Joe, I can't let that go by without a"Of course, waiting for Liashenko to do her Lutz, a judge has time to examine the technique closely without rushing to a mark." -- Joe
BTW, I know someone named Lutz and he pronounces it Lootz (oo pronounced as in look). Does anyone know what the correct pronounciation of this name is?
Mathman
Last edited by Mathman; 12-10-2003 at 07:01 PM.
In my Art Hist. class, there's a painter by the name of Lutz, pronounced "Lootz." I think though, I like lutz, not lootz, better.Originally posted by Mathman
Joe, I can't let that go by without a
BTW, I know someone named Lutz and he pronounces it Lootz (oo pronounced as in look). Does anyone know what the correct pronounciation of this name is?
Mathman
TV
Sasha Cohen received the lowest tech marks in this group:elingrace4eva wrote:
I really like the COP system too. It took a little getting used to, but I'm beginning to see where the scores are coming from. Plus, it truly is more fair. I mean, look at the ABC Winter Challenge. Judges put Sasha in third, even with her 3 falls, and her double foot, and her step out. Even if she got 6.0s in presentation, this program is not a technically 3rd place program. Under the COP, this never would have happened, so it really does make things more fair.
But she received the highest presentation marks. If these same judges marked these skaters under CoP, what makes you think the results would have been "more fair"? The tech marks would have been about the same, but the judges would have inflated the presentation components, but then I guess that at least you could "see where the scores are coming from".3. Sasha Cohen
5.3 5.3 5.2 5.0 5.4
5.7 5.7 5.7 5.5 5.6
4. Jennifer Robinson
5.1 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.4
5.3 5.5 5.6 5.4 5.4
5. Jennifer Kirk
5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.2
5.4 5.4 5.5 5.5 5.4
Thank you for the links, giseledepkat. It is an interesting read. Marie Hughes seems to be impartial. Also, she was annoyed by the fact that they rushed through the entire presentation and didn't give a lot of time for people to ask questions or to ponder on any one thing for too long.
Here are some interesting sections from the report:
Supposedly a benefit of CoP is that you have comparable statistics between events. Again Charlie was frank that this isn't working out as planned. There have been problems with inconsistent calling and with the program components not being marked properly. Until those are fixed, comparing marks between competitions won't be possible.They mentioned once again that skate order doesn't matter. Once again I rolled my eyes. This is such a canard. It's human nature to 'loosen up' with your marks as a competition goes on. This won't change under CoP... Under the current system, if a judge is doing their job, all that skating early means is that if the first person to skate the Short Program should be in first place, they will be in first place with lower marks than if they skated last.I know how she feels!By their own admission, skating skills and transitions are part presentation and part technical. Now, personally I think skating skills are 100% technical and transitions are about half and half but for the sake of the discussion, I'll accept their definitions. So if skating skills and transitions are worth a maximum of 10 points each and are about half technical and half presentation, then a skater can get a maximum of 60 points for things that used to be called technical and a maximum of 40 points for things that used to be called presentation.
I pointed this out. I expected people to nod their heads. I wasn't sure what the official response would be but it doesn't matter because instead of people nodding their heads, pretty much every judge in the room who was involved some way in CoP, plus quite a few other people, argued with me!
In the new system, the computer will compare each judge's marks to the results and deviations will be measured and penalized. I believe Charlie said 'harshly' penalized but my notes don't show this. However, they haven't figured out the formulas yet and what is considered punishable deviation. So I guess we'll see what actually happens.Another item that was brought up was how great it was that a skater could move up from sixth or seventh to first with a great short program. At this point, the meeting was kind of breaking up and since I don't happen to think having cumulative marks is automatically horrible, I didn't bring up the fact that there has been less movement overall with CoP (so far) than there would have been with factored placements.
