I used to love the COP

janetfan · Nov 3, 2010

Joesitz said:
With Chan bouncing around on the Ice and others skating tall, the audience is confused except for Chan fans. The Chan fans look to that one item in the scoring system called Skating Ability which is a remnant of the 6.0 system. With Senior skaters, who's to say that one Rocker is better than another. The scoring item, Skating Ability is to hold up favorites for possible podium finish. A judge can say one skater has better basics than another and it is usually a favorite who is experiencing a melt down. We've seen it all before many times. This does not happen to the group outside the top five.

Much of what is covered by those bullets in Skating Ability should be, if they are not already, covered in the scoring system called Interpretation. One's skating ability is quite clear when considering interpretation.

I agree but would say one's skating abilty was rightfully broken into two categories - technical and presentation.
Is the choreography mark for the skaters or the choreographers?
Did Wilson beat Tat in Vancouver?
What about Carroll and Mishin? Wasn't Evan's 3/5 jump layout the decisive factor in his victory over Plushy and his 5/3 jump layout?

Does that seem like the best way to determine who is the Olympic champion :think:

Dumping on the casual fans is not the answer because there will be no GP series without casual fans filling the seats at these events. Or in some cases watching the broadcast.
Without a large enough fan base skating would cease as we know it. I reject the elitist views as folly.

I am often puzzled when fans say "what does 5.8 mean?"
Do these same fans realize that thousands more wonder "what does 179.5 mean?"

To me it is possible but difficult to use a CoP for the tech aspects of skating. I utterly reject this system for use on the artisitic components because they are too subjective.

It is comparative and although it still can lead to disagreements atleast we can understand when judge #1 ranks Evan first. The same is true when judge #2 ranks Plushenko first.

In a judged competition where music IN and choreography play such an important role a comparative system is going to work better.

Here is the deal - did I prefer Yuna or did I prefer Mao. Do not give me a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about SS, PE, IN, CH and TR. Tell me in a straight ahead manner who you thought had a better presentation/artistic skate that night. And tell me so I can see it clearly and let me know your name and what federation you are from.

Presentation Marks:
5.8 for Yuna and 5.7 for Mao. What does that mean? There is no doubt what that means.

My question is what does 179.5 mean? And how are the components being judged? Are they really telling us that Patrick's CH is worth more than Rippon's? Or that Oda's IN was a point better than Javi?

It all works together........it is why Kwan perhaps struggled under the CoP - not only with a bad hip - but because there is no mark in the CoP for what Kwan could deliver on the ice. There never will be a mark for that because it is a matter of the heart and not a number. It is how all of the components COMBINED can produce something special. It is the Janet Lynn factor which unfortunately seems to be fading away. Patrick does not have it and it doesn't matter in the CoP.

If a judge preferred Michelle over Sasha he showed us by placing her first with his ordinal.
Simple direct and it drew fans in because they got it. Irina could be a better technical skater than Michelle at times but rarely a better artistic skater. The overall effect of Irina's skating did not have the same emotional impact we felt from Michelle. There is no mark for that in the CoP and as a result the skating has become more mechanical looking as skaters only goal is to score the most points possible.

So we settle for a "choreographed smile" accompanied by awkard looking spins and spirals and footwork that looks like a snake has been dropped down the skaters shirt.

ImaginaryPogue · Nov 3, 2010

Mathman said:
There are no standards in the CoP. What the CoP is about is compromise (the opposite of standards), If you make this kind of error that counts 70% as much as if you make that kind of error.

(The CoP. in fact, follows one of my favorite maxims: "A foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of small minds." )

In this very thread we are arguing about whether a failed quad should get more points than a satisfactory Lutz. Think about it. A failed quad. Where is the standard?

God must love stupid, lazy people. He made so many of them.

I don't want to get all serious here, but...

Yes, we are permitted to hold the audience in contempt. But then we cannot also complain that skating is losing its popularity.

