- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
Argumentum ad verecundiam?
Not that I necessarily disagree with the point you have in principle, but one might think that Mishin and co. have certain...interests that may compel them to make such statements.
Are judges able to "rank" skaters while they are judging?
- Thread starter Poodlepal
- Start date
Argumentum ad verecundiam?
Not that I necessarily disagree with the point you have in principle, but one might think that Mishin and co. have certain...interests that may compel them to make such statements.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That's the problem. With anonymous judging you can't tell if anything funny is going on or not.
I sent you a PM.
Henrando said:
Well, Pogue is a dispassionate observer with no personal ax to grind. So he might have a more objective view.
I doubt if Frank Carroll would have raised a ruckus if he had perceived that the tech panel was favoring his skaters instead of beating them up. Mishin would not have complained if he saw a conspiracy favoring Plushenko. It's all whose ox is getting gored.
In fact, I think it is part of the coach's job to go around wuz-robbing his skaters, to counter the influence of the other coaches who are wuz-robbing theirs.
Edited to add:
I learned a new word.
I love this board! 
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
You lost me with your first thought.
Pogue, with all due respect is not just a believer but a preacher of the vitures of the CoP.
Your second thought feels very true, even painfully true.
Evangeline seems to understand that I am not against skating but against a certain politcal perversion of the sport.
I think there is a credibilty factor missing and I don't see any improvement from 6.0 to CoP.
If GS posters have any credibilty at all the why are there so many disputes over judging? Has it gotten better under CoP?
Why are so many fans disgruntled about the Men's and Dance podium from the Vancouver Olympics?
How is it better under CoP than 6.0? Pogue said the "tech panel" made it better but that feels false and more like a weak defense of the CoP.
Why are some of the leading coaches in the sport complaining about the tech panel and the feeling that politics are still behind placements at times?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
shrug - that's up to you. Of course, it doesn't take 4-5. It only takes one. To wit, 2002 SLC pairs.
Also, by definition, with the top mark being thrown out, it can't take one in COP. Only one is an outlier and as such doesn't contribute to the final score. For example, a judge giving Virtue/Moir PCS in the fives for their sterling SD at 4CC 2011. If only one judge can change the podium, then that arguably means the competition was so close that either result is fair.
And finally, are you asserting that Morosov/Orser/Carroll/Mishin are arguing from the perspective that they only want what's good for the sport, as opposed to what's good for the skaters? Additionally, could you find links supporting your assertion (with the exception of Mishin, as I recall those statements post-Inman controversy and don't need verification).
Why are there so many disputes over judging? Because people disagree. I don't see that as a flaw with COP as it is an inherent flaw in any judging system.
People disagree with judgements made in courts of law that send people to prison for twenty years. People disagree with judgements made by our politicians when they send people when they decide how to spend money/tax people/etc. People disagree with awards organizations when they decide The King's Speech is in fact the best film of the year.
Hernando, if you want me to write a fuller defense of COP, I can. I don't expect you to agree, of course.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I do believe there was a Soviet pact in scoring skaters although I can not prove it except to say they never varied from each other. That was all some 9 years ago. I don't think Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine really get into that anymore, and Russia if it is going to gather up a gang would find it difficult to get many adherence. Any futzing around with the CoP is completely individual, but there could be a meeting of similar minds to manipulate the scores. I do not know the habits of judges when they are not judging.
When the official list of contestants appears, let's check the judges' names and if possible what country they represent.
When the official list of contestants appears, let's check the judges' names and if possible what country they represent.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Actually, I do not see that as a flaw at all. It is just a fact, and not even an undesirable one necessarily.
No, that's objectively true. (Nothing against Natalie Portman.)
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
My favourite movies from 2010 were Everyone Else, Winter's Bone and Dogtooth. The King's Speech didn't make my top thirty.
And flaw is the wrong word - it's just inherent to any system of judgement.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2008
You really liked Dogtooth?? Didnt find it row? It was not for large audiences. Greeks didnt like it much, I loved it but was kinda shocked with the idea of it, it´s been two years though, it was distributed in Belgium in 2009.
Haha, Mathman welcome to the keyboard world!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
We already know which countries have been chosen to send judges for the four disciplines. On this page, scroll down and click on Communication 1652, then scroll down to page 8.
http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-130127-131435-nav-list,00.html
The problem is, even when we know the names of the judges and their countries, we do no know which judge gave which marks.
"It is difficult with these evil folk to know when they are in league, and when they are cheating one another." -- Aragorn, speaking of the orcs.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Oh, yes. I think Dogtooth is one of the most merciless disqusitions into human rot that I've ever seen. Wouldn't take a date to it, though. It only made it to theatres here in 2010, so I consider it a 2010 film.
Well, since I saw only two films all year, The King's Speech and Voyage of the Dawn Treader, they made my top two. I didn't seem to have time for films this year. I finally just saw the Harry Potter movie on DVD. Now I have a top three. I was thrilled that I saw a movie that was in contention for the Oscar. Generally I don't get that lucky.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Everyone Else was interesting and had a very good understanding of the troubling little quirks that arise in relationships. I must admit that I have little desire to see Dogtooth. It looks overly fetishized just for the sake of it.
I found INCEPTION to be the best film of 2010 and I think it will eventually be regarded on the level of Hitchcock's Vertigo. It taps so deeply into into guilt, the need to hang onto memories, and the difficulty of achieving catharsis. Plus, there are a multitude of ways to interpret the film and an ongoing exploration of the nature of dreaming and human consciousness itself. Juxtaposed with the big set pieces, it's terrifically engaging. It made me cry multiple times too. Most people are puzzled when I say that, but it's a heartbreaking film. The main character is completely in love with his wife, who is truly his one and only soulmate, and ends up destroying her when all he wanted to do was create the most amazing life possible together. And then he literally has to run for his life and be continually haunted by her phantom as a result of trying to explore the depths of each other and forge an everlasting bond that would perhaps even represent a new evolution for humanity. It kills me.
My other favorite films of the year were Uncle Boonmee, Blue Valentine, The Illusionist, and Carlos.
I'm also planning on seeing White Material soon, which I've heard great things about. And I must admit that I didn't watch all of True Grit because my screener got lost (I wanted to watch in in theaters in the first place and never got around to it), so I need to go back to that one as well.
I think both The King's Speech and The Social Network are vastly overrated.
I found INCEPTION to be the best film of 2010 and I think it will eventually be regarded on the level of Hitchcock's Vertigo. It taps so deeply into into guilt, the need to hang onto memories, and the difficulty of achieving catharsis. Plus, there are a multitude of ways to interpret the film and an ongoing exploration of the nature of dreaming and human consciousness itself. Juxtaposed with the big set pieces, it's terrifically engaging. It made me cry multiple times too. Most people are puzzled when I say that, but it's a heartbreaking film. The main character is completely in love with his wife, who is truly his one and only soulmate, and ends up destroying her when all he wanted to do was create the most amazing life possible together. And then he literally has to run for his life and be continually haunted by her phantom as a result of trying to explore the depths of each other and forge an everlasting bond that would perhaps even represent a new evolution for humanity. It kills me.
My other favorite films of the year were Uncle Boonmee, Blue Valentine, The Illusionist, and Carlos.
I'm also planning on seeing White Material soon, which I've heard great things about. And I must admit that I didn't watch all of True Grit because my screener got lost (I wanted to watch in in theaters in the first place and never got around to it), so I need to go back to that one as well.
I think both The King's Speech and The Social Network are vastly overrated.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Blades, I cannot believe you fell for Inception. Wow. It was enjoyable, but not nearly as good as it should've been. Uncle Boonmee was awesome, but I'm a big sucker for Joe. The Illusionist was massively disappointing. Carlos rocked. Just got the Criterion for White Material.
Completely agree with you on The King's Speech andThe Social Network.
Dogtooth..... man, you need to see it. Trust me. You might hate it, but you need to see it.
Completely agree with you on The King's Speech andThe Social Network.
Dogtooth..... man, you need to see it. Trust me. You might hate it, but you need to see it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
Nooo! It coulda been better...it could have been a 10/10, but I gave it 9.3/10.
*******INCEPTION SPOILERS Don't read if you don't want to!*************
Oh. My. God. Yes! People are puzzled when you tell them you cried in Inception? I thought it was an amazing film that touched upon psychology, love, and metaphysics.
I found myself completely able to imagine what it would feel like to perceive living decades in one's mind (shared with your closest friend(s)/mate(s), building worlds and exploring ideas) only to come back to reality and feel slightly disoriented. Your bond with that person feels older and deeper than the actual time that has passed. And the idea of manipulating someone else's mind. The film as a thought experiment was awesome. But the emotional aspects of it touched me, too.
I wonder that most of you wouldn't be able to relate to the film the way I have (this is related to video games), but. Well, I don't play WoW or any of those huge community video games, but they are essentially societies of thousands of people who are living an imaginary world that is real at the same time, who forge histories and stories together. I thought of that when the premise for Leo's character and his wife's relationship was revealed. The reason that I have never played those games is because I perceived my own ability to get sucked in forever, and I wish I could have, if not for school and other responsibilities. However, I have definitely been part of other online communities and formed friendships that are deep and real but yet based on imaginary societies sharing ideas, thoughts, feelings in an interactive medium. I found those experiences to be rich and enlightening, and they gave me perspectives about life that you normally wouldn't expect from well, video games, which are associated with juvenility. Anyway, relatedly, I could well imagine what it would feel like to spend lots of time with linked minds to other people. Dreams that last one night have felt like they lasted years. So, the notion resonated greatly with me, and I immediately knew how old Leo and his wife's relationship must have felt. That is one emotional aspect of the film, I felt distraught and sad. Also, my main reference is to my experience with digital worlds, but I found that this kind of phenomenon occurs with films, TV series, books, and so on. We are essentially tapping into someone else's creation and mind, and our lives are often made richer or more enlightened for it, yes?
Another is the son-heir. I thought the actor portrayed him very well, and while he was the conquest for our protagonists, I sympathized with him greatly. In some way (and I don't want to give out spoilers), I felt that the outcome was terrible for his father's legacy (and indirectly for the son), but that the son must have come out with a stronger purpose and conviction to life, which is an existential improvement. The moment when he thought he gained his father's approval and encouragement....AHHHH. Tears.
And...the heroism of Leo's character, to look for the Japanese baron and rescue him from his mental abyss. I felt relief and gratitude when the alternative would have been the hell that the man could have suffered for eternity.
Oh, and the humor! I love when serious/cool movies still have humor. Like, "we need a 747". "I bought the airline." Or: "They're all looking at us." "quick, give me a kiss." "They're still looking at us." "It was worth a shot."
Thus, I thought Inception was an amazing film. For me, it had everything.
*****END*****
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
To use that scale, I'd give it a 6.2/10.
It's so ineptly structured. The film is still unloading exposition in the last twenty minutes. It's still explaining the rules of inception as the film is nearing it's end. That's like Screenplay 101 "Things you Don't do."
I'm also gonna argue for every witty moment (everything with Tom Hardy rocks the casbah), it's got a hamfisted one that just doesn't work (DiCaprio's furrowed eyebrow. To connote "grief." The spell-it-out-for-you dialogue. Yegads that was bad.
Some eloquent action scenes, but basic inept structural issues and poor dialogue really ruins it. Also I don't like the fact that Nolan's cast largely feels teenage - Page, Murphy, DiCaprio and Levitt all read much younger than the film needs.
It's so ineptly structured. The film is still unloading exposition in the last twenty minutes. It's still explaining the rules of inception as the film is nearing it's end. That's like Screenplay 101 "Things you Don't do."
I'm also gonna argue for every witty moment (everything with Tom Hardy rocks the casbah), it's got a hamfisted one that just doesn't work (DiCaprio's furrowed eyebrow. To connote "grief." The spell-it-out-for-you dialogue. Yegads that was bad.
Some eloquent action scenes, but basic inept structural issues and poor dialogue really ruins it. Also I don't like the fact that Nolan's cast largely feels teenage - Page, Murphy, DiCaprio and Levitt all read much younger than the film needs.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
Also, Ryan Bradley can get a medal at worlds.
... sorry, I just had to.
... sorry, I just had to.
In reality, I think they probably are surprised by the results for the reasons you would expect more than you think they are.
Heck, even if they were trying to manipulate a desired outcome, since they can't control or in most cases keep track of the TES, they would probably often be surprised by their own rankings of the skaters from combining their GOEs and PCS with the tech panels call as if they were the only judge on the panel.
The details of the math behind the TES are too complicated for judges to figure out in their heads. Tthey have no access to knowledge of what levels were called for spins and sequences. They can estimate, but they could easily be off by several points. And then they'd have to keep track of the factors for the PCS as well (easy to do with senior men, not so much with the factors for other disciplines).
And of course individual judges don't know how the other judges on the panel are scoring each skater, whether their own marks are likely to get thrown out or not.
I'm sure it happens quite often that a judge gives low PCS to a skater who didn't impress them and is surprised when that skater is announced in first place on the strength of technical content, or vice versa.
As I say, the judges can't control the Total Element Score, although of course they can control the GOE part by giving higher execution marks to the skater they think executed the elements the best.
If you can say that a certain level call was "wrong," that implies that there is an objective "right" call that should have been made instead. So then discrepancies would not be due to subjectivity but rather to errors in calling.
Or you could say it's subjective in a different way -- different callers perceiving the line between the yes/no decision on certain features at different points in the analogue spectrum of each skater's execution. That might include certain callers being consistently stricter or more generous.
So you could say there is subjectivity of perception. It's not a matter of preference or priorities in the same way that 6.0 scores or to a lesser extent PCS are inherently subjective.
I think the PCS scoring is a hybrid to a degree. The specific scores are more rough estimates rather than precise correlations between a given level of performance and a given number. For each well-trained judge the PCS numbers should be more consistent than 6.0 scores because of the nature of how they're being used, but to some extent they will always be a floating target.
I do think there is a value in reflecting not just who was better than whom, but also by how much -- roughly, if not precisely. I also think there is value in breaking down the areas in which each skater was better or worse than the others to more than just two summary scores (technical merit and presentation).
And short program scoring under 6.0 was similarly a hybrid, with floating base marks and presentation marks that judges set in relation to other skaters in the field, highly influenced by skate order, and the fixed mandatory deductions for specific errors.
If difficulty of elements and certain kinds of errors can be objectively quantified, but quality can only be judged qualitatively and comparatively, then any attempt to score both difficulty and quality will result in hybrid scoring of some sort.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
Under 6.0, if you ask the Azerbaijan judge why he gave Tara a 5.9 and Michelle a 5.8, he will say, "They were both superb, but in my opinion Tara skated with greater zest and elan." OK, the guy's an idiot
This is so true.
No matter whether it's 6.0 or CoP, figure skating is a subjective judged sport. If anyone agree that figure skating is subjective, they should agree to give the judging method a space. The more micro-managing it is, the more absurd the result might be. This is one of the reasons that there have been a lot of surprising outcomes, different from the intuisive feelings.
I think the best scoring system is the system in which the result could be also accepted through naked eyes from the most of the people - spectators and TV viewers. 6.0 system was too vague, but CoP is too specific and detailed.
Last edited:
Similar threads