Originally posted by Chuckm:
Sasha did a change-edge spiral all last season and did fine. True, she only held her CE in her SP at Lalique for about a second, but first time out this year, plus she'd made significant changes to other parts of her SP and LP. As for Sasha often not having good edge control, I disagree. Her catch-foot turning spiral is one of the most beautiful examples of edge control I've seen and the reason her edges are more difficult to hold on her arabesque spiral is precisely because her leg is so high. (There was an excellent biomechanical anaylis of this by Mzheng and others last season.) I would agree that her edges are not as strong as Michelle's or Irina's, or even Shizuka's or Suguri's, but then Sasha shines in areas they don't, such as flow and dance ability. Of course I'd like to see Sasha improve her edges, but to say she often doesn't have good edge control--just not true from what I see.Sasha also skidded a bit on the COE, and yes, she didn't stay on it long. Changing the edge is a little bit risky for her, because she often doesn't have good edge control.
As for the assertion that at IFSC Sasha's Component scores simply would've been elevated to make up for her poor Technical marks, the data we have from the GP series does not support this. As I said on another thread, given that Sasha fell three times and two-footed another jump, that means she would have received ZERO credit for three jumps ***Edited to add: FOUL BUZZER: THE PREVIOUS INFO ABOUT ZERO CREDIT FOR FALLS IS WRONG! SEE CORRECTIONS IN HOCKEYFAN'S SUBSEQUENT POST*** and would have received a mandatory deduction for the two-foot landing of -3. ALSO EDITED: As for the component scores, at SA, Sasha's LP Total Component Score was 68.88; at SC, 69.28; and at TL, despite having skated much better, 66.80. However, the judges had been giving all skaters lower component marks since Cup of China when the ISU notified the judges to pay more attention to EXACTLY what each component meant. After all, this is a process. Anyway, with three falls and a two-foot, all the judges would have had to give Sasha all 9s and 10s in her component scores and skaters like Jenny 6s and 7s in order to keep Sasha in 3rd. Remember, two judges don't even count, the two high and two low scores are thrown out, which leaves five judges' scores to determine the placements.
I love discussions and disagreements about the COP, but if people are going to make assertions about it, I think they should at least make the effort to understand it [EDIT: NOTE TO RGIRL: AND TO REMEMBER THE RULES!] and become familiar with the kinds of results skaters are getting. Otherwise just say, "I don't know enough about the COP to have an opinion yet." That I can understand and respect. After all, right now, there are a lot of areas regarding the COP about which nobody knows enough to have an opinion about yet and minor changes are being made as we speak. All the Detailed Results for all the GP events are up at the ISU website, ie, http://www.isufs.org/results/[initials of event, eg, sa, sc, cc, tll, cr, nhk, no space, 2003]/index.htm, eg, http://www.isufs.org/results/tll2003/index.htm. If you're going to accuse the judges of holding up a skater and always giving her the same scores no matter how s/he skates, then back it up with data from the Detailed Results. One of the reasons Sasha scored well at all three of her GP events is that she skated relatively well at all of them. Skate Canada was her worst and that was only the second time the COP was used. I don't think there was holding up but just lack of experience with the system. They're not going to get this thing right the first few times out, but it's still far better, IMO, than the kindergarten method of the 6.0 system. And at least in the ladies', men's, and pair's events I've seen so far (screwed up taping the dance finals until Lalique and haven't watched them yet) the I've felt the placements were either certainly correct or arguably correct. At least with evenly matched skaters, such as Pang/Tong and Petrova/Tikhonov, with the former winning over the latter at SA by only .12 points, you can see exactly how close it was--as can the skaters.
I do have some responses to some of the seminar statements, but it's late and I've griped enough for one night
One question I do have: I've heard Terry Gannon say that the judges can look at the video tape of any part of a skater's program to see if the skater hit the right edge on a jump or not. Yet I haven't heard anything about this on any websites or discussions about the COP. Anybody know if the judges are able to use video NOW or if this is something planned for next year?