Figure skating has always been an elitist sport. It seems to be the ISU's mission to make sure it stays that way.

1. I've never complained that figure skating is losing its popularity. Though I genuinely believe that as soon as the USA has a star in the ladies field (star = someone who can and does win) we'll see the sport's popularity improve again.

2. I don't see how compromise and weighing mistakes is different from having standards. If I put my hand down on a jump, I've still completed that jump to a higher standard than if I fell.

ImaginaryPogue · Nov 3, 2010

janetfan said:
I agree but would say one's skating abilty was rightfully broken into two categories - technical and presentation.
Is the choreography mark for the skaters or the choreographers?
Did Wilson beat Tat in Vancouver?
What about Carroll and Mishin? Wasn't Evan's 3/5 jump layout the decisive factor in his victory over Plushy and his 5/3 jump layout?

No. It contributed, but this is a myth.

Does that seem like the best way to determine who is the Olympic champion :think:

One guy does harder choreography than the other. Seems like a reasonable way to me.

Dumping on the casual fans is not the answer because there will be no GP series without casual fans filling the seats at these events. Or in some cases watching the broadcast.
Without a large enough fan base skating would cease as we know it. I reject the elitist views as folly.

Perhaps. I've had enough of the American Idolization/youtubing of culture where a silly twitter blog can inspire a shallow television series. And while there were a lot of empty seats at Skate America last year, I see NHK, Skate Canada and CoR doing quite well with filling in the seats to make me point out that there's also a cultural difference in how much COP is accepted.

I am often puzzled when fans say "what does 5.8 mean?"
Do these same fans realize that thousands more wonder "what does 179.5 mean?"

5.8 has no meaning on its own. 179.5 does. Thousands more can find out why 179.5 means if they want to

Here is the deal - did I prefer Yuna or did I prefer Mao. Do not give me a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about SS, PE, IN, CH and TR. Tell me in a straight ahead manner who you thought had a better presentation/artistic skate that night. And tell me so I can see it clearly and let me know your name and what federation you are from.

Presentation Marks:
5.8 for Yuna and 5.7 for Mao. What does that mean? There is no doubt what that means.

Yes, there is doubt. All it means that one judge thought Kim was better than Mao in presentation. What does that mean? What kind of artistry? What does presentation comprise of? It hard choreography technical (after all, that's a technical acheivement) or presentation (after all, choreography is "artistic"). But how much better? Why doesn't that matter? Why did Yuna get a 5.8 and not 5.9? The thing is this reduces the sport. It just says "that is better than that" but it doesn't give you the reason for comparison. Like Mathman says, it allows the audience to feel equal-to/smarter than the judges.

Example: 2002 pairs. I've heard many people state that the reason B/S won was because they had the technically more difficult program and that made up for the errors. But they won on presentation, not technical. Why was that?

My question is what does 179.5 mean? And how are the components being judged? Are they really telling us that Patrick's CH is worth more than Rippon's? Or that Oda's IN was a point better than Javi?

These are the exact same questions being asked about 6.0. The difference here is that I can explore the rules to find an answer. And if that answer isn't satisfactory, I can assume the judges were out-to-lunch, or were wrong, or I don't know, or they disagreed. I can make no inquiries about 6.0. It just is

It all works together........it is why Kwan perhaps struggled under the CoP - not only with a bad hip - but because there is no mark in the CoP for what Kwan could deliver on the ice. There never will be a mark for that because it is a matter of the heart and not a number. It is how all of the components COMBINED can produce something special. It is the Janet Lynn factor which unfortunately seems to be fading away. Patrick does not have it and it doesn't matter in the CoP.

And then I disagree. Chan doesn't have the Lynn factor? Well, neither do most skaters, COP or 6.0. But I'd argue that Shen/Zhao, Virtue/Moir, Kim, and Takahashi have experienced much success because they replicate something more than just numbers. Virtue/Moir combine the hardest technical difficulty with a natural ease and transport you to another world. I'd argue that given their achievements at the highest level of technical ability the sport has they've one-upped Lynn there.

[quoteIf a judge preferred Michelle over Sasha he showed us by placing her first with his ordinal.
Simple direct and it drew fans in because they got it. Irina could be a better technical skater than Michelle at times but rarely a better artistic skater. The overall effect of Irina's skating did not have the same emotional impact we felt from Michelle. There is no mark for that in the CoP and as a result the skating has become more mechanical looking as skaters only goal is to score the most points possible.[/quote]

I guess it's what you want the sport to be: See Spot Run or Tolstoy. It's simple but not direct because again, there is no meaning.

So we settle for a "choreographed smile" accompanied by awkard looking spins and spirals and footwork that looks like a snake has been dropped down the skaters shirt.

janetfan, you've been watching skating longer than I've been alive and I am sorry that the sport so disappoints you now. But what you want means I'd stop watching. Obviously, I'd rather that didn't happen, but the world is much larger than skating and I'd survive.

Mathman · Nov 3, 2010

Blades of Passion said:
Written manuscripts for my entire manifesto of CoP changes have been delivered each of the past 3 seasons! Allegedly they've been "looked at" each time. I do know a few things have been copied pretty much word-for-word into the seasonal ISU updates. Unfortunately at the rate they're going it will be 20 years before everything is fixed.

That's awesome. I apologize for being flippant. Good luck!

museksk8r · Nov 3, 2010

ImaginaryPogue said:
What I think would be a worthwhile avenue to explore is saying falls should be a mandatory PCS deduction. A fall in a program is poor choreography, poor interpration (for that moment), poor demonstration of skating skills (blade to ice shouldn't mean bum to ice, otherwise I'd rock) and maybe poor transitions/performance (I think Florent Amodio's fall in the SA 2009 LP would be an exception. His reaction to falling was well performed). People want it dinged heavily because it disturbs the program profoundly. So shouldn't the deduction be in the Program[/i] Component scores, because it's not simply a failed element (which would be solely TES), it's a potentially program altering moment.

I totally agree with you! Falls should be penalized in both the TES and the PCS. How much penalty in PCS is the question? Should Chan have received PCS in the 5s instead of the 8s then? He fell 3 times in his SP, so if we deduct a mandatory 1 point for each fall, his normal range of PCS in the 8s drop to 5s.

Mathman · Nov 3, 2010

ImaginaryPogue said:
2. I don't see how compromise and weighing mistakes is different from having standards. If I put my hand down on a jump, I've still completed that jump to a higher standard than if I fell.

For some reason I thought that you were saying that if a fall on a jump deserves zero points, then, to hold skaters to uniformly high standards, similarly a wrong edge take-off should receive zero points and an under-rotation should receive zero points.

I am not completely against that point of view. But my point is that before we impose exacting atandards we must first insist on minimum standards. The minimum standard in skating is "stay on your feet." A biginner who can stroke and glide from one end of the rink to the other without falling down is, without question, "skating." An aspirant who cannot do this is not skating yet.

In contrast, a skater who takes off from the wrong edge on his triple Lutz attempt -- well, he did not satisfy the defining standard for that particular jump, but still he has satisfied the basic principle of skating, "stay on your feet." So I would be OK with "zero points for a fall" but somewhat lesser penalties for under-rotations and wrong edges.

museksk8r said:
I totally agree with you! Falls should be penalized in both the TES and the PCS. How much penalty in PCS is the question? Should Chan have received PCS in the 5s instead of the 8s then? He fell 3 times in his SP, so if we deduct a mandatory 1 point for each fall, his normal range of PCS in the 8s drop to 5s.

I think this can be done without any change in the CoP. Just like us, the judges can see how much these falls impact the presentation, choreography and interpretsation. There is nothing wrong with holding the judges' feet to the fire on this one. If the judges do their jobs there is no need for "mandatory" this and that.

In general, I think it is a mistake to substitute an ever-ballooning list of regulations, penalties and exemptions in the place of proper judging.

janetfan · Nov 3, 2010

Mathman said:
I think this can be done without any change in the CoP. Just like us, the judges can see how much these falls impact the presentation, choreography and interpretsation. There is nothing wrong with holding the judges' feet to the fire on this one. If the judges do their jobs there is no need for "mandatory" this and that.

In general, I think it is a mistake to substitute an ever-ballooning list of regulations, penalties and exemptions in the place of proper judging.

But we see more of this than you might care to admit. This is not the first time fans have reacted to a high score for a less than clean Patrick. Are all the judges sleeping or are the rules flawed? It can't be both.....

We see TR marks thrown around like candy. Little more than a joke when the same skaters keep getting high TR marks when they show few and/or simple TR. Are the judges always sleeping when the same few skaters get these marks?

What is worse is that there appears to be no accountabilty. Cincuanta promised judges woud be held accountable and closely monitored when the CoP was introduced. To date - has a single judge been sanctioned or removed? Actually the opposite appears to be true as the scoundrels from SLC were welcomed back with open arms by the ISU.

Seems to me a lifetime ban was the only possible action - anything else seems to condone their actions.

ImaginaryPogue · Nov 3, 2010

But then you're punishing the wrong thing. If you fail at an element, you should get 0 points. That's the logic people are presenting.

If you're punishing the skating, that's not the element itself, but the skating, and the penalty should be elsewhere (ie, PCS). The basic principle for a triple lutz is the definition of the edge take off (and rotation). He didn't do that, he didn't do a lutz. Giving him points for the attempt makes no sense if you're arguing that he failed the element. If you arguing that he failed at the basic principle of skating, you're arguing something else, imo.

ImaginaryPogue · Nov 3, 2010

But then you're punishing the wrong thing. If you fail at an element, you should get 0 points. That's the logic people are presenting.

If you're punishing the skating, that's not the element itself, but the skating, and the penalty should be elsewhere (ie, PCS). The basic principle for a triple lutz is the definition of the edge take off (and rotation). He didn't do that, he didn't do a lutz. Giving him points for the attempt makes no sense if you're arguing that he failed the element. If you're arguing that he failed at the basic principle of skating, you're arguing something else, imo.

gkelly · Nov 3, 2010

IIRC, back in 2004-2005 there was no fall deduction and judges were advised to subtract 1 point from Performance/Execution component for falls. However, they didn't do that, or at least not consistently.

Which doesn't surprise me.

First of all, what happens if you have a senior skater with not-quite-senior presentation skills, or a novice skater with below-average presentation skills, who only deserves 3.0 for Performance/Execution in general and then falls three times? Can you give her 0 for P/E? What if she falls a fourth time? The software can't handle negative component scores.

Also, not every fall is equally disruptive to the performance and execution of the program.

(I remember a rink legend from when I was skating as a kid in the 1970s that a skater had fallen and slid across the ice with a big smile and her arms overhead and the judges, under 6.0 judging, had not taken anything off. I don't know if they were referring to Janet Lynn or just to some random rank and file skater. The moral of the story for us low-level skaters was to keep presenting the program even if we fell.

I also remember a pro performance by Kurt Browning in which he maintained character throughout a fall and recovery and even added to the character and relation to the audience so much that the fall probably enhanced rather than detracted from that performance.)

And at the beginning of the new system judges were probably still thinking of the PCS in terms of comparing one skater to another. So if skater A gave a clean performance with OK but slightly sloppy presentation throughout and got 6s, and skater B gave a performance with good to very good presentation throughout that deserved 7s, except for one fall, judges could still believe that skater B was better overall at performing and executing the program and deserved the higher P/E score than skater A, despite the fall.

So after the first year or so of the new system, a deduction was introduced that gets applied automatically to the total score by the technical panel rather than to the PCS scores by the judges.

