PC Scores - Are they evenly judged for each skater?

[Joesitz]

Here are my views from another thread. Comments in agreement and against most welcome.

Regarding the PC scores. There are 5 Components (I believe they all have the same weight) and each one has its own criteria.

1. Transitions Linking footwork and Movements

2. Skating Skills

3. Performance/Execution

4. Choreography/Composition

5. Interpretation

The criteria set out for each of the above is for judges to select what they deem appropriate. They may leave out criteria for some skaters who could use certain criteria for their scores.

It's difficult to ascertain what each judge used for the criteria. So a discussion on Rachael and Alyssa is not definitive. Look at it as a consensus of opinion of the judges. No way can we see how the criteria was used for each skater. More than likely the criteria was different.

[Layfan]

I'm not sure I really understand what you mean but leaving out criteria. So, a judge could think, hmm. I'm not going to judge Alissa on Choreography? But they have to right? I mean, they have to give each component a score...

Here is what I think:

I think where a skater like Alissa would always have the advantage is performance/execution _ because of the latter half of that criteria.

Here's my problem: It's all good and well to be have good choreography and composition and to be musical and expressive enought to be able to interpret it the music and choreo. But if you don't have the tools to be able to show it off, it won't matter.

It's like writing - you might have a great story in your head. But if you can't master written language you won't be able to transmit it on paper.

Rachael - she is musical and expressive. She's good at interpretation. But people insist on calling her boring. It's because she doesn't have the lines to show the same kind of clarity of movement that Alissa has. So you can look at her programs and say, yeah, wow, she was so expressive and she gave it all she had and skated to the music. But it still wasn't executed particularly well because of her problems with lines.

Rachael's skating always looks a bit fuzzy to me.

But maybe it certainly possible Rachael will have better Choreo and better interepretation than Alissa at a given competition. And better transitions.

Skating skills, I don't know. I don't think Rachael is particularly known for deep edges - certainly not deep knee bends - but I'm not sure if Alissa is any better.

Not sure all this really gets at the point you are trying to make, though.

[Joesitz]

[QUOTE=Layfan;531137]I'm not sure I really understand what you mean but leaving out criteria. So, a judge could think, hmm. I'm not going to judge Alissa on Choreography? But they have to right? I mean, they have to give each component a score...[QUOTE]
not sure if there is a 'right' to omit some of the criteria, though I have seen it written in other posts. If it is true, imo, I think they use those criteria listings to boost or degrade a particular skater. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can straighten me out.

As to Rachael and Alissa, are they using all the criteria in each of the 5 Components. I dunno. Singly out one component is not the basis for the final score of PCs.

[Mathman]

Layfan, I think Joe is referring to the seven or so "bullets" (I count 36 in all, over the five compnents) that are supposed to guide the judges in giving these marks.

According to (ISU judge) Joe Inman's post on the other thread, the judges are expected, to the best of their abiltity, to take each one of the criteria for each one of the compnents into account. But Gkelly and others have pointed out that in practice this is next to impossible, and in fact the judges must weigh the relative importance of, say, "unity of purpose" and "utilzation of public and private space" (two of the bullets for Choreography) in each individual performance.

This relative importance might vary from skatrer to skater, and well as from judge to judge and from competition to competition.

[Layfan]

Layfan, I think Joe is referring to the seven or so "bullets" (I count 36 in all, over the five compnents) that are supposed to guide the judges in giving these marks.

According to (ISU judge) Joe Inman's post on the other thread, the judges are expected, to the best of their abiltity, to take each one of the criteria for each one of the compnents into account. But Gkelly and others have pointed out that in practice this is next to impossible, and in fact the judges must weigh the relative importance of, say, "unity of purpose" and "utilzation of public and private space" (two of the bullets for Choreography) in each individual performance.

This relative importance might vary from skatrer to skater, and well as from judge to judge and from competition to competition.

Ah, I get it now. Well, that makes all much more complicated and a totally over my head and Joe is right - there is really no way to know exactly what went through a judge's head.

I think Phil Hersh had a good point in an article last year when he said that the COP sometimes makes it so that you judge the quality of a canvas by breaking it up into dozens of elements and without taking a step back and judging the whole. Or one might think it's like that. But with the point that Joe brings up, you see how a judge might have leeway to take into account the whole and dismiss whether one skater didn't completely come up to scratch in "utilizing of private and public space" but still looked exquisite on the whole.