Rgirl
EDIT: P.S. Thanks to HockeyFan for correcting my mistake about the COP and falls. I will now go to detention to study the ISU rules for the COP
Last edited by Rgirl; 12-13-2003 at 07:58 AM.
...I love discussions and disagreements about the COP, but if people are going to make assertions about it, I think they should at least make the effort to understand it and become familiar with the kinds of results skaters are getting.
Just because you've said it before, doesn't make it more true when you repeat it. Skaters receive credit for failed elements. For example, for a triple lutz with base value of 6.1 and GOE of -3, the score is 3.41. Maybe you should listen to your own advice (quote #1 above), before you make your own assertions.As for the assertion that at IFSC Sasha's Component scores simply would've been elevated to make up for her poor Technical marks, the data we have from the GP series does not support this. As I said on another thread, given that Sasha fell three times and two-footed another jump, that means she would have received ZERO credit for three jumps and would have received a mandatory deduction for the two-foot landing of -3.
If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking. The component marks are still judged relatively, although the point values are on an absolute scale.The judges had been giving Sasha 7s and 8s for her component scores until Lalique, where they gave her 6s and 7s; however, the judges had been giving all the skaters lower component marks since Cup of China when the ISU notified the judges to pay more attention to EXACTLY what each component meant. After all, this is a process. Anyway, with three falls and a two-foot, all the judges would have had to give Sasha all 9s and 10s in her component scores in order to keep her in 3rd. Remember, two judges don't even count, the two high and two low scores are thrown out, which leaves five judges' scores to determine the placements.
...Otherwise just say, "I don't know enough about the COP to have an opinion yet." That I can understand and respect. After all, right now, there are a lot of areas regarding the COP about which nobody knows enough to have an opinion about yet.
Based on what, the results we've been getting so far?They're not going to get this thing right the first few times out, but it's still far better, IMO, than the kindergarten method of the 6.0 system.
__________________________________________________ __
Quote:
One question I do have: I've heard Terry Gannon say that the judges can look at the video tape of any part of a skater's program to see if the skater hit the right edge on a jump or not.
__________________________________________________ __
If Terry is right, and I have no reason for him to be wrong then do the judges look? are they compelled to look? do they care? Imo, so much credit is given to attempt rather than correctness. (This goes for all contestants.)
Joe
And my big question whose answer seems to be constantly avoided:
Are FALLS disrupting the flow of the Presentation?
If so (as it is in other sports regardless of how well the judges know the contestant) then should there be an automatic deduction in both technical and presentation for a fall?
Joe
Moyesii, Hi! We haven't posted to each other before; however, I take it from the posts of yours I've read that you don't like either the COP or the way the judges are using it, but I'll won't decide until I hear it from you. As to your comments, I never said or implied that just because I said it before meant it was true. Now, please. It was just a note to let people know I had stated this same opinion on another thread, the IFSC one to be exact. And I do listen to my own advice. If Sasha two-footed a jump she would receive only 2.69 pts instead of 6.1. I never said a skater would get zero pts for a 2-ft, just anywhere from a -2 to a -3, and the judges have been almost entirely been giving -3 on a 2-ft. When I see which jumps Sasha fell on, 2-footed, where she tripped, and whatever other mistakes she made when IFSC is televised, I can give a specific comparison with at least Arakawara and Jenny, since they've competed under the COP. But until then, maybe you should read [i]other[i] people's assertions more carefullyOriginally posted by moyesii
Just because you've said it before, doesn't make it more true when you repeat it. Skaters receive credit for failed elements. For example, for a triple lutz with base value of 6.1 and GOE of -3, the score is 3.41. Maybe you should listen to your own advice (quote #1 above), before you make your own assertions.
If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking. The component marks are still judged relatively, although the point values are on an absolute scale.
Based on what, the results we've been getting so far?
