like at Skate Canada, Sasha planned a triple-Lutz/double toe as her opening element. But she only did the triple Lutz. The caller called it properly as a triple Lutz.

Later on in the program she had planned a triple flip. Instead she tried to do the 3L/2T combo again, but she only managed the first jump. The caller called it correctly as a triple Lutz.

The rules (i.e., the computer), not the caller, automatically listed the second Lutz as a failed COMBO. Not because she had intended to do a combo, but because that is how the rules score a second instance of the same jump.

Yes, this is a little bit double-talk. The rules should not call this a failed COMBO. It should invent a new term, like a failed MOMBO. But the way it is scored I think is fair enough. The new rule softens the Zayak rule so as not to punish a skater too severely for going for a hard combination later in the program.

I think it's a fair rule, at least in so far as it applies to all skaters equally.

Mathman

PS. For a skater who was so far ahead after the short program that he couldn't lose, how about Yagudin at Salt Lake City. With his only competiton stuck in fourth place after the short, all Yags had to do was show up. (Those four 6.0s were just gravy, LOL.)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Mathman - The rule on the Caller deciding whether a skater intended to do a combo but only completes the first part is willy nilly, imo. He has a list of the skater's planned elements. I believe Sasha's 2nd attempt at a combo was not on the list so in the judgment of the Caller he decided that it was an attempted combo. But given the Caller's decision, Sasha had 2 triple lutzes in the program and got credit for both of them. Apparently, the attempted combos waive the Zayak rule. hmmm.

I am not bashing Sasha (her SC program was a good example of the CoP), and I'm not bashing the CoP (I like it). But I am not going to suck up what rules the Caller decides on.

I'm with Northerlite on this. The role of the Caller MUST be discussed after the GPF. It needs serious discussion, and not just a complacent 'nothing we can do'.

Joe
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
NorthernLite said:
Another thing to remember, is that CoP has also erased the distinction between the technical program and the freekskate. Now you have programs judged with identical criteria, yet set up so that one skater can amass an enormous lead in the first, shorter portion. At least in recent 6.0, any of the top three "controlled their own destiny" in the free. And that made it more exciting.
The SP has a maximum of eight elements, including one jump combo, the restriction of performing an axel jump, and a maximum of three jump elements. The LP has a maximum of fourteen elements, including two jump combos and/or sequences, one of which can have three jumps, and up to seven (Ladies) or eight (Men's) jump elements in total. In Pairs, the number of jump elements, throws, and death spirals is also doubled for the LP. That makes the LP tech elements, structurally, about half the value of the SP tech elements. The Program Elements are weighted 50/100 as well.

If a skater/team does so well on the SP that s/he has an insurmountable lead, that means that no one/team in the LP was able to do so much better than the leader, even though s/he or they had twice as much opportunity, in a program worth twice as much. It means that someone who is significantly better in the SP, but marginally worse in the LP, can still win. And, it means that skaters other than the top three can control their own destiny, like Liashenko in CC.

I agree that PE are not being scored according to the guidelines -- not enough element-specific variation in scoring. But since nearly every judge is making the same mistake in every discipline, secrecy is not the issue, because you would just know which 95% of the judges aren't judging correctly. I'm not sure what that would accomplish.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Joesitz said:
Mathman - The rule on the Caller deciding whether a skater intended to do a combo but only completes the first part is willy nilly, imo. He has a list of the skater's planned elements. I believe Sasha's 2nd attempt at a combo was not on the list so in the judgment of the Caller he decided that it was an attempted combo. But given the Caller's decision, Sasha had 2 triple lutzes in the program and got credit for both of them. Apparently, the attempted combos waive the Zayak rule. hmmm.

Joe
Joe, I am certain that's wrong. BravesSkateFan, Ptichka and Skatingfan5 all posted the rules in full on the Skate Canada thread. I was very surprised to read what the actual rules say. The caller does not make the decision as to whether it was an attempted (but failed) combo. The caller just calls "triple Lutz" and the computer adds the "+ combo" automatically if the skater already got credit for this jump. The rules, bizarre as it seems, are very clear on this. That's why I wasn't joking when I said that all they have to do is come up with a new computer-generated word for this, instead of refering to it as a combo when it wasn't. But anyway, in this instance it is not the caller's call. Here is the rule, from the ISU protocols:

"Only two jumps with 3 or more revolutions can be repeated in the Free Program and they must be in either a jump combination or in a jump sequence. A repeated triple or quadruple solo jump, not included into a jump combination or jump sequence, will be considered as a part of a not successfully executed jump combination and counted as a jump combination with only one jump executed."

This is automatic. The caller does not have to say whether this was supposed to be a combination or not. Yes, this is a deliberate waiver of the Zayak rule, and intended to be just that. The Zayak rule no longer says what it used to say.

Hockeyfan, about secrecy, I agree that identifying the judges by name won't make them better judges. But I still wish they would do it. It would just make the whole process smell a little better.

I think that with practice the judges will get better at distinguishing between, say, good transitions and good choreography.

Mathman
 
Last edited:
Top