Hmm. Sasha might be in an interesting example. She was criticized at the beginning of her senior career - much less so later - for what I guess could be called not-great "utilizing of public space." But I always thought her use of "private space" was so special that who really cares whether she filled the whole ice?

Ugh. What a clunky way of stating what I suppose means good ice coverage/holding out your moves.

I say it's fair enough that the judges minimize some bullet points. Take Yuna - she doesn't point her feet and has no turnout. But man, does she cover the ice and have speed and musicality and expression and ease and confidence, etc. So she certainly deserves the best PCS. It's the whole - Yuna uses her strengths to such an extent that she makes herself a far better performer than many who have perfect lines. So, yeah, in her case, if I were a judge I wouldn't put as much importance on lines.


Of course, many posters would disagree and insist both Sasha and Yuna were overscored.

But that's figure skating.

[Mathman]

Ugh. What a clunky way of stating what I suppose means good ice coverage/holding out your moves.

Although, I have to admit that the more I read the ISU’s descriptions of these criteria, the more I think that the language is pretty cool after all. They are attempting the impossible – trying to quantify qualities, trying to determine who is “good, better, best” by assigning numbers and computing instead who has “some, more and most.”

The resulting language, to me, comes out like a poem that I almost think I catch the meaning of…but no, not quite.

“Establishes an invisible link with the audience.” This is one of the P/E bullets. I know what it means in the sense that “I can’t define art, but I know it when I see it.” But what are the judges supposed to be watching for? Whether the audience leaps to its feet with lusty Bravos? What quantifiable actions is the skater taking to bring this about?

[Layfan]

Well, that one is nicely phrased.

I imagine the first thing the judges ask themselves is if they, as members of the audience, felt a "visible link." Well, it's terribly subjective of course.
Maybe there are somethings that are quantifiable - like if a skater looks at the audience and uses facial expession to reflect the music... But in the end, I can't imagine there isn't a lot of subjectivity... And what if you feel a link but don't like the link?
Kanako obviously projects to the audience and tries hard to do that but it turns some people off. Plushenko is sort of similar - he's a total crowd pleaser for many but others, as Jamie Salle said, "don't buy it."

[Joesitz]

Well, that one is nicely phrased.

I imagine the first thing the judges ask themselves is if they, as members of the audience, felt a "visible link." Well, it's terribly subjective of course.
Maybe there are somethings that are quantifiable - like if a skater looks at the audience and uses facial expession to reflect the music... But in the end, I can't imagine there isn't a lot of subjectivity... And what if you feel a link but don't like the link?
Kanako obviously projects to the audience and tries hard to do that but it turns some people off. Plushenko is sort of similar - he's a total crowd pleaser for many but others, as Jamie Salle said, "don't buy it."

Very good post! I think we have to remember that viewing figure skating LIVE at the arena one can not get facial expresssions except from a good seat and only when the skater flows by. I don't think the judges get that much more although they have the best seats in the house. At home, we watch it on TV and have the illusion that it is all on a proceniums stage and we have the best seats in the house. What you get watching LIVE is a perspective of the skater's flow over the ice, body language, whole choreography, and the pleasure of the tricks and their relation to the program. Which bring us to Kanako.

A very lively skater, that one can not help but enjoy and share in her happiness as she skates. But is it really her personality or something that her choreo told her to do? Getting the real emotions of a young skater is not easy. It begins at 18 and gets still better when in their 20s. JMO

[pangtongfan]

Not at all. At the moment they are a crock. They are based more on reputation, name, and your current pecking order than your actual skating. They have been ever since they were introduced.

It is why the unartistic Irina Slutskaya was getting way higher PCS than everyone else for about 15 months when she was considered the dominant skater, even though with her TES she could have still won with more reasonable PCS. Then her PCS went down the drain once she lost to underaged Asada at the GP final and lost her dominant aura with the judges (even before the Olympic LP).

It is why Chan is suddenly getting skyrocketing PCS that are much higher than anyone else even when he falls 3 or 4 times, when in reality his skating hasnt improved one iota other than landing the quad since 2009. However with all the retirements and Takahashi's age and up and down history it seems the judges decided before the season he must win Worlds no matter what, he is the one they want to coronate the new dominant skater of the next quad, so the PCS irregardless of splatty performances reflect this.

In ice dancing last season Virtue & Moir and Davis & White were far and away the best 2 teams and deserved the highest in both TES and PCS in every outing. Still their PCS were such they could have fallen 4 times and still been 1-2 or 1 at all events except the Olympics (and we know the PCS themselves wouldnt change much or any with falls as this season proves).

Plushenko getting by far the highest PCS in 2006 even though many aspects of his program components were not the best of the field. And they werent even neccessary for him to win it turned out, they just distorted the credibility of the scoring.

Lysacek getting such huge PCS once he became a World Champion.

The Zhangs getting much higher PCS than they ever desered when promoted as the #1 Chinese in 2006, 2008, and 2009 then sinking like a stone in 2010 when the Chinese federation decides they are now the countries #3 team even though their skating did not weaken at all. Pang & Tong likewise seeing the reverse happen to them, deflated then inflated scores depending on their favor within their federation at a given time.

Basically it is all a joke. The PCS have little to do with skating. And the seperate categories while on merit make sense turn out to be pointless as the judges score the skaters in same order for each, rather than pinpointing which areas some skaters are stronger in or less strong, and via performance too. Cohen getting huge skating skills just because of how strong she is in the others for instance. The PCS are nothing but a glorified reputation or pecking order mark, the judges new way to slip scores to those skaters in favor and withhold them from those they dont, to manipulate results into what they want them to be, rightly or wrongly. Nothing more than that.

[museksk8r]

whole post

Yes, like pangtongfan, I think PCS are primarily a momentum/political favoring or unfavoring score. If the judges would actually consistently show variance among the 5 judged components to truly reflect what each skater is strong or weak at instead of constantly remaining in that same narrow corridor for each of the components of each skater, perhaps that viewpoint among fans would change. We need to start seeing a top skater consistently receive 8s and 7s for areas he/she is better at and 3s and 4s for areas he/she is weak at.

Another example to add to pangtongfan's list is when Khokhlova/Novitski won the World bronze medal in 2008 when Domnina/Shabalin were absent due to injury, but when DomShabs returned in 2009 and won gold, Khokhlova/Novitski fell to 6th place as a result of being the #2 Russian team.

[demarinis5]

COP is really not that much different than the old 6.0 system in some respects.

[Joesitz]

COP is really not that much different that the old 6.0 system is some respects.

Absolutely!! Even the tech, for example, what is it that makes a skater a +3 and another skater a +2? There may be some wording on the use of plus GoEs, but ya can't go bananas when you read a base score which is modified to include some novelty by the competitor - only a judge can understand his GoE for a particular element, and we are expected to think it is correct because there is a Corridor.

As to the PC scores, How can they be quantified when it is all based on the eyes of the judges who do not agree with each other? and what is the point of the competition? Is it to find a Winner, a Podium, or an evenings entertainment?

[NorthernDancers]

I'm still waiting for a description of what constitutes the different number levels in PCS. I think I mostly understand the technical side, and that is a huge improvement over the old 6.0 system, but there doesn't seem to be specific criteria for what constitutes a 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 etc in each of the elements of the PCS. If it doesn't exist, how does a judge decide? If all the marks are within a point or so of each other, the judges all must be thinking along the same lines in some respects. So how do they decide?

[Mathman]

Absolutely!! Even the tech, for example, what is it that makes a skater a +3 and another skater a +2?...

As to the PC scores, How can they be quantified when it is all based on the eyes of the judges who do not agree with each other?

To me, this is the definition of judging. The judges must say whether they liked a particular technical element a whole lot or just a lot. Or whether they felt that the skater was expressing the music very well or not so well.

I do not understand why there is such an uproar over this fact. Judges judge. They do not measure. 6.0 or CoP, this is what judges do.

...and what is the point of the competition? Is it to find a Winner, a Podium, or an evenings entertainment?

I agree 100% that it is the job of the judges to say, "this skater won, that skater was second, that one third." That is why 6.0, for all it's faults, at least had the virtue of honesty.

Now when the judges do their jobs -- give the highest scores to the person that they thought should win, give next highest scores to the person that they thought was second best, etc. -- everyone says, hey, what about the objective standards of the CoP? (Exactly -- what about them?)

[prettykeys]

I'm still waiting for a description of what constitutes the different number levels in PCS. I think I mostly understand the technical side, and that is a huge improvement over the old 6.0 system, but there doesn't seem to be specific criteria for what constitutes a 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 etc in each of the elements of the PCS. If it doesn't exist, how does a judge decide? If all the marks are within a point or so of each other, the judges all must be thinking along the same lines in some respects. So how do they decide?

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/...-0-file,00.pdf

Judges' decision of extent and degree, I guess.