"If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking." We can't know that since Sasha has never competed against Michelle under the COP. In the component elements, Michelle is superb and IMO, better than Sasha in almost every one, and the ones she might (might) not be better than Sasha in I would say they are about equal. Re the skaters Sasha has competed against in the GP series, I think overall Sasha does have better component skills and that's why she has been receiving higher component marks, not because the judges have been holding her up.
"The component marks are still judged relatively, although the point values are on an absolute scale. Based on what, the results we've been getting so far?
TROPHEE LALIQUE SPOILER
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
I'm putting this here instead of the Lalique folder because it illustrates a point. I just saw the Lalique pairs final. Totmianina & Marinin were in first over Zhang & Zhang by about 2.2 points after the SP. Z/Z had an okay LP, but not great, with 113.76 pts. When T/M came out to skate, all they had to do was skate relatively clean and it seemed the gold would be there's. But they fell on their side-by-side 3toes, their sbs 3t/2t combos, they came out of unison on their sbs spins, and they blew their last lift (didn't fall, Maxim just couldn't get her up over his head). They lost to Z/Z by 13.44 pts and beat the US pair of Scott & Dulebohn by only 2.94 pts. I'd go into more detail but I'm late, but the point I wanted to make is that T/M were the clear favorites going into Lalique. Under the COP, the judges had to deduct a lot from their TES and thus they lost the gold. Under the 6.0 system, we might (might) have seen 5/4 split in favor of T/M based on a lot of things. Just for a couple of examples, Z/Z skated 5th while T/M skated 8th, so the judges would have had to hold back on scores or the compilation of the judges could have favored T/M to the extent that they would have won despite their poor skate. The Lalique pairs final seemed to be a similar situation to the IFSC, at least from the reports I've read. That's why Im hanging in there with the COP. I think that despite its current problems, it is still a vastly superior system to the 6.0 system and that thus far in the GP series, the right skaters have won the right medals in all disciplines. Of the events that have been televised, I've read some people say that so-and-so should have received higher TCS or something like that, but I've yet to read any "Skater A wuz robbed!" posts. And under the 6.0 system, that happened quite a bit.
Have a good day, Mayesii. BTW, I won't be snarky with you if you won't be snarky with me.
Rgirl
Last edited by Rgirl; 12-13-2003 at 09:36 AM.
Rgirl, note that this is true for jumps with falls, not just two-foots. Jumps with falls *do* receive the base mark -3 (or if they were really good before the fall, +1 and then -3 for a GOE of -2). They do not receive "zero credit."Skaters receive credit for failed elements. For example, for a triple lutz with base value of 6.1 and GOE of -3, the score is 3.41.
As a general rule, that's what's been happening, but not in every case.If the judges marked the IFSC the way they've been marking in the GP, then in CoP Sasha Cohen would have received higher component marks across the board over all the skaters that the judges ranked below her at the event. That is just the way that the judges have been marking.
In Sasha's case, she's won every CoP event she's entered so far (we'll see what happens this weekend) and also had the highest component scores across the board at those events.
But if you look lower down the standings or at other disciplines, you will find a significant minority of cases where skaters have received higher scores on one, some, or all components than skaters who ranked above them by virtue of higher elements scores.
The scores posted above by Moyesii for Sasha, Jennifer and Jenny provide an excellent example of why so many people are dissatisfied with the old ordinal based judging system. Again, remember that the scores themselves (5.7, etc.) have no independent meaning, they just serve as place holders for the ordinals. So there is no point arguing about whether Sasha "deserved" a 5.7. The question is, did she deserve to be placed ahead of Jennifer Robinson, and (separately, under the OBO system), did she deserve to be placed ahead of Jenny Kirk.
Note that each of the three, Sasha, Jennifer and Jenny, got 2 votes of third place or better. If the vote of even a single judge had changed, the final placement woiuld have been different.
In fact, by changing the placements of just one judge (the Russian judge, as it turns out, LOL), Arakawa beats Kwan for first and Robinson beats Sasha for third.