The judges still have the option of reducing the P/E component if they find the fall(s) to be disruptive to the performance and execution. They can reduce the Skating Skills component if they see mistakes as reflecting problems in the skating technique. Or the Choreography component if recovering from the fall causes the skater to leave out choreographed moves, or the Interpretation component if it causes the skater to stop expressing the music for a while (or for the rest of the program). If the fall is just incidental and brief, they don't have reflect it in any of the component marks at all, or by no more than 0.25 in one or two components. If the program completely falls apart after one or several falls, that may lead to several or all of the components being a full point or more lower than that skater could earn with a good performance.

But they'll be reducing that skater's marks from what that skater would have received without the falls, which may or may not end up producing a lower mark than another skater who didn't fall.

How much each fall affects what's being judged in each component will be a judgment call and judges will undoubtedly disagree with each other about just how much. Not to mention fans disagreeing with each other and with the judges.

And there will still be the 1.0 deduction off the total score no matter how the judges judge.

Maybe that deduction rule could use some tweaking. Maybe the judging guidelines need to explicitly encourage judges not to ignore disruptive errors when marking P/E and other components. But I don't think it would be a good idea to require specific reductions in the P/E mark for the reasons explained above.

ImaginaryPogue · Nov 3, 2010

janetfan said:
This is not the first time fans have reacted to a high score for a less than clean Patrick. Are all the judges sleeping or are the rules flawed? It can't be both......

Why can't it?

Mathman · Nov 3, 2010

gkelly said:
The moral of the story for us low-level skaters was to keep presenting the program even if we fell.

And if you are Alissa Czisny, keep on smilin' no matter what!

The best one I ever saw was when Sasha fell out of her closing pose as Juliet in a cheesefest. She played if off as, "Oh, I just poisoned myself. Oh, darn, that didn't work, where's my dagger?" :clap:

How much each fall affects what's being judged in each component will be a judgment call and judges will undoubtedly disagree with each other about just how much. Not to mention fans disagreeing with each other and with the judges.

I agree with that. I think that principle should be expanded in the CoP.

wallylutz · Nov 3, 2010

Some people keep referring to the 3 falls in the SP. One is on a Quad toe, which has more than twice the value of triple flip. Last year, mostly Russians and others, notably, poster belkac complained about the value of Quad being undervalued, hence the ISU now raised the value of Quad and reduced the negative GOE for falling. belkac went as far as producing a value table for the jumps granting some Quads as high as 16 points. :sheesh:

Fast forward 6 months later - now that Chan is trying his Quads and got credit for doing solid Quad despite an error, the exact same people cried foul in sync. :rolleye:

My question is what would make you happy? On one end, you complained that Quad is undervalued but on the other, now that more men are doing it, somehow you suggested they shouldn't get credit for it???

Please, be consistent. If you believe Quad should be valued much more than a clean triple, then say so. Please don't flip flop.

gkelly · Nov 3, 2010

Well, 2 years ago the value of triple axels and quads were raised a little from what they had been earlier, and also the value of negative GOEs for those elements was increased, so that successful quads in 2009 were worth more than they had been, but unsuccessful quads were not.

Now the base value of the quads is worth even more, but the negative GOEs (for triples as well as quads) are smaller than last year, so a failed quad is worth more compared to a successful triple than was the case last year.

Maybe the desire to adequately reward good quad attempts without overrewarding bad ones would be to raise the base value of 4T to 10.3 but keep the value of -3 GOE at 4.8 or thereabouts, so the failed one would be worth less than an OK 3Lz, not more.

wallylutz · Nov 3, 2010

gkelly said:
Well, 2 years ago the value of triple axels and quads were raised a little from what they had been earlier, and also the value of negative GOEs for those elements was increased, so that successful quads in 2009 were worth more than they had been, but unsuccessful quads were not.

Now the base value of the quads is worth even more, but the negative GOEs (for triples as well as quads) are smaller than last year, so a failed quad is worth more compared to a successful triple than was the case last year.

Maybe the desire to adequately reward good quad attempts without overrewarding bad ones would be to raise the base value of 4T to 10.3 but keep the value of -3 GOE at 4.8 or thereabouts, so the failed one would be worth less than an OK 3Lz, not more.

I can agree with your proposal b/c I see the logic in what you are saying which makes sense. I think one - can remain -1, whereas as two -- can equal say -2.4 whereas --- should equal -4.8, which will ensure a minor error like a hand down will remain just that, a minor error.

Until the rules are changed however, it is what it is.

Joesitz (RIP) · Nov 3, 2010

If FS had a decent Tech Competition, we would see how well the points hold up. By 'decent', I mean let the skaters put out their 5 best jumps, 3 best spins, and the usual foot-work sequence, all of which should be done with out music.

The Long Program should revert to the Free Program and let the skaters show us some art of figure skating with music, of course.

Less restrictions, but more of the Skating Ability in all its forms.

doubleflutz · Nov 3, 2010

Joesitz said:
If FS had a decent Tech Competition, we would see how well the points hold up. By 'decent', I mean let the skaters put out their 5 best jumps, 3 best spins, and the usual foot-work sequence, all of which should be done with out music.

I don't think that would draw the same TV audience that the current SP would, sadly, and that means it will never happen. Unfortunately, under the reign of Cinquanta, it seems like the most important factor in how skating is structured and scored is how it's going to affect the ISU's bottom line. Maybe we'd see something like this in the smaller internationals, but I can't ever see it happening for the GPF, Worlds, or Europeans.

bekalc · Nov 3, 2010

Wally Lutz. I wanted the quad to be rewarded more, but I never wanted a falling quad to get you 6 points. I think that's ridiculous. And I'm not sure I ever wanted 16 points for a quad, and if I did I'm sure other triples were to be raised.

Frankly I've advocated before that GOE marks get moved especially for jumps to a percentage of the base value. And have the percentage be higher for failures. I don't even think a falling quad should get HALF. So if someone said -3 GOE equals 80% off the base value, that would ensure nobody would be racking up huge points falling.

Poodlepal · Nov 3, 2010

I think this would be a good idea. I'm sure everyone will read this and adopt my ideas. :laugh:

There should be more than two marks.
1. Jumps. Add up all their jumping points. No limit.
2. Spins and Footwork. Add that up. No limit.
3. Transitions, edging and gliding without using improperly bending your knees or exerting any effort (apparently, what PC is the best at, according to the other thread). This should be a maximum of 20 points.

4. Performance, playing a character, being entertaining, interpreting music. Subjective-but 10 points of subjectivity.

5. Speed-5 points.

6. Cleanliness. This should be set in stone. Set a maximum number of points, and then take off. Hand down-2. Two foot-1 Fall-3. And double the penalties in the short program. And here's the kicker. The judge can't use a computer to subtract the points. They can take points off for flutzing and other tiny mistakes for section 1, but the cleanliness portion is for mistakes seen with the naked eye. I would make this also 20 points.

Judges could still manipulate the scores, of course, and P. Chan might still win. But it would be understandable.

Mathman · Nov 3, 2010

About partial credit for falling on a quad, I think I have found the correct sister-sport analogy -- trapeze.

The flier completed four somersaults in the air, before falling fifty feet to his death. (He got silver posthumously.)

I used to love the COP

janetfan

Match Penalty

ImaginaryPogue

ImaginaryPogue

Mathman

museksk8r

Mathman

janetfan

Match Penalty

ImaginaryPogue

ImaginaryPogue

gkelly

ImaginaryPogue

Mathman

wallylutz

gkelly

wallylutz

Joesitz (RIP)

doubleflutz

bekalc

Poodlepal

Mathman

Similar threads

Connect with us