Which Scoring system is your preference? Pro and Cons

Mathman said:

I thnk Plushenko would have been given the gold medal. The less than perfect quality of his jumps would have been trumped by the quad. I think Plushenko would have got excellent second marks, just like he did in 2002, despite not being a graceful artist type. Daisuke fell -- he's out.

Click to expand...

Had I been a judge in Vancouver using 6.0 my marks would have as follows:

Dai....................Technical - 5.7.................Presentation - 6.0

Plush.................Technical - 5.8.................Presentation - 5.8

Evan.................Technical - 5.8..................Presentation - 5.7

I don't think I am the only fan or judge who thought Dai was clearly superior with his presentation.

Plushy had too many wonky jumps and the weakest spins negating his quad advantage.
The frontloading would have kept him lower in the presentation mark as well (compared to Evan and Dai).

In 6.0 a fall did not eliminate a skater from winning the LP. It depended how the other contenders skated and his placement after the SP.

Without a doubt, I had Dai winning the SP and he would have carried first place heading into the LP.

Ellen said:

Do you seriously think that Pakhomova/Gorshkov, Bestemyanova/Bukin, Klimova/Ponomarenko, Grishuk/Platov, Navka/Kostomarov and others, whom I haven't remembered in a second, did not deserve their Olympic Gold medals? Or Usova/Zhulin did not deserve Silver at Olympics and Gold at Worlds?

Do you think that their dances were not a great pleasure to watch? They were not examples of highest mastery, talent of coach and skaters, the best combination of sport and art on ice?

Click to expand...

In my opinion ice dancing is different from the other disciplines in the following respect. In ice dance, the best dancers almost always win. There is usually very little disagreement as to who the best dancers are. So there are rarely any surprises in this discipline.

In the past this has made it seem like the only way to progress is to get in line and wait for the couple ahead of you to retire. When the number one team retires, then the next in line becomes the new number one and every else advances a notch.

It is still this way to a certain extent, except that it does seem like lately it has become a little easier for the new kids on the block to jump the line.

In contrast, in men's and ladies', even though one skater might be the best, he or she might not give the best performance that night and so might lose to a less highly regarded competitor. This is the essence of sport, as contrasted with exhibition.

In my opinion the CoP at least deserves credit for emphasizing a list of technical requirements that allow couples to be judged apart from, "oh look how pretty." Granted, this may make the dances less appealing and less entertaining to the audience, but in compensation perhaps it gives ice dance greater credibility as a sport.

ImaginaryPogue said:

Untrue. That it happened doesn't actually mean that to win a skater should stop doing the hardest jumps. It's so reductive and this point of view harms the sport.

Click to expand...

Well the next time a skater wins worlds while doing a quad this whole thought of mine goes right out the window! But the way COP is configured will the person who feels they can win go for it?

Krislite said:

CoP makes them unnecessary to win, not nonsensical to try, which I am perfectly fine with. You make it sound as if triple axels are merely a matter of choice for the ladies. Please. Give Mao some credit. She was the only one doing triple axels in the Olympics because she was the only one capable of doing so at the time. Many of the other girls have trained for triple axels early in their career (including Yuna) but either never landed it or never got it consistent enough to be confident of it in competition. The same could be argued of Lysacek with respect to the quad. He can't do it. Is it fair then to deny him any chance of winning because he can't and won't do the hardest element? Should Yu-na be stripped of her gold medal because she didn't force herself to execute a jump she couldn't even do well in practice?

Just because under CoP the champions won without executing the (currently) hardest elements does not imply that such is necessarily the best strategy for winning under CoP. That does not follow at all. Recall that in 1992 under 6.0 Kristi won the gold despite Midori landing a triple axel in the LP. Can we say 6.0 penalizes difficulty then?

The fact is, under either system, it wasn't always necessary to do the most difficult jumps in order to win. Even under 6.0 the technical elements only at best get half the weight of a competitor's ranking. It's easy to say, ceteris paribus the skater who executed the hardest elements should win the competition (and I agree with this). But unfortunately figure skating is a complicated mess. Two programs are never the same in all ways but jumps. And there are many other components, elements and aspects that are judged and weighed with respect to each other. So long as this is the case, so long as the judging system values and scores other aspects of skating besides the jumps, the winning program is not always going to be the one with the most difficult jumps.

Click to expand...

Midori Ito fell in the short program-how can she have realistically won after that. If she didn't fall the whole thing would have been radically different.

The bolded part brought to mind how if a skater wins not doing the hardest jumps then the system is not the one pushing skaters to learn them. They may have a personal desire to do the hardest jump but the system actually discourages the learning of hardest jumps. Takahashi and the quad. He wants to do one but the system is not pushing him-COP makes the quad meaningless.

janetfan said:

Had I been a judge in Vancouver using 6.0 my marks would have as follows:

Dai....................Technical - 5.7.................Presentation - 6.0

Plush.................Technical - 5.8.................Presentation - 5.8

Evan.................Technical - 5.8..................Presentation - 5.7

I don't think I am the only fan or judge who thought Dai was clearly superior with his presentation.

Plushy had too many wonky jumps and the weakest spins negating his quad advantage.
The frontloading would have kept him lower in the presentation mark as well (compared to Evan and Dai).

In 6.0 a fall did not eliminate a skater from winning the LP. It depended how the other contenders skated and his placement after the SP.

Without a doubt, I had Dai winning the SP and he would have carried first place heading into the LP.

Click to expand...

Plushenko has a good camel spin in my view. I don't know if Lysacek even tried a camel. The camel is actually the highest valued spin. Plushenko doesn't have a great sit spin but I feel his camel made up for that.

janetfan said:

Had I been a judge in Vancouver using 6.0 my marks would have as follows:

Click to expand...

Janetfan you speak emotionally by what you like in my opinion, have you forgotten 6.0 at all? all the things you say is like Cop thinking:

Plushy had too many wonky jumps

Click to expand...

actually 3 which as I said were not step out, neither fall or turn out, and in 6.0 it was not a such big deal unless the jumps content was identical betwen the top skaters so the better landed won. A wonky quad was > a perfect 3toe.

and the weakest spins negating his quad advantage.

Click to expand...

In 6.0? Spins?? In 6.0 it didnt matter and anyway CoP decided there were level 3 and 4 with no negative Goe weak.

The frontloading would have kept him lower in the presentation mark as well (compared to Evan and Dai).

Click to expand...

Who was ever punished for froantloading in 6.0? Judges were giving 6.0s in Plushenko and Yag and any top skater like it was pop corn. A tone of them.

In 6.0 a fall did not eliminate a skater from winning the LP. It depended how the other contenders skated and his placement after the SP.
Without a doubt, I had Dai winning the SP and he would have carried first place heading into the LP.

Click to expand...

No but it was a large minus in his technical. And do you believe judges would have put non quad skate first IN SP in 6.0 era? Since skaters started jumping it in sp, when was the case?

Anyway this is how I remember 6.0 trends.
by the way this is not about who should have won debate, it is just my estimation of who would probably had won in 6.0.

janetfan said:

Had I been a judge in Vancouver using 6.0 my marks would have as follows:

Click to expand...

Hmm, I would have gone with:

Takahashi - 5.7 / 5.9
Kozuka - 5.7 / 5.8
Weir - 5.7 / 5.7
Plushenko - 5.7 / 5.6
Lysacek - 5.7 / 5.5

Technically they were all pretty much the same. Takahashi and Kozuka both had a fall but they also had the most difficult jump layouts and showed the best quality in the non-jump technical elements: Takahashi in the footwork, Kozuka in the spins.

seniorita said:

Janetfan you speak emotionally by what you like in my opinion, have you forgotten 6.0 at all? all the things you say is like Cop thinking:
actually 3 which as I said were not step out, neither fall or turn out, and in 6.0 it was not a such big deal unless the jumps content was identical betwen the top skaters so the better landed won. A wonky quad was > a perfect 3toe.

In 6.0? Spins?? In 6.0 it didnt matter and anyway CoP decided there were level 3 and 4 with no negative Goe weak.Who was ever punished for froantloading in 6.0? Judges were giving 6.0s in Plushenko and Yag and any top skater like it was pop corn. A tone of them.

No but it was a large minus in his technical. And do you believe judges would have put non quad skate first IN SP in 6.0 era? Since skaters started jumping it in sp, when was the case?

Anyway this is how I remember 6.0 trends.
by the way this is not about who should have won debate, it is just my estimation of who would probably had won in 6.0.

Click to expand...

I remember watching 6.0 for many years before quads and even before 3A's
And in a close competition the pacing of a program often made a difference. Sandra Bezic knew this and Brian B., Chen-Lu, and Kristy owe alot to her choreo and program designs that featured jumps later in the program.

I don't care which system we want to use - unless frontloading along with a lack of cohesive choreo gets bonuses - IMO Plushy was not the best skater in Vancouver.

I thought Dai was the best, skated the most musically and with the best sense of freedom and real expression.

That is just how I feel about it - others for sure feel differently.

ETA: Blades, those marks are OK for me mostly because I see a higher presentation mark for Dai, with some separation from Plushy and Evan.

I know you are so high on kozuka - I think I missed his LP in Vancouver and still haven't seen it.

unless frontloading along with a lack of cohesive choreo gets bonuses

Click to expand...

well that earned him a bunch of medals and 6.0s, didnt it?

IMO Plushy was not the best skater in Vancouver.

I thought Dai was the best, skated the most musically and with the best sense of freedom and real expression.

That is just how I feel about it - others for sure feel differently.

Click to expand...

Yes I m thinking about 90s and early 2000, I cant know before that, actually i said that I judge from the last Olys in 6.0. I m pretty sure I said that my comments were not about who I liked or who should have won in my opinion or what I would put, but what judges would have probaby marked in 6.0 era, it is not my personal opinion of a skater, just an estimation of what judges would do according to 6.0 way of marking. Actually there were Takahashis and Kozukas in that era and judges were hoding them down, honda, abt..

Really this is pretty useless, I had had a good amount of debating the Vancouver results under CoP, I m not certainly going to debate the Vancouver results under 6.0 as well.

janetfan said:

I know you are so high on kozuka - I think I missed his LP in Vancouver and still haven't seen it.

Click to expand...

http://www.mediafire.com/?5tznwjyjuhq

seniorita said:

well that earned him a bunch of medals and 6.0s, didnt it?

Yes I m thinking about 90s and early 2000, I cant know before that, actually i said that I judge from the last Olys in 6.0. I m pretty sure I said that my comments were not about who I liked or who should have won in my opinion or what I would put, but what judges would have probaby marked in 6.0 era, it is not my personal opinion of a skater, just an estimation of what judges would do according to 6.0 way of marking. Actually there were Takahashis and Kozukas in that era and judges were hoding them down, honda, abt..

Really this is pretty useless, I had had a good amount of debating the Vancouver results under CoP, I m not certainly going to debate the Vancouver results under 6.0 as well.

Click to expand...

It's the "Summertime Blues" aka as off-season.

I was just thinking how much skating changed after the elimination of the school figures.
I remember Brian Boitano as a skater who still had to train/compete in figures and still upped the tech bar with two 3a's and the 'tano Lutz.

I still like watching his jumps and we shouldn't forget how much of his practice was spent on figures.

Michelle and Tara would never had been champions at such a young age if they had been forced to practice figures - and I doubt they could have beaten older skaters when they were 14-15 who most likely would have creamed them in the figures part of the competition.

Perhaps OT - then again the school figures were a part of 6.0 for most of it's history.

Jill Trenary never could have dreamed of winning the '90 WC without Midori messing up so badly in the figures.

Going back to real 6.0 it must be remembered that it was about more than the jumps we saw emerge in the 90's. There were no baby ballerinas or jumping beans landing 6-7 triples because they hadn't come close to mastering the figures yet.

If figures had been part of the '94 Olympics most likely Nancy with more time training figures would have beaten Oksana in a three tiered competition.

Does this matter? Does it matter skaters like Dorothy with equal jump content won on the strength of her all-around skating including better spins than her competitors?

Just a few thoughts..............

janetfan said:

Had I been a judge in Vancouver using 6.0 my marks would have as follows:...

Click to expand...

Blades of Passion said:

Hmm, I would have gone with:...

Click to expand...

And that is what made the sport of skating so much fun under 6.0 judging. We were not afraid to throw our personal opinions up against the judges'.

Under CoP, we do not say, hey, the average of the judges' panel gave my skater a total of 116.39 points but I think it should have been 121.23. Instead we shrug and say, well, I guess I'll check out the protocols tomorrow and see how these scores were arrived at.

As Miki88 says in post #36 above, what's the fun of that?

I agree with Seniorita that there are two separate and very different questions here. (1) What scores would you and I give if we were judges back in the 6.0 days.

Versus (2) How did the real judges actually score programs under 6.0.

Very different questions indeed.

Mathman said:

I agree with Seniorita that there are two separate and very different questions here. (1) What scores would you and I give if we were judges back in the 6.0 days.

Versus (2) How did the real judges actually score programs under 6.0.

Very different questions indeed.

Click to expand...

I will agree to that if you will agree Plushy was a much different skater back in 2002 than he was in 2010.

janetfan said:

I will agree to that if you will agree Plushy was a much different skater back in 2002 than he was in 2010.

Click to expand...

Yes he is different, he doesnt live in time capsule. In 2002 he was in his pick era. In 2006 also he was worse than 2002. Havent we all got older though? Nevertheless, Judges didnt seem to mind much through this season, as you said it needed a bunch of shaky jumps, bad spins, no choreo and frontloaded program and all that to come second just by a blonde hair. Not bad for grandpa. It was just that until 2006 they shooted his marks to the moon, now they got back somewhere above the earth.

Why this thread becomes about Olys and Plushy again?:no:

seniorita said:

Yes he is different, he doesnt live in time capsule. In 2002 he was in his pick era. In 2006 also he was worse than 2002. Havent we all got older though? Nevertheless, Judges didnt seem to mind much through this season, as you said it needed a bunch of shaky jumps, bad spins, no choreo and frontloaded program and all that to come second just by a blonde hair. Not bad for grandpa. It was just that until 2006 they shooted his marks to the moon, now they got back somewhere above the earth.

Why this thread becomes about Olys and Plushy again?:no:

Click to expand...

Yes all true - but in 2002 he came second to Yagudin. In 2010 he came second to Evan. Big difference, no :think:
Case closed.

Mathman

And that is what made the sport of skating so much fun under 6.0 judging. We were not afraid to throw our personal opinions up against the judges'.

Under CoP, we do not say, hey, the average of the judges' panel gave my skater a total of 116.39 points but I think it should have been 121.23. Instead we shrug and say, well, I guess I'll check out the protocols tomorrow and see how these scores were arrived at.

Click to expand...

Doh... It's all the same, it's just that now it is "Laura shouldn't have won" and stuff like this, which is basically the same thing, just without points. Who really watches the protocols? I guess if people would really watch them regularly, they wouldn't have so many problems with the current system.

Mathman said:

How did the real judges actually score programs under 6.0.

Click to expand...

Here are real 6.0 judges at 1988 Natls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah3Fmy7hAn0

Is this one of the greatest SP's in US Skating history :think:

Did Michelle or anyone else ever get as many 6.0's ?

Oh, I don't check in for a day or two and suddenly an interesting thread pops up. Gotta catch up!

First, I consider the anonymity and random selection aspects of the interim system and of the IJS as currently used in senior internationals as irrelevant. That's just an extra level or two of mixing things up in an attempt to foil manipulation that can be added to either scoring system, but it's not part of the scoring process itself. I don't like it in theory; if it really works as advertised to protect judges from attempts to manipulate them, then I can live with it, but I don't know whether that is the case or not..

I was comfortable with the way things were done in 6.0. In the late 90s when fans would suggest alternatives including some sort of absolute scoring system with points for elements, I would point out potential drawbacks. I was aware of some weaknesses in the old system, but I understood them and could live with them. Ordinal calculations are often counterintuitive, but once you get used to them they make as much sense as any other voting system. But what ordinals do is measure judges' preferences (whether based on careful weighting of all aspects of each skater's performances, political allegiances, or otherwise) more than the details of the skating, though.

I was was wary of the new system when it was first proposed. I could foresee plenty of potential problems. Some of those problems were addressed in the initial design of the system, some became apparent after the system was in place for a few years and have been addressed in later revisions, and some remain problems that may or may not ever be dealt with. Many of the tweaks have been in directions I was hoping for years earlier. The biggest change I'd still like to see would be some way to rewrite the well-balanced program rules so there could be more variety and, well, freedom in the structure of free programs. I think the system is already flexible to compare different kinds of strengths on a comparable point scale, if the rules would allow.

But once the new system was in place I soon came to appreciate the many advantages it does have over the 6.0 system. I especially like seeing the breakdown of where each skater was rewarded or penalized on specific elements or specific aspects of the program as a whole. As long as we recognize the fact that scores are at best only roughly comparable from one competition to another, I like the fact that the scores are much more meaningful in themselves, comparing each skater to approximate standards, rather than placeholder numbers comparing skaters to others in the same event.

As an adult skater at a level that's only judged by 6.0 within the US, I'd much rather get IJS-style scores (according to rules appropriate for my level) that give specific feedback on what I actually did. With 6.0, all I get to see is ordinals, which tell me nothing except which judges thought which other skaters were better than me with no indication as to why. I hope someday there will be an opportunity to compete under a version of IJS before I get too old and injured to compete at all.

As a fan following elite competition, I was always interested in the details of what the skaters were doing along with the big picture. I was interested in how to weigh all the different aspects of a program that went into coming up with base marks under 6.0, and the picky little deductions required in short programs. But usually I would just have to guess what the judges might have been thinking, based on my own knowledge. If I disagreed with the results, I had no way of knowing whether the judges saw something I didn't, failed to see something I did, or simply had different opinions on how to weight the positives and negatives of each performance.

IJS protocols take away a lot of that guesswork and point me toward details I overlooked. Much more educational.

janetfan said:

Here are real 6.0 judges at 1988 Natls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah3Fmy7hAn0

Is this one of the greatest SP's in US Skating history :think:

Did Michelle or anyone else ever get as many 6.0's ?

Click to expand...

Oh, Janetfan...Boitano was splendiferous. Thanks for fishing that out for us! And that little clip of Orser near the end, skating in '87, also wonderful in a completely different way. Orser was quick, like lightning, and Boitano was solid and majestic, like thunder.

I don't know whether Michelle ever got as many sixes in the short as Boitano did in that clip, but she probably made up for it in the long in '98 Nationals.

See under 6.0 you could say 5.8 was wrong 5.6 would be correct now it would have to be like if you were judging a man

first triple triple jump got 2 GOE I would have given 1
triple axel got -1 GOE that was wrong +1 would be right
Level 3 spin? I would give level 4 with +2 GOE
The step sequence was a 4!?!?!? It was a 3 with +1 GOE Not a level 4 it was just a three done really well
The quad was a -2 not a base value
Choreo was a 8 it should have been 6
Transitions was a 9 it should have been a 3
The last jump got +1 it should have been plus three it was so good
The choreo step should have got +1 instead of negative 1
The second triple axel was downgraded but I put it in slow motion on my computer and it was just underroated and should not have been downgraded so the << was wrong it really should have been a <

Is there a forum where this is done?? I would join that forum!!!

Olympia said:

Oh, Janetfan...Boitano was splendiferous. Thanks for fishing that out for us! And that little clip of Orser near the end, skating in '87, also wonderful in a completely different way. Orser was quick, like lightning, and Boitano was solid and majestic, like thunder.

I don't know whether Michelle ever got as many sixes in the short as Boitano did in that clip, but she probably made up for it in the long in '98 Nationals.

Click to expand...

My guess is that if Michelle ever got eight 6.0's in one program mathman would have posted it already

BTW, Sandra deserves some credit too. What a program she gave to Brian in an Olympic season!

janetfan said:

Here are real 6.0 judges at 1988 Natls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah3Fmy7hAn0

Is this one of the greatest SP's in US Skating history?

Click to expand...

Actually, yes, I think it might be. I can't think of a better one. Technically he did the hardest stuff anyone could do in those days, plus more. A triple Lutz with 'Tano air position, a triple Axle-double loop, and a double Axel with arms folded into his final pose.

Plus, I have to agree with Dick Button's commentary that he "captured the mood of 19th century skating" (in particular Jackson Haines).

I did not see any flaws, his lines were clean, the choreography was smooth as butter.



It is really quite sobering to compare that with anything Lysacek or Weir or Abbott has ever shown us in the CoP era.

janetfan said:

Did Michelle or anyone else ever get as many 6.0's?

Click to expand...

Michelle's finest short program was the Rachmaninov SP in 1998. She got 7 6.0's for presentation (so Brian's 8 beat her. )

Factoid: This program was originally choreographed by Lori Nichol for Michelle's sister, Karen Kwan. In 1998 Lori reworked it for Michelle. Michelle reveived a total of 26 6.0s for all the performances of that program in various competitions.

Like Brian's 1988 program, it was so simply constructed that it was over before you realized that you had just witnessed a masterpiece.

Edited to add: Another factoid: Micheel did 3Lz+2T, 2A and 3F at nationals. At every other performance that year she did a triple toe as her solo jump. But when she broke her foot, she found that for some reason the triple flip did not hurt as bad as the triple toe, so she slipped in the harder jump at Nationals.