It is random vagaries of this sort that have convinced many people to give the CoP a chance. I think that critics of the CoP should take a little bit longer view and see what happens. From the reading that I have done on the subject, it seems to me that a lot of people are rushing to judgment on the basis of questionable statistical theorizing before we have a sufficient data base to draw any legitimate conclusions.
Joe, I still think that there is room to distinguish between a fall that totally disrupts the program, leaving the skater flopping on her belly like a fish as the music moves on to the next theme, and a fall from which the skater can bounce right back and continue on as if nothing happened.
I think that's why there are two scores. Like in baseball, if someone strikes out at the plate you don't necessarily take away from his fielding percentage.
Mathman
Well I wouldn't say there was anything random about the placements... messy? yes, but so was the overall skating. The overall placements worked out, and it was only a 5 judge panel (with a weird judge on it to boot, and whom we were at least able to ID). According to your own math, which is fundamentally misapplied, but which I'll use here since it's your own twisted logic, according to these results Michelle Kwan had a 60% chance of beating Shizuka Arakawa with that skate under any panel of judges.If the vote of even a single judge had changed, the final placement would have been different...
It is random vagaries of this sort that have convinced many people to give the CoP a chance.
And besides, the CoP is equally, if not more sensitive to the vicissitudes of judging than ordinals.
An an FYI,
a) Falls don't receive 0 points. The only elements that are worth 0 points if the final score is -3 is in Dance for Optional Level 1 Lifts and Spins. (ISU Comm 1207. I haven't seen any subsequent updates to this.) The higher the difficulty for the jump, the more points the skater gets for attempting it. Weiss should try to rotate that 4Lz; it's worth at least 10.0 points if he falls (13.0 base -3.0), vs 9.1 for a +3 3Lz vs. 9.0 for a +1 4T.
b) Mandatory deductions of -1, -2, and -3 don't necessarily mean that the final score must be -1, -2, -3. It means that the judge starts with the mark before the error, and subtracts that from the score. According to Marie Hughes' posts, the ISU confirmed this at the seminar she attended.
I still don't understand how a jump could have been scored a +2 before the fall, change of edge, or double-foot, since the definition of +2 is that all phases of the jump be better than base, but the definition may have been changed. But it is very possible for the score to have started as a +1, to which -1 (base final), -2 (-1 final) or -3 (-2 final) was added.
c) Grades of +/-1, +/-2, and +/-3 don't necessarily mean the number of points added to/subtracted from base. Nor are all of the differences between grades exactly the same, or the differences the same between + and -. For example, a 1CUSP (Level 1 change of foot upright spin) has a base of 1.5. Each + represents + .5. -1 represents -.3, -2 represents -.6, and -3 represents -1.
Only when you get to triple jumps and higher are the differences between +/- points the same and in whole points.
Last edited by hockeyfan228; 12-12-2003 at 05:16 PM.
Moyesii, on the other thread I asked if you could give me a reference, some sort of textbook perhaps, or articles from serious mathematical journals, that would give me any sort of clue whatever as to the statistical reasoning you are using. I am still waiting.
Either you are making this up yourself, or else you got it from somewhere else. If you got it from somewhere else, I would be obliged to know so I can check it out. I am not opposed to learning something new about mathematics, even though I have been studying this topic for quite a while.
Mathman
PS. Under that "twisted logic" called inferential statistics, the best we can assert (with 95% certainty, say), is that if we scored the event over and over, the average percent of first place ordinals that Michelle receives would be somewhere between 17.1% and 102.9%!
Jeez Louise, moyesii! I really find your language, directed at our beloved moderator Mathman, to be offensive and demeaning! I've plowed through the whole NHK thread, and it's apparent to me that he has bent over backwards in an attempt to provide you with a forum to articulate and defend your arguments against the CoP...Originally posted by moyesii
According to your own math, which is fundamentally misapplied, but which I'll use here since it's your own twisted logic...
...Cut it out. Please